Forum menu
Plenty here for Conservatives (and you) to criticise. Crack on. The sooner we have a change of government the better. The longer this lot stay in power salting the soil, the harder the task ahead, and the longer it’ll take.
Plenty here for Conservatives (and you) to criticise. Crack on.
28Bn for Green power is a joke. Doesn't touch the sides. And their funding excuse for this is vague. Probably won't happen.
Great British Energy is a manipulation of what it really is about. An investment strategy to encourage private firms to do the work - they hope. When Starmer talks this up he makes it sound like they're building something incredible.
Rather than the thing it really is.
All that's happening in the grand scheme is Labour are simply ten years behind the Tories in terms of political rhetoric. But it's old school stuff promise little deliver less. Lots of state and private happiness with little government intervention.
Helping clear the chairs on the Titanic.
But fine, if that's what people think is the answer to right-wing problems.
Follow the mechanics - no real growth or improvement without large scale state intervention. It's not complex if the wealthy have sucked all the money out of the economy someone has to put it back in.
This whole scared of state solutions is just dumb ass. There is one pool of Labour - when you carve things up between state and private you slacken the availablity of services to those that can't afford it. Who can now afford less.
This is all failed trickle-down tosh, and the excuse that they can't attempt things in one term because of public finances omfg. Back to front logic.
Watch it fail. The hysterics of the Tories may be fading but Labour are about to pull from their hymn sheets. It's so absolutely ridiculous.
But fine, if that’s what people think is the answer to right-wing problems.
I don't think that but what do you suggest I do about it? (and no, I am not going to start a revolution)
don’t think that but what do you suggest I do about it? (and no, I am not going to start a revolution.
Context of people being the voters. Not that much else is being offered to then.
But we could start my not supporting Labour's ideas that aren't really up to scratch?
But we could start my not supporting Labour’s ideas that aren’t really up to scratch?
I don't support them, I vote Green. What else can I do?
And if 'the people' don't vote Labour in protest of them not having ideas that are up to scratch then what do the people do and who do they vote for?
The only way that Labour can be judged is for them to be elected to government and seeing if watered down Tory policies actually work.
I am looking forward to Starmer's premiership far more than I did Tony Blair's.
Tony Blair inherited a fairly healthy economy - people were simply tired of almost 20 years of Tory government. The state of the economy wasn't really a big issue, Tony Blair could afford to plod along much as the Tories had done. It was only when the banks failed due to Tory inspired deregulation and greed that the shit hit the fan.
Next year Keir Starmer will inherit a totally screwed economy, carrying on as the Tories have for the last 13 years is not really an option, a dramatic change of direction is needed.
I think we can safely say that the shit is quite likely to hit the fan during the term of the first post-Tory parliament.
Furthermore unlike 1997 voters aren't just tired of the Tories and their sleaze, the Tories have now been very substantially discredited, especially with regards to their handling of the economy.
So I am not sure that voters will necessarily be so quick to switch back to Tories should Starmer fail to deliver, as is very likely.
Personally I am hoping for a truly enormous Labour majority, and seeing what Labour actually does when it is in a position to do more than just criticise the Tories.
I know it risks the possibility of hard right parties such as Reform UK exploiting the vacuum left by a discredited and demoralised Tory Party, with a much diminished Parliamentary minority, but it will hopefully provide a platform for progressives to be heard, and a much more captive audience.
Plenty here for Conservatives (and you) to criticise. Crack on. The sooner we have a change of government the better. The longer this lot stay in power salting the soil, the harder the task ahead, and the longer it’ll take.
Just skimmed through that. It's a very ambitious list but exactly what I would hope for from a modern Labour party. They would have got my vote anyway but that has made me confident it's the right vote.
I've no idea where the crumbs of optimism come with Starmer and Labour.
More back-tracking:
"Labour to omit funding of social care reform from manifesto and scale back Lords plans"
That's all it every is - adapting the values of Conservatism every step of the way.
None of this is necessary.
^^ I hear you but since when did a party stick to its manifesto?
Possibly, but they don't often ignore their manifesto to become more strident!
I see that as a load of waffle with nothing of substance and nothing to inspire
Plenty here for Conservatives (and you) to criticise. Crack on.
Uh huh. Lets see how much is actually adopted by parliamentary party before wasting too much time on it.
Given what Starmer himself has actually said I wouldnt be feeling optimistic.
Continuing on from Cameron 'Modernising' the NHS will happen, Streeting has been bought.
Yup - Streetings answer to the NHS issues is privatisation. Bought and paid for by private healthcare firms tho in recent years its been disguised.
First off I apologise for posting the following on this thread, though I think it’s directly related. I also apologise for being a bit waffley as It’s late and I’m sat on the bog with something nagging at me.
I’ve dithered a while about asking this, because I sort of feel like the answer is staring me in the face, but here goes.
Im soon 53 years old and I’ve seen a few general elections, voted in most I’ve been eligible to vote (cos I feel we have a duty to use our vote) but never really been engaged by the whole political scene or process.
I don’t really think that any political parties are aligned with my values so gravitate to a very basic “under which party have I been better off? Under who have I had a bit of spare cash in my pocket etc?”
So, with plodding towards a general election I’m beginning to ask myself who should get my vote (spoiler - not Conservative). Which kinda leaves Labour where I live;
My question is basically why, when a general election has not yet been called, are Labour politicians being asked to give specific detail about each and every plan they bring up? It seems that they’re expected to provide an exact break down of funding/costing for everything.
It’s correct that political parties are held to account but it really seems like they’re being held to a far higher standard/level of scrutiny than the actual party in government.
I don’t recall anyone giving the Conservatives this level of scrutiny prior to the Cameron government, not at any point since.
Am I imagining this or are people so fed up that they can’t be bothered listening to the Tories anymore?
I’ve just watched this weeks question time where Yvette Cooper was repeatedly asked about funding whereas the Conservative wasn’t.
As an aside, did anyone else notice that the BBC seemed to pointedly avoid allowing any of the Muslims in the audience to have a voice. One fella continually shouted out but I sort of see why - the mic never got near him.
Its been the case for decades. Its the malign influence of the tory press. they will seize on anything to attack labour
Basically what tj says but a few other thoughts too.
My first priority is Tories out, id happily vote Labour, Green, LiDem etc to remove my sitting Tory MP. It just so happens that Labour have the only realistic chance in my area which is fortuitous as they are my preferred option anyway.
Labour and spending:
They are damned what ever they say or don't say. Id love them to announce huge and real NEW money for the NHS for instance. I very much have skin in this game as do a few in my family. Most people do, they just don't know it *yet*. If they announce that though, they will get torn apart as much as they will get applauded.
I sincerely believe that the UK, it's integrity (what remains) and the very institutions that hold society together will be in a state that makes even our current mess seem like nirvana if the Tories win another term.
And they could! They could! The "shy tory" is a malicious little beast of an entity.
The papers. Front pages still matter even if it's a dying medium and the tories hold most of the cards here.
TV? A neutered BBC that does it's best but knows that its head could be on the chopping block soon and CH4 being threatened with privitisation simply because it painted the tories in a poor light.
Also... 2 far right news channels that think ofcom is a joke and one of their owners is trying to buy The Telegraph... an already Tory paper that will be dragged even further to the extremes of the right. As if all that isn't enough, you literally have sitting Tory MP's embedded in GB News. Think about that, it's *not* normal. It is a privately funded propaganda channel (literally) that seeks to further undermine UK institutions and people for the furtherment of some very shady and rich people. Most of which which live in the UK.
We have almost become used to how thing are in government now but IT IS NOT NORMAL. They must go at all costs.
If Labour bugger the GE up, we are in for a lot of pain in this country. Even if they win there's still no silver bullet but at least I won't feel like the sitting government actively hates a large part of its own population and is syphoning as much money and power off before it eats itself... and us.
Basically I've been radicalised by a government with no morals, integrity or even a thought of the damage it's done to this country.
I don't care what Labour have to say or dare not say, I'll vote for them. No way, no f****** way will they be anything like the current tory party even on their worst days.
"And breath.....“
No way, no f****** way will they be anything like the current tory party even on their worst days.
Tend to agree and that is the best we can get in this country but the gap between Labour and Tory is closing by the day so what we actually get when they are in government is going to be hard to tell the difference on anything of substance. Yes they won't come out with hardline shit like the tories do but they don't actually do that much in reality do they.
Let's not forget that without reform the UK is destined to be governed by parties with absolute majorities that were voted into power by a minority of the population.
And that for whatever reason the UK seems to prefer giving the Tories an absolute majority than Labour.
So unfortunately, the sooner there's a Labour government in power the sooner there will be a Tory government in power right after to continue ripping the country to pieces to help make their mates as rich as possible.
It's really assuring to see that Labour's policy paper is full of solutions to the massive democratic deficit inherent in the UK's political system.
Again the view from up here is somewhat different. Labour sticking to tory spending plans = no increase in budget for the scots government = no chance of any improvements to standards of living. the Scots government has already done stuff within its limited and fixed budget to ameliorate the worst of the tory poverty inducing measures - like the two child benefit cap. things the labour party say they will not do.
This version of the labour party getting into power will make zero difference in Scotland. Indeed their pact with the tories in Scotland could actually make things worse
He may well have alienated quite a few traditional Labour voters in the last few days and by lining up with the Tories the Tory voters are given no reason to change their allegiance. I see the Greens as being the major beneficiaries and in my constituency they're likely to win in the next GE as the LP has been so woeful cutting down trees against the wishes of the electorate.
It isn't just the poorest and neediest, a huge swaith of the population of the western world has now been pushed into just surviving financially. Asset inflation means this burden is even larger the younger you are, just buying a house has become virtually impossible where jobs are concentrated, buying into pensions means you are buying less for more. The generally well off middle age demographic of STW may feel they have benefitted from these changes, but their privilege is going to destroy younger generations.
Far far too many people are now having to live paycheck to paycheck, Their rents are going up, their fuel costs are going up and they are being told too bear the brunt of the suffering too ensure assets stay inflated.
This isn't just an abstract concept, people are living lives without any power, they suffering through anguish, stress and mental illness because of the pressure created by our political direction, it destroys individuals, families and communities.
Changing the party that runs the current system isn't going to fix the system, throwing a few more crumbs from the high table for the population to fight over is just an illusion of change. Labour is not offering any real solutions, neither are the democrats in america and the centrist consensus in the EU.
And when the "parties of the people" offer no real hope for change for the lives of the majority, then this is where the populists take advantage. People know the system is broken, they are the ones who feel it in everyday life, they are not stupid and ignorant as many posters like to label them, they are powerless to control their own lives, and when SKS and labour offer them no hope, then maybe a false hope seams a gamble worth taking.
fine post MSP but I disagree with the EU comment. In general poorer folk are much better of relatively in most EU counties than here. In more equal societies everyone even the heavily taxed rich are happier.
Inequality has been growing for decades in the UK and too many folk are as you say totally isolated from this and have no understanding of the poverty a large section of our society live in
You are quite right of course, in the situation we find ourselves in now. Opportunities for everyone have simply diminished, and many more people will struggle in one way or another, or face a worse quality of life, even if they don't fall into that category. However, my point was a general moral one.
I disagree with the EU comment. In general poorer folk are much better of relatively in most EU counties than here. In more equal societies everyone even the heavily taxed rich are happier.
Inequality is also rising in the EU even in the Germany many "normal" working people are struggling, it is lagging behind the UK (probably by a decade or so) and America, but make no mistake the direction of travel is the same.
Fair enough
Let’s not forget that without reform the UK is destined to be governed by parties with absolute majorities that were voted into power by a minority of the population.
But the coalitions that dominated Europe since the end of WW2 aren't functioning all that well now either. I read somewhere that since 2015 there's has been the fastest/largest increase in political parties that have managed to get in parliaments across Europe than ever before, and it hasn't been a benefit to democracy. It takes longer to form governments that can do less, and last less time. it took Germany 6 months not that long ago to form a Govt coalition, The Netherlands didn't have a govt at all for over half a year, it took Spain four go's to get a coalition that lasted longer than a couple of months. When there's fewer political parties, they have to be more centrist, they have to be more collegiate, and study after study shows that single party systems result in govts that make more decisions and stick more broadly to their manifestos.
Western democracies aren't working IMO becasue.1 the excess from the economies has been diverted away from those that need it, (broadly the system from WW2 onwards) 2. residual anger about how the 2008 financial crash was resolved, 3 Mass immigration caused by economic shocks, un-necessary wars and global climate change, 4 Western Govt cosy-ing up to non democratic govt for financial reasons - and the obvious hypocrisy it creates 4. Rise of inequality, 5. Rise in disruptive social media.
I don't think Starmar's govt can solve those issues in its first 5 year term, frankly.
When there’s fewer political parties, they have to be more centrist, they have to be more collegiate, and study after study shows that single party systems result in govts that make more decisions and stick more broadly to their manifestos.
I'm sorry, did you just describe the Tories and Labour as centrist? If you define the centre as between whatever failed right wing think tank policies are en vouge this season then yes, they are both very centrist.
Of course it's easier to stick to manifestos when you have an absolute majority. The problem is those manifestos are designed to appeal to swing voters in a few key seats. You can safely alienate the majority of the population providing you appeal to a couple of hundred thousand voters.
If there is no clear path ahead then it is better to do nothing. Having a government that can do whatever it wants on a whim is not a route to long term stability.
Don't you think it would be better if two decades were spent trying to figure out a way to exit the EU because no one could agree (because any solution would be an obvious and shit compromise) only for a symbolic 'BINO' to finally be agreed because everyone was so sick of it?
Or were you happy leaving all up to BJ to decide?
Bad decisions are very often worse than no decisions.
study after study shows that single party systems result in govts that make more decisions and stick more broadly to their manifestos.
Is that a good thing?
Blair and Cameron banged on about 'change' whereas I agree with Vouvrakis (sp?): Starver's banner is 'no change'.
In general poorer folk are much better of relatively in most EU counties than here.
What does this even mean? How would you prove it is true or false?
I’m sorry, did you just describe the Tories and Labour as centrist?
In comparison to their position broadly since ww2, no not really, in comparison globally or even just against European or near Middle East; yes Id describe them as centrist, although the rise of smaller political parties that have begun to dominate in Europe have had a pull in the UK as well.
The problem is those manifestos are designed to appeal to swing voters in a few key seats. You can safely alienate the majority of the population providing you appeal to a couple of hundred thousand voters.
This of course also describes perfectly the single issue, or narrow view political parties that can be focussed on anti LGBT+, anti immigration, or nationalist policies that have arisen to dominate European multi party coalitions and their effects can outweigh the support they would otherwise achieve in FPTP elections.
Usually quality of life is determined by surveys designed to evaluate this concept, IIRC. Unless you're American in which case they apparently go by individual purchasing power i.e. money.
Re FPTP, you could argue that it has denied e.g. UKIP a seat, however you must agree that they have had a seismic effect on UK politics without ever needing a seat (and the scrutiny that comes with that) as political parties target their vote share in marginal seats.
You could just as easily argue that it has denied Green party a seat. Who knows how many people would have put down Green as a second choice? Probably a lot.
Is that a good thing?
Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. Politics is obviously changing, the broad agreements post WW2 are failing, or falling apart everywhere aren't they? and as much as FPTP isn't the best system that ever there was, the answer might not be the traditional European coalition model either as those are failing all over the democratic west as well.
Yes, it's clear that 'something' has happened, and it's not clear what - although it might well simply be social media. We shall wait and see how various political systems handle that as it seems to have happened equally everywhere. Who knows, perhaps FPTP will be effective at shutting out the populists if a progressive rebound threshold is reached.
What does this even mean? How would you prove it is true or false?
What it means is the poorest have a higher % of the income of the richest and there are loads of stats out there to show it.
Pensioners income is a good starting point as is unemployment and in work benefits
After housing costs, UK Gini coefficient is .38, higher than that in European countries ie more unequal.
This of course also describes perfectly the single issue, or narrow view political parties that can be focussed on anti LGBT+, anti immigration, or nationalist policies that have arisen to dominate European multi party coalitions and their effects can outweigh the support they would otherwise achieve in FPTP elections.
Actually, what tends to happen is that populist parties are on the fringes for years, with mainstream parties refusing to work with them.
This leads to increase of support because they are being kept out. Eventually, they end up as a junior partner in a rightwing coalition. At that point their popularity peaks as it becomes obvious their populist bullshit was just that and they are just as ineffective as other parties.
Then another populist party pops up and it's rinse and repeat.
With FPTP UKIP were able to continue being kept out and they were able to continue dragging the Tories and the country further and further right.
Actually gaining power is what kills populist parties.
Other parties obviously do exist and anyone who fancies a bit more of a society along the lines of what Labour should be offering can vote Green, lighter tories can vote Lib Dem (although Labour are now pretty much the same) and fascists can stay on the tory bus as it is going in the right direction
I think it is really down to the two main parties being the largest for a very long time and therefore seem safe with the voters rather than "fringe" parties that they don't know so the majority of votes go between the two well known and trusted? parties.
I think it is really down to the two main parties being the largest for a very long time
No, it's down to FPTP.
People are scared of 'wasting' their votes without realising that by voting for a party they fundamentally don't agree with they might as well take a shite on their ballot paper. In fact that would be a more productive use of their vote.
I've said it before but UKIP are one of the most, if not the most successful party in the modern era. They achieved their objective without ever winning a single seat.
Vote for the party you agree most closely with and your vote will drag the mainstream parties in your direction. Vote for the party most likely to beat the one you really don't like and all you're doing is saying you approve of a bunch of policies you don't approve of.
Once you vote for a party you have absolutely nothing they want. All parties want your vote and if enough people are doing the same thing they will chase you by adjusting their policies to suit you.
So, er, don't vote Labour? You do know what government you'll get? (Clue: it's highly unlikely to be the Greens, though I'm sure Paddy Power will take your money.)
I positively want to see Starmer as PM, heading up a government that's on the side of most of us. Others clearly don't, but you're barmy if you don't want a Tory govt and vote any way other than to unseat your Tory MP. Really safe seats, vote any way you want, obv, go on, indulge yourselves.
And as for vague allusions above to hospitals and kids, and that Starmer is against those things? Really? You don't think that looks a little bit world of your own style daft? (On which point I had a post deleted yesterday which was a link to BBC analysis for a measured view. I guess you can do your own googling.)
You do know what government you’ll get?
You do realise what government you're going to get immediately after Labour?
And people in the UK tend to vote in a Tory government more often than they vote Labour ones.
A vote for Labour is a temporary reprive (and it's arguable just how much difference it's going to make) in a history that is dominated by Tory governments. A vote for Labour is a vote for the status quo which is going to result in the same trajectory we are currently on (and more and more headcase Tory governments).
I positively want to see Starmer as PM, heading up a government that’s on the side of most of us.
If you look at all the manifestos and Labour is the one you agree with most then great. However, the 'side of most of us' comment is wrong. Starmer is on the side of a couple of hundred thousand swing voters. He has to be in a FPTP voting system.
I want PR. As do most labour party members who’ve voted for it at the party conference. How do you propose to get PR under a continuity of Tory governments?
You think a Labour government would introduce PR? Why?
Vote for the party you agree most closely with and your vote will drag the mainstream parties in your direction.
If you can persuade everyone else who feels the same way to do the same thing. Quite tricky, especially when there are multiple issues on the table.
If you can persuade everyone else who feels the same way to do the same thing. Quite tricky, especially when there are multiple issues on the table.
And yet here we are out of the EU.
Thanks in large part to a relatively small number of people switching from Tory to UKIP.
How do you propose to get PR under a continuity of Tory governments?
How do you propose to get PR under Starmer? He has made it clear he prefers just tinkering rather than making serious changes to the electoral process. A cynic might think his cults mantra rather gives away the position eg "who else will you vote for/not voting for starmer is voting for the tories".
So what odds do we think
Tamworth - Chris Pincher held since 2010 with a increased majority in the last election, with 23,000 or so votes, seems to be a straight up fight between Labour and the Tories, last held by Labour in 1997
Mid Bedfordshire - Nadine Dorries, the seat has never been anything other than Tory in the modern era. You need to go back to the 1920s to find a Liberal winner the last time it was briefly held by any other party. Nadine's majority was more than Pincher's overall vote
I mean clearly both sitting MPs are complete toss, but when has that made a difference? Personally I reckon Tamworth is a maybe, Mid Beds I can't see being anything other than Tory.
I want PR.
PR works as well or as badly as any other voting system, it's not a panacea of electoral righteousness by itself. And if you're going to say "It's better than what we have now" Go and ask any German, Spaniard or Dutchman what the introduction, proliferation, and success of radically motivated small fringe parties has done to their coalition based systems recently
And if you’re going to say “It’s better than what we have now” Go and ask any German, Spaniard or Dutchman what the introduction, proliferation, and success of radically motivated small fringe parties has done to their coalition based systems recently
It is better. In case you haven't noticed the extremists are in charge in the UK. Elsewhere things work differently as I explained above:
Actually, what tends to happen is that populist parties are on the fringes for years, with mainstream parties refusing to work with them.
This leads to increase of support because they are being kept out. Eventually, they end up as a junior partner in a rightwing coalition. At that point their popularity peaks as it becomes obvious their populist bullshit was just that and they are just as ineffective as other parties.
Then another populist party pops up and it’s rinse and repeat.
With FPTP UKIP were able to continue being kept out and they were able to continue dragging the Tories and the country further and further right.
Actually gaining power is what kills populist parties.
And if you’re going to say “It’s better than what we have now” Go and ask any German, Spaniard or Dutchman what the introduction, proliferation, and success of radically motivated small fringe parties has done to their coalition based systems recently
Or you could go and ask voters in the UK assemblies where PR already exists and hasn't led to Literally Hitler.
^^^discussable, but either way there’s a substantial campaign in the LP for PR which is gaining traction, as it should with the majority of members and unions in favour.
PR has been popular with the membership for a long time I think? But it's nowhere near being adopted as policy.
In case you haven’t noticed the extremists are in charge in the UK
As they are across European countries within PR designed systems. The problem isn't a democratic deficit. Both European PR and the UK FPTP are designed to return the same sorts of governments; law abiding centrist with broad electoral support, the only difference is that the parties in Europe all the way from radical left wing to radical right wing are separate, where as in the UK those are the Labour and Tory parties.
I don't think we need more democracy, I think we need more engagement with democracy.
PR has been popular with the membership for a long time I think? But it’s nowhere near being adopted as policy.
Proper electoral reform was in the 97 manifesto but thanks to Straw and a few others who didnt like the idea of democracy it got quietly binned off.
Personally I reckon Tamworth is a maybe, Mid Beds I can’t see being anything other than Tory.
I am going with Tamworth being a Labour win as the tories can safely stay home in protest.
Mid Beds given the swing required and neither Labour or the Libs have backed down i expect tory.
Unless that PCC has done things locally to really annoy the tories and nothing seems to have come out in the press.
As they are across European countries within PR designed systems.
Which countries specifically? I would say Hungary. Poland up until this week. Italy, obviously. Who else?
If you mean they are a junior partner in a coalition then that proves my point. Actually being in government exposes them and their rise in popularity comes to a grinding halt.
And even if they end up being the biggest party (like in Italy) they are still severely limited in what they can actually achieve as they are hindered by not having an absolute majority. The Tories can and will do whatever they like with no one to stop them.
It would be very difficult for a country with a coalition government to one day decide to cancel HS2 and sell the bits off so their mates could make a tidy profit. Not impossible but difficult.
It would be even more difficult for them to one day decide to Trigger A50 without the slightest clue on how they were actually going to exit the EU. Again, not impossible, but a lot more difficult.
Proper electoral reform was in the 97 manifesto but thanks to Straw and a few others who didnt like the idea of democracy it got quietly binned off.
Bar in Scotland and Wales. But yeah. I think "gaining traction" is fair with the 2022 conf resolution and something vaguer at the recent one on the current shite electoral system I paraphrase). I don't see any other feasible path to pr for England other than through labour
I don’t see any other feasible path to pr for England other than through labour
Voting for Labour is not going to deliver PR. As long as it's Labour's turn to wear the Captain's hat they would never change the voting system.
Not voting for Labour because they're not going to deliver PR, on the other hand...
Voting Labour has got us the PR we currently have (in Wales and Scotland and local levels) and letting the Tories rule gets us more FPTP (such a in the Mayoral elections). You get electoral reform with both parties... but in opposite directions. If you think FPTP is a major problem, then you need to keep the Tories hands of the electoral systems we use by getting them out, and keeping them out, by whatever means you have.
By-election predictions: Labour to win Tamworth, tories to hold Mid Beds with massively reduced majority - possibly down to c5,000.
As for changing the electoral system - not going to happen but a referendum on the subject would, IMO, produce an interesting result with a sizeable level of support for PR.
As they are across European countries within PR designed systems.
Scotlands system works well by and large despite labours behaviour. The greens do have disproportionate power as a small party holding the balance of power but the main reason for that is the point blank refusal of labour and Lib dem to co operate at all with the SNP. there have been left of centre broadly representational governments since its creation.
Its meant that we have a broader range of parties and representation - compare the westminster election to the holyrood to see the differnce the proprtional sstem makes
2019 Westminster election<br />48 snp on 45% of the vote
6 tory on 25%
4 lib dem on 9%
1 lab on 18%
2021 Holyrood
64 SNP
31 tory
22 labour
8 green
4 lib dem
voting %s were similar - its hard to make a real comparison because of the two votes for Holyrood. FPTP is the key source of a lot of the issues with Westminster and allows as we see small factions of extremists to take control of government. That is so unlikely to happen under a PR system as coalitions would collapse and even in the event of a very rare majority government the majorities will always be slim.
Labours refusal to support PR over many years has cost the country dear. We would have avoided all these tory governments.
Not voting for Labour because they’re not going to deliver PR, on the other hand…
Is sensible. We are probably about 7-9 months before election day and if plenty of people say they arent going to vote labour because of it then Starmer may need to consider his options.
Instead of just chasing the right wing vote and ignoring people because he thinks they will vote for him.
Is sensible. We are probably about 7-9 months before election day and if plenty of people say they arent going to vote labour because of it then Starmer may need to consider his options.
Instead of just chasing the right wing vote and ignoring people because he thinks they will vote for him.
That worked a treat for Corbyn at the last election.
That worked a treat for Corbyn at the last election.
What chasing the right wing vote?
I am sure the "wahhhhhh corbyn" made sense for you but I do have to caution you that Binners will be along to thread police
I didn't realise the by-elections were today!
Going to be another late night for me then.😁
I'm in a bit of a weird place with Starmer. I don't believe he's as right of centre as his current positioning is placing the party, specifically on crime and the economy. I see it as a courtship of the moderate conservatives who've been left in the cold by the lunatics in charge at the moment and Boris's purge of the centre-right remainers.
My hope is if labour get in and they can reduce some of the austerity then the resultant economic growth will put some of his earlier manefesto pledges back on the table.
He has some progressives around him (Rayner, Lammy, Thornberry, etc.) who are towing the party line at the moment because they see that's how they will get elected. It'll be interesting to see what happens when they become the cabinet
Courting the left of the party/electorate won't get labour elected and i'd love to see some more radical/progressive policies, specifically on investment and bringing it closer to 15% of GDP than the 10% it is at the moment
One of the hardest things Starmer et al. have to do right now is hold their cards close their chest. Anything worthwhile they announce will just be brazenly robbed by the Tories
Courting the left of the party/electorate won’t get labour elected
They will catch a hard time on here though, so there's that.
I’m in a bit of a weird place with Starmer. I don’t believe he’s as right of centre as his current positioning is placing the party, specifically on crime and the economy
His enthusiastic purging of the none believers would tend to indicate this is being hopeful. So far all his words and actions indicates he is rather right wing.
Courting the left of the party/electorate won’t get labour elected and i’d love to see some more radical/progressive policies,
Incorrect he does need need to court the left as well. If he continues on his apparent path of wanting to turn the labour party into the new tories then he is going to struggle to get votes. Something acknowledged by his fanclub with their continuous shouting about "not voting for the glorious leader is voting for the tories".
Anything worthwhile they announce will just be brazenly robbed by the Tories
Nah we know this doesnt happen since it is the mantra of his fanclub that "you have to be in power to have influence".
That worked a treat for Corbyn at the last election.
What worked a treat for Corbyn?
Corbyn's radical policies didn't seem to be much of a problem for voters. In Corbyn's first general election Labour's vote increased by a greater percentage than any other time since 1945.
It is widely assumed that it was due to his manifesto. In fact the polls showed a sudden change in favour of Labour after the manifesto was first leaked to the press.
Corbyn's second general election was a huge disaster, despite more or less the same manifesto.
It is widely assumed this is because, unlike the previous manifesto, Labour were calling for a second EU referendum, and also because leading members of the Parliamentary Labour Party were publicly denouncing him as incompetent and a racist.
The lesson for Starmer is don't call for a second EU referendum and don't upset the self-serving careerists who didn't join the Labour Party to implement radical policies.
Anything worthwhile they announce will just be brazenly robbed by the Tories
Then that would be good for us wouldn't it?
Then that would be good for us would it?
Short term yes, until the election is won, then it's back to austerity on steroids once more.
How depressing that a Tory peer is having to say all the things which the Leader of the Labour Party should be saying over the issue of islamophobic bigotry and racism.
Baroness Warsi:
"The Labour party too after years of taking that vote for granted, having received over 80% of the Muslim vote, found itself failing to respond to anti-Muslim racism being experienced by its members.”
She warned that the lack of action over the issue could lead to devastating outcomes, citing recent government figures on hate crime showing that “once again Muslims are the most targeted religious group”.
Warsi called on Britons to join the Muslim community’s demand to be “treated equally under the law, to have the right to be heard, for our citizenship to be worth the same as everyone else’s”.
Starmer again raised his concern about rising anti-muslim and anti-palestinian sentiment and action in the UK after recent events in the Middle East, this time at the dispatch box. It was in the PMQs clip I posted yesterday (and has been removed twice) in response to claims about what Starmer is/isn't saying. Here's an even shorter clip, about the rise in racist incidents in the UK:
[ mods : if people can post claims and opinion about what Starmer is/isn't saying on this, surely posting evidence of what he is actually saying in response is fair, no? ]