Forum menu
Anyone reading the article can see that
Sayeeda Warsi isn't referring to the events of the last couple of weeks in Palestine but how Muslims are treated differently by both the Tories and Labour.
She makes this perfectly valid point:
Sayeeda Warsi criticised Labour for strongly advising its councillors not to attend pro-Palestine demonstrations last weekend, “despite having spent months before the recess fighting the government to protect the right to protest in the public order act”.
And she goes on to say:
Describing the treatment of British Muslim communities in politics, she said: “There is a particular irony to this political struggle because on the one hand the government insists on the observance of ‘fundamental British values’ but when Muslims challenge actions that … undermine respect and tolerance by calling out institutional Islamophobia … when Muslims apply these fundamental British values in their participation in wider society, they are demonised, marginalised, excluded from political arenas and treated as outcasts.”
The rights and wrongs of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is quite separate to the issue of the treatment of British Muslims by politicians of both main parties.
That is the point that Sayeeda Warsi is making. And Starmer has been repeatedly criticised for not tackling islamophobia sufficiently, long before event of the last couple of weeks.
It needs more than mealy-mouthed comments whenever a crisis occurs.
Look at the date of this article. It's got nothing to do with the events of the last couple of weeks.
I hope the proposed housing policy is not a complete disaster like the last Labour governments lip service. They did produce a lovely shiny corporate brochure about it! The token gesture of a few bedsits in luxury apartment blocks and a handful of smaller units on executive housing estates, weren't affordable, nearly always ended up in rental portfolios, amounted to a drop in the ocean of targets missed by a country mile and never met any year since!
Private sector developers and/or large landowners (powerful lobbies, extremely shrewd and slippery bastards) will always opt to do what is most profitable. Affordability and allocation based upon need is never a consideration. Past threats/stipulations were met with poor quality token gestures, land banking and lobbying for a free-for-all in planning then we might consider being more helpful 😀
Something has changed in the demeanor of Starmer, whether it's training or he's just more comfortable in the job, or confidence he's going to be the next pm, but seems a little less "severe" ?
For the tories to actually have 20 seats would be ****ing brilliant
Sounds like, from the recent by-elections, that the way to get Labour in is to actively persuade Tory voters to vote for Reform, and split the Tory vote.
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
The left should be behind him anyway, and this approach worked pretty well for Blair.
Last night seems to show that his master plan big manifesto pledge of Not Being The Tories, is well on track.
Last night seems to show that his master plan big manifesto pledge of Not Being The Tories, is well on track.
It goes beyond just last night. Labour's massive lead over the Tories for the last couple of years has, undisputedly, shown just how deeply unpopular the Tories are with voters.
Any candidate without the baggage of having the "Conservative Party Candidate" label obviously has a huge advantage.
The problem with the "Not Being The Tories" master plan is that whilst it might be excellent for winning elections it is not a master plan for governing the country.
this approach worked pretty well for Blair.
The Tony Blair/Gordon Brown premiership years turned Tamworth a very safe Labour seat in 1997 into a very safe Tory seat in 2010.
Until last night obviously..... ultimately voters judge politicians by how they preform, not how their opponents preform.
And just to emphasis how effective "Not Being The Tories" is for a candidate in a by-election under the current climate, Labour mopped up in Tamworth yesterday with the Liberal Democrat vote falling to just 417, whilst in Mid Bedfordshire the Liberal Democrat vote increased by almost as much as Labour's.
Why such a difference for the Liberal Democrats on the same day? Presumably voters in Tamworth were much more certain who they should back to show their opposition to the Tories than the voters in Mid Bedfordshire were.
The left should be behind him anyway, .
errmm, why? If he doesnt offer policies to appeal to them but instead chases the centre right why should he get votes?
and this approach worked pretty well for Blair
It worked for a time but the problem with that sort of trick is it stops working as is evident from the voting turnout from 1997 to 2005 and then the longer term damage.
Blair knew that and walked away to leave the mess and blame to Brown.
From what I remember Blair was actually offering something though, wasn't he? Or was it a vague CHANGE! narrative but with few actual policies to back it up?
From what I can see Starmer isn't even offering a vague CHANGE! strategy. He's literally just offering to do the same as the Tories but in a less shit way.
The left should be behind him anyway, and this approach worked pretty well for Blair.
I personally need to see more policy that shows a plan to mend the country else I'll be voting leftwards. However since the last two elections where I voted labour, I've moved from a marginal seat to a safe labour seat so maybe that gives me more confidence to switch
The obvious difference between 1997 and next year's general election is that in 1997 the economy was preforming relatively well, and that's what Blair inherited, Starmer definitely won't be.
