The Tories could replace Johnson with someone with more integrity and competence and
yoursome minimal improvements would be achieved.
It is true that if the Conservative party changed its spots again while in power, that it might become a party that better governs the country than the current lot. Would it be the same, or go as far, as if we kicked the Conservatives out? Hell no. Would it offer "my" "minimal" improvements... (whatever you've decided those are)... no, but I am happy to accept that other Conservatives might well run the country better than the current government... but they are fewer than they ever were, and only Johnson losing will result in a shift in the party towards them.
Would it offer “my” “minimal” improvements… (whatever you’ve decided those are)
I have absolutely no idea what your minimal improvements would be.
But if what you want is simply something better than the present then it is worth pointing out that the Tories are more likely to replace their leader than Labour are likely to win the next general election.
So let's all hope that the Tories replace Johnson with someone better than rely on the Labour Party to do that.
They can offer what they like but the simple fact is that without the Scottish seats they're getting nothing. None of you seem to either acknowledge or grasp this fact. The system on both sides of the border is broken and the sooner Labour and its supporters admit that and start working with what we have then they are doomed to the sidelines.
I find it all quite bizarre as it doesn’t appear to be based anything other than wishful thinking.
TBH, it's more of a protective self-delusion right now
the sooner Labour and its supporters admit that and start working with what we have
Absolutely.
So let’s all hope that the Tories replace Johnson with someone better than rely on the Labour Party to do that.
Why would they replace him while he can clearly wallop Labour at the next election? Unless Labour get close to, or better still do, defeat him, he won’t be replaced. At least not with someone “better”. The Conservative party isn’t going to change unless it loses, or is likely to lose. Starmer hasn’t got what it takes to put them under that kind of pressure, and even if he is replaced Labour can’t do so without working beyond its own people. So even if you want a “better” Conservative party… you still need Starmer to be replaced, and for Labour to look outwards and towards other parties, and supporters of other parties. The Labour Party needs an engaging leader, and a collaborative approach. Anyone who wants the Conservative party to change tack also needs this to happen.
They can offer what they like but the simple fact is that without the Scottish seats they’re getting nothing. None of you seem to either acknowledge or grasp this fact.
Simply not true. How many seats the SNP take have no bearing at all on the likelihood of a future labour government f0or two reasons - take all the scottish seats out of the equation for the last few elections - its very rare if ever that would change who has a majority and secondly the SNP will support a labour government and never a tory one
The system on both sides of the border is broken
Not in Scotland its not - only westminster elections are FPTP
Why would they replace him while he can clearly wallop Labour at the next election?
Because it's likely that Johnson's popularity is now taking a bashing.
Once he becomes unpopular enough to damage the party they will replace him.
Why would they replace him while he can clearly wallop Labour at the next election? Unless Labour get close to, or better still do, defeat him, he won’t be replaced.
So basically what you are saying is that the way to move the Tory Party to the left, which presumably is what you want, is to move the Labour Party to the right.
It is an unconvincing theory not least because it is generally accepted that the Tories started shifting to the left under Theresa May as a direct reaction to Labour shifting significantly leftwards.
I'm not convinced all of Starmer's backers are determined to win the next election, they like an each way bet. They seem keener on re-engineering the party through spying and expelling to make it a slimmed down safe space for their approved list of candidates and the PLP just becomes slightly sometimes to the left of the Tories but containing no-one who will frighten the horses. It's just about moving the centre of gravity to the right and splitting and emasculating the constituency parties for good. So far, they seem to be doing quite well.
So basically what you are saying is that the way to move the Tory Party to the left, which presumably is what you want, is to move the Labour Party to the right.
I didn’t say either of those things. I said that the Conservative party will not make changes in how it governs or who governs in its name (nothing to do with left/right but about corruption, diplomacy, decision making, timing, commitment, planning, transparency, democracy and many other things that a competent government of the right could be) while Johnson looks to be a safe bet to win the next election for them. And he still is. As for Labour moving to the right of where it is now to put the Conservatives under pressure, I haven’t said that either. Starmer needs to go because he can not connect with the electorate, not because he hasn’t moved the party to the right enough. For me he’s not strong enough on many key areas that people would currently think of as “left”… if anything… but that’s not the problem. He is dull and unable to inspire voters, they will never warm to him.
He is dull and unable to inspire voters, they will never warm to him.
He is uninspiring because he doesn't say anything.
He was able to inspire when he spoke of his 10 socialist principles, that was all proper 'fire in your belly' fighting talk. And as a consequence he easily won the Labour leadership election. No one accused him of being dull then.
Not that I was convinced by his eloquent rhetoric mind. His behaviour as a shadow cabinet minister was all I needed with regards to his trustworthiness
Simply not true. How many seats the SNP take have no bearing at all on the likelihood of a future labour government f0or two reasons – take all the scottish seats out of the equation for the last few elections – its very rare if ever that would change who has a majority and secondly the SNP will support a labour government and never a tory one
2015 - Labour could have won with Scotland
2017 - lost cause
2019 - could have won with Scotland and lib deal.
So they could have ousted the tories, potentially. But none of that matters, because the SNP can offer to work with who they like but the fact is Labour would rather support a Tory than let them get a seat. That's why they're a lost cause up here and always will be until they grow the **** up.
Not in Scotland its not – only westminster elections are FPTP
I'm not strictly talking about the electoral system here. We've had the same party in power for 14 years now. People are more interested in making a statement than electing people who will actually act in their constituents interests.
That’s why they’re a lost cause up here and always will be until they grow the **** up.
This.
Perfidious, had to google it!
I'd add most have snide agendas (from a place of bitterness) and pretend to love work (until they have a breakdown), more accurately love other people doing shit work below them "it's only fair" so they can elevate themselves. What a tragicomedy we live in.
Yes the tories could change their leader and it may be better or worse but remember that it is still a government full of tory MPs and we know what most of them are like - their thinking on issues, their voting, what they stand for, who they care about etc,.
While Labour MPs don't meet my definition of perfect they are a LOT closer to my beliefs and views than pretty much any tory MP and if those MPs were in a majority party I just know it would be better than tory MPs in a majority party.
I don't think that is blind faith at all and what I base the government being less shit than the current one one (key term here is less shit rather than good)
What I find interesting is how some people who profess to intensely hate the Tories, and I mean really hate them, should nevertheless be prepared to blur the distinction between Labour and the Tories.
It would make far more sense if the people who are willing to make Labour much more like the Tories didn't claim to hate the Tories so much.
It suggests that politics from them is some form of tribalism, like supporting a football team, nothing much more than a game.
What I find interesting is how some people who profess to intensely hate the Tories, and I mean really hate them, should nevertheless be prepared to blur the distinction between Labour and the Tories.
It would make far more sense if the people who are willing to make Labour much more like the Tories didn’t claim to hate the Tories so much.
It suggests that politics from them is some form of tribalism, like supporting a football team, nothing much more than a game.
I'm more concerned about what political parties do when in office. Everything else is a bit trivial frankly.
It would make far more sense if the people who are willing to make Labour much more like the Tories didn’t claim to hate the Tories so much.
Blah, blah, blah, bullshit.
Blah, blah, blah, bullshit.
'Wah wah wah I don't like what you're saying because it doesn't fit with MY world view! It's not FAIR!!'
It suggests that politics from them is some form of tribalism, like supporting a football team, nothing much more than a game.
And having picked a 'side', they feel a compulsion to stick with it through thick and thin. Which is fine in sport; not so good with politics. But it's pretty clear that several on here who profess to support Labour, are in reality just soft tories. Hence the abuse and vitriol spouted towards anyone vaguely of the 'left'...
And having picked a ‘side’, they feel a compulsion to stick with it through thick and thin. Which is fine in sport; not so good with politics. But it’s pretty clear that several on here who profess to support Labour, are in reality just soft tories. Hence the abuse and vitriol spouted towards anyone vaguely of the ‘left’…
Like picking the JC version of Labour and then sticking with it even though it failed to win two general elections?
I don't support Labour, I support the Green party. However, I would still rather have any realistic form of Labour party, along with the Labour MPs than any realistic form of a Tory party based on what I said above.
What I would want in a perfect world doesn't match with what can realistically happen within the UK and it's voters. Someday you may realise that
Like picking the JC version of Labour and then sticking with it even though it failed to win two general elections?
Is that aimed at me? Because I'm neither a Labour supporter nor voter.
Like picking the JC version of Labour and then sticking with it even though it failed to win two general elections?
Most Labour leaders fail to win general elections, so let's drop this fallacy that being more Tory is an automatic route to success.
I would have thought Starmer is really nailing the demonstration of that point, if nothing else.
‘Wah wah wah I don’t like what you’re saying because it doesn’t fit with MY world view! It’s not FAIR!!’
Blah, blah, blah, bullshit.
It's not about views, it's about the way some people use this forum as if they were training some kind of argumentative AI.
But it’s pretty clear that several on here who profess to support Labour, are in reality just soft tories
Name them.
Squirrelking - you need to look at the numbers more
Both 2015 and 2019 if all snp seats had been to labour it would not have made any difference. do some basic addition
May would not have been able to get a majority without the tory / labour anti snp pact that resulted in 10 tory scots seats
So blame labour not the SNP
There are a couple of ways to bring about change through opposition
One way is to build solidarity between different groups in a way that emphasises common belonging and making people feel good about themselves for supporting socially just causes.
Another is to make imperfect people feel guilt and shame for their moral ineptitude, for their failure to see the world through the right lens.
It's up to all of us to make a choice about how we want to bring about change.
It’s not about views, it’s about the way some people use this forum as if they were training some kind of argumentative AI.
Are you? How's that going?
Name them.
Why do you want me to do that? Why would you want to make it personal? Do you think you are included in that group?
Questions, questions... blah, blah, blah... time waster.
Questions, questions…
I did ask how you thought Starmer would be in any meaningful way, different to the tories. So far, you've failed to come up with any coherent answer, and neither has anyone else really.
Is it because you don't actually know?
Didn't he make some pledges? Abolish the House of Lards etc?
Can anyone explain the difference between paid consultancy and working in the interests of your sponsors?
Can anyone explain the difference between paid consultancy and working in the interests of your sponsors?
there is none. Its a bribe
Is it because you don’t actually know?
I think personally it's because you act like a sanctimonious **** 99% of the time, and most folks would prefer not to have to engage with you is why no-one answers your questions. Which let's be clear, anen't really asked in a spirit of honest enquiry, they're provocative posts to get a response.
^
Yep. Don't feed the troll
Why do you want me to do that?
It's usual practice for those making assertions to support them. If you're not able to just say so.
For anyone who's unclear what he stands for:
^^^
people are often misled by nonsense shown them on the internet.
Who made that meme? You've a perfect chance to show I know zero, but do you seriously think those words or anything like them were uttered by starmer?
He didn't say them but his party did, when discussing how to manage sacking 90 people.
So he didn’t say it? Normal jargon in product and IT development environments. So I’m going to guess at this being a message to staff about changing working practices, perhaps to deal with having fewer staff, rather than to the public about anything policy related. Who’s the quote from? Starmer doesn’t need people to make things up, or misattribute words, or swap contexts, to help him seem dry and dull… just quote/clip his real words and appearances. Leave out the fake news, it’s not needed.
So he didn’t say it?
I assumed it was satire.
presumed so as well. It's the sort of jargon filled nonsense that organisations adopt when they really don't want to offend anyone but would nevertheless really like to sack a bunch of folks...
I doesn't read like justification for sacking folks... more like methods (all those jargon words do actually mean something, sadly) to try and get things done with fewer people, or to get tangable results quicker.
I assumed it was satire.
Me too. Less certain that was BillMC's understanding. Either way, makes a change from monty python I guess, albeit for the worse.
I'm flattered that someone might think l made it up.
kelvin Full Member
Questions, questions… blah, blah, blah… time waster.Posted 6 hours ago
Jeezus.... I see going through one of your puerile periods. It's been a while. Is it hormonal?
I’m flattered that someone might think l made it up.
I'm saying you thought it was an actual quotation. Otherwise why did you post it?
Is it hormonal?
Someone else can take this one apart.