In 1997 voters wanted a change because 18 years is a long time for any party to be in power and Tory sleaze was constantly hitting the headlines.
Ironically once Tony Blair was installed in Number 10 Labour became quickly mired in sleaze themselves.
@kelvin I had a post saying similar deleted with a “stay on topic” knuckle rap from the mods. Bit weird, eh?
He’s literally just offering to do the same as the Tories but in a less shit way.
I think that's what he's saying now, because he doesn't want to say anything that could be pulled apart by opposition and jeopardise the huge poll lead. Right now, a main policy of not being the Tory party is working well. If that starts to change, then they will have to start doing more and I'm sure they will. Make no mistake - the current tepid output is NOT because they can't be bothered. It's a calculated strategy.
I think that’s what he’s saying now, because he doesn’t want to say anything that could be pulled apart by opposition and jeopardise the huge poll lead.
It's not that he's saying nothing. He's saying he's going to continue doing the same as the Tories but less shit.
The trouble is if they get into power and continue with the same failed Tory policies you can hardly complain they didn't say they were going to do that.
The main hope offered by his supporters seems to be that he is lying will do completely different things once in power.
He’s saying he’s going to continue doing the same as the Tories but less shit.
To get into power Blair promised that he'd stick to Tory spending pledges for a year. Which at the time, had everyone frothing equally loudly as people are now at Starmer now for his "don't scare the horses" plan.
To get into power Blair promised that he’d stick to Tory spending pledges for a year. Which at the time, had everyone frothing equally loudly as people are now at Starmer now for his “don’t scare the horses” plan.
So Blair's government is now considered the Gold Standard? Or even an overall good thing?
That explains a lot in terms of what people are prepared to accept.
Blair promised that he’d stick to Tory spending pledges for a year. Which at the time, had everyone frothing equally loudly
I don't remember everyone frothing loudly. I would be genuinely interested in any links from that period which illustrates this.
As I remember it there was no vocal opposition to Tony Blair in the run-up to the 1997, as many on the left were so desperate to end 18 years of Tory government that they were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt as they desperately wanted to believe that Blair was some sort of closet socialist.
And to be fair they had some reason to believe that. For example throughout the Thatcher-Major years Blair opposed every single bit of Tory privatisation.
It was only when Blair became Prime Minister that he decided that the Tories hadn't privatised enough and embarked on his own privatisation programme.
In stark contrast to Blair's false hope Labour are currently offering "no hope" because according to Starmer's team it is better than "false hope"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/09/labour-promises-tory-mismanagement-public-finances
Can you place the bar any lower than "no hope"?
So Blair’s government is now considered the Gold Standard? Or even an overall good thing?
Who said that? It was just an observation on the lengths Labour has to go through to get to power even after years of Tory administration
would be genuinely interested in any links from that period which illustrates this.
I'm sure you'd be able to find something if you wanted to look for it.
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.
Apart from when they introduced PR in Scotland. And Wales. And Northern Ireland. And London. But apart from all those times, Labour would never change the voting system!
It’s a calculated strategy
😂
Can you place the bar any lower than “no hope”?
It’d be hard ernie wouldn’t it?
Who said that? It was just an observation on the lengths Labour has to go through to get to power even after years of Tory administration
And hence the problem.
In my 40-odd years only 13 of them have been under anything but a Tory government. Most people born post-war will be round about the same proportion. With the current system Tory governments are the norm and there's no reason to expect it to be anything but the norm.
Voting for Labour is just a vote to continue living 3/4 of our lives under a Tory government. And the other 1/4 under a Tory-lite government.
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)
Don't understand why it was removed. It's completely on topic and doesn't contravene any forum rules. It's all very well the mods wanting to prevent abusive and offensive posts on the subject we're not allowed to talk about but really I think a more adult approach is required. It's too big an issue to ignore and it will inevitably pop up on other threads like this one when relevant. How about the mods just punish the offenders rather than put the whole class on detention like naughty school children? 🙄
Apart from when they introduced PR in Scotland. And Wales. And Northern Ireland. And London. But apart from all those times, Labour would never change the voting system!
All those places still use FPTP.
Or do you mean the parliaments that both Labour and Tory are currently trying to undermine?
How's reforming the HoL going, by the way? Starmer seemed quite keen on it not so long ago.
How about the mods just punish the offenders
I'd imagine the mods just wanted a weekend off without having to monitor it and just took the obvious solution. Seems legit to me. Couple of folks seem to have been given a time-out off the back of it anyway. I'm not sure there's an absolute burning requirement for it to be discussed on here as well as just about everywhere else anyway. Its quite nice to have a break from it really.
The main hope offered by his supporters seems to be that he is lying will do completely different things once in power.
Which is odd considering how many of them go on about the 350 million and Johnson being a lying turd.
Not really the best approach excusing lies just because it suits their side for once.
Voting for Labour is just a vote to continue living 3/4 of our lives under a Tory government
And a vote for one of the fringe parties is a vote for 100% Tory governments.
The main hope offered by his supporters seems to be that he is lying will do completely different things once in power.
I don't think he's lying, he's just not saying things.
And yes, a Starmer government might be just a bit less shit, but that is all we can get at the moment. A brilliant left wing progressive inclusive government that will do all the wonderful things is simply not on the menu right now, no matter how much we all wish it were (including me).
And a vote for one of the fringe parties is a vote for 100% Tory governments.
Nope its not. Its a vote for a party which is closest to the voters views.
Labour could, of course, stop chasing the right wing vote and try to appeal to those people instead.
... and have another 5 years in opposition.
Like it or not, both sides of the Atlantic know that to get elected you need to slide up to the edge of the other party, not move further away from it. It worked for Bill Clinton in 1992, Blair in 1997. When Labour go to the left (Foot, the wrong Milliband, and Corbyn) we get a Tory gov.
The reality is a lot of people are in the middle - but given a Liberal vote is often a wasted vote for 3rd place in the UK (England really) in a FPTP system, then by Labour moving too far left, many of those in the middle go to the right rather than far left. That's why Corbyn was unelectable. Twice. And as a result have this shambolic Gov.
Its quite nice to have a break from it really.
I agree. I shouldn't have joined in. Was just confused that several of us had our replies removed, but the original posts going back to that subject stayed up.
That’s why Corbyn was unelectable.
It's been nice to have a break from this as well! 🤣 Can we keep it that way?
And a vote for one of the fringe parties is a vote for 100% Tory governments.
Literally the only case for Labour that can be made.
I forgot so many people treat politics as a sport where the most important thing is your team wins. As opposed to actually changing the country.
The country isn't out of the EU and being run by a UKIP tribute act because people voted Tory. It's because people refused to vote Tory and instead voted UKIP.
If you want to see improvements in the country, vote for parties that are actually offering improvements. They won't win but they will drag Labour in your direction.
UKIP had a sympathetic press, they couldn't have achieved what they did without them. Progressive parties need MPs to affect change, or even just to get media coverage for their views to be aired. It's why I agree with you about the need for PR so that everyone is represented in parliament. In the meantime, we need to use our votes to shape the next government. If the Tories squeak it again, we're ******, and probably deserve to be.
UKIP had a sympathetic press, they didn’t couldn’t achieve what they did without them.
Well, if it's so far fetched that there is no point in even trying then clearly the only option remaining is a campaign of terrorism.
Or do you think maybe people should at least try the voting thing first?
UKIP had a sympathetic press, they didn’t couldn’t achieve what they did without them.
To be fair, this is true of any party; you need a sympathetic press. Blair knew that when he courted Murdoch ahead of the '97 election.
I forgot so many people treat politics as a sport where the most important thing is your team wins. As opposed to actually changing the country.
That's not it at all.
I don't want to vote for a party that will never win. That's the problem that FPTP gives us. It's like putting money on Wales winning the Euros - it'd be great but it's simply not happening so I won't put my one bet on it.
I will be voting for change, but I will be voting for a small change that COULD happen versus a big one that simply won't.
Or do you think maybe people should at least try the voting thing first?
You're a Green supporter, yes? Join your local Green Party, work to get councillors elected. If your Westminster seat is a Tory/Labour marginal, or a Tory/LibDem marginal, vote to stop the Tories at this next election. Then spend the next 5 years building towards more Green representation at local levels, and see how the political landscape changes over that time... the options could be quite different by the time we get to the general election after this coming one.
… and have another 5 years in opposition.
Bless the cry of the centre right. Its odd how this only became important now vs the far more 2019 election where brexit could have been prevented.
Like it or not, both sides of the Atlantic know that to get elected you need to slide up to the edge of the other party, not move further away from it.
Ah yes and thats why the tories and republicans slid leftwards?
The problem with the triangulation is, as anyone who gives it a moments thought would conclude (even before it got proved), is that you end up a couple of elections down the road with a choice of right wing or hard right wing governments.
The reality is a lot of people are in the middle
The reality is you are giving opinion as fact. This is a myth pushed by the centrists with the inevitable result that they then think they should be the ones in charge vs working in partnership with the left.
Its why we end up with claims about "far left" for a moderately left wing by European standards manifesto vs support for a hard right manifesto.
You’re a Green supporter, yes? Join your local Green Party, work to get councillors elected. If your Westminster seat is a Tory/Labour marginal, or a Tory/LibDem marginal, vote to stop the Tories at this next election. Then spend the next 5 years building towards more Green representation at local levels, and see how the political landscape changes over that time… the options could be quite different by the time we get to the general election after this coming one.
Exactly this.
… and have another 5 years in opposition.
Bless the cry of the centre right. It
Why so sneery? I'm well left of centre and am keen to see a Labour government.
I don’t want to vote for a party that will never win.
Because you think of it in terms of your team 'winning'. It does not matter at all which team wins. What matters is the policies that are implemented.
UKIP never won anything but their policies now control the country.
A vote for Labour is going to do nothing to move the winning candidate towards your issues. Once they have your vote you are worthless to them if you weren't already worthless before.
A vote based on your issues, on the other hand, will force Labour to take your issues seriously (unless no one but you and your dog are interested in your issues). However, assuming you are vaguely sensible I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a lot of people out there who are worried about the same issues but will never have them addressed because they are also primarily concerned with the 'right' team winning when it comes to voting.
Why so sneery? I’m well left of centre and am keen to see a Labour government.
Why's that? Other than "not Tory". Genuine question.
I’m sure you’d be able to find something if you wanted to look for it.
I lived through 1997, I can't remember everyone frothing loudly. In fact I remember the complete opposite, how quiet the Left was and how they offered so little vocal critism of Blair before the 1997 general election, so desperate were they to end 18 years of Tory rule.
I might have misremembered but since you are telling me to do my own research rather than providing any evidence I suspect that I am not.
Some people seem very keen to argue that 2023 is so much like 1997, it isn't. The circumstances are quite different, including the reason for the Tories's unpopularity.
Presumably the attempt to compare apples with pears is to justify Labour's huge shift to the right. Which in that respect I guess there is a valid comparison, although not much beyond that.
I was one of those "frothing" about Blair's refusal to embrace increased spending on public services (and voted LibDem in that '97 election, my first GE vote). They went on to, quite frankly, save the NHS. Yes there was an increase in private provision in the NHS, but service levels and satisfaction levels went up and up. They have to do all that rebuilding and repurposing all over again. It's a job that shouldn't even need doing. Again. The Tories need kicking out and keeping out, so the UK can rebuild. There will be plenty of talk of "Red Tories", there always will be. I'd be joining in... if it wasn't for the lessons learnt since Brown's government was removed at the polling booths. We, the UK public, got that wrong (and I did personally, not voting Labour in '10 or '15 either). The last 13 years have been a hard lesson that some don't seem want to learn from. If you want more of "all this"... carry on.
They went on to, quite frankly, save the NHS. Yes there was in increase in private provision in the NHS, but service levels and satisfaction levels went up and up.
You have to remember that a lot of things were good in that period and it had little to do with which party was in power. The late 90s to late 00s were a big party fueled by cheap (or free) credit combined with an opening up of China resulting in cheap goods to spend all this free borrowed money on.
Also, don't forget that privatization often leads to short term improvements at the expense of long term investment.
Any party that managed to make things worse in this period would have to have been doing it intentionally.
I don't think you can expect to see any of the same kind of improvement in standard of living after this incarnation of Labour gets elected.
You have to remember that a lot of things were good in that period and it had little to do with which party was in power.
to a point. But I know which party doubled spending on health.
Don’t understand why it was removed. It’s completely on topic and doesn’t contravene any forum rules.
It has been suggested to me that it might have been based on commercial and/or legal considerations, and/or possible threat from hackers.
If that was indeed the thinking behind it then the simple solution is to just ban the topic.
Remember Daz that when you raised the issue of relaxing the swear filter recently it was pointed out that apart from anything else it is greatly based on commercial considerations.
to a point. But I know which party doubled spending on health.
I look forward to Starmer doing the same once he gets in to power.
Wonder if he's also going to increase privitisation as Blair did as well.
That'll definitely suit the Tories for when it's their turn again.
^^^ ah that's a different question, albeit on topic, and I can't give a politician's answer. Those were different times, and 'fixing' from where we are now also requires fixing social care too which really has been slashed into the bone. It's a rather more than one parliament job, but yeah I want to see Labour make a start.
(you edited so now it's not a question, with other stuff chucked in on the 'how' as opposed to the 'what'. We can come back to this.)
I was one of those “frothing” about Blair’s refusal to embrace increased spending on public services (and voted LibDem in that ’97 election, my first GE vote).
In the 1997 general election I actually canvassed for the Liberal Democrats in a neighbouring constituency and helped them to win a safe Tory seat.
So that's two people then. The claim was that "everyone" was frothing loudly. I don't remember that, in fact it was precisely because of the lack of vocal opposition from within the Labour Party to the direction which Blair was taking that I gave up and, in exasperation, decided to back the LibDems, who pre-Clegg were still a social-democratic party.
The last 13 years have been a hard lesson that some don’t seem want to learn from. If you want more of “all this”… carry on.
Have you thought that others have learnt from but just have come to a different conclusion than you?
A starter for ten.
New Labour led to a very hard right tory party.
What lessons have been learnt so in 5-10 years we dont have the same where the good policies are binned off but the dubious policies accepted from the tories dont become the building block for something even more extreme?
In the 1997 general election I actually canvassed for the Liberal Democrats in a neighbouring constituency and helped them to win a safe Tory seat.
Well done. Yeah, I don't regret that vote way back then. This isn't 1997 though, and my Tory MP really needs removing, as do many others in seats where only Labour can unseat them.
New Labour led to a very hard right tory party.
The Tory party went even harder right in the face of Labour moving further left... and won two more elections.
Well done.
Thanks. I am particularly proud because I played a very small part in helping to defeat the highly obnoxious Lady Olga Maitland, famously spokesperson for "Mothers for Nuclear Annihilation"*.
* Just my little joke btw, they were officially known as "Women and Families for Defence".
The Tory party went even harder right in the face of Labour moving further left… and won two more elections.
That is a rather simplistic view of it. The tory had devolved into infighting previous to that with the hard right coming out on top prior to those elections.
That is a rather simplistic view of it.
Of course it is. As was the post I was replying to. I don't think the Tories going further right has anything to do with the Labour party, then or now, but everything to do with influences from the right in the USA, especially "think tanks" delivering content for the press, other media, and directly to Conservative MPs and other politicians.
This isn’t 1997 though, and my Tory MP really needs removing
As does mine, the creepily poisonous Jake Berry. If there is a ballot to have him tarred and feathered on the way out I'll cheerily tick that box.
And a protest Green vote won't do anything to unseat him, if the last election is anything to go by.
Of course it is. As was the post I was replying to. I don’t think the Tories going further right has anything to do with the Labour party,
That ignores the evidence around how parties react to other parties actions and gives a ton of praise to the US hard right but ok....
When Corbyn was Labour leader both Theresa May and Boris Johnson moved the Tories more to the left than it had been.
After Starmer became Labour leader the Tory Party shifted further to the right.
If there are any conclusions to be drawn from this I'll let you make them.
It looks like Tory will get a beating in the next GE, if they continue to lose seats.
Well, that's expected when cost of living spiral "out of control".
Inflation, apparently, has stabilized according to news I heard on telly but the price of petrol/diesel continues to increase, which is abnormal and it is a matter of time the inflation will go up again. They can "halt" inflation for now but it is just temporarily coz the Ukraine war is still ongoing. Without the war, Tory will rule for a long time but ex-PM Boris just can't help himself by sticking his nose into others' business.
Lets see what Labour can do, assuming they form the next govt, and if they will continue to support the war effort in Ukraine; and if they do support the Ukraine war UK might find themselves in a very sticky situation. i.e. inflation and cost of living really will go up big time. (US ain't pumping more because high price benefit them too)
Question is who should I vote for in the next GE? Vote for those that focus on domestic issues or those that focus on international issues?
They can “halt” inflation for now
They haven't "halted" anything. Prices are still rising. At rates that many workers (and pensioners) have no means of keeping up with. And it's not all down to Putin... we in the UK have wished a large part of it on ourselves... and the Tories obliged... grabbing the opportunity to erode the value of people's wages and pensions to make many of us poorer (and make a few richer).
Getting Brexit Done required a move to the right.
Obviously it didn't, since the UK's economic policies moved to the left under both Theresa May and Boris Johnson.
It has nothing to do with "lexit". Declaring the end of austerity and increasing government spending does not represent a move to the right.
And if you can't see that how ironic that you should use the term "blinkers".
Edit: The next Labour government could nationalise power, water, transport, other essential industries, scrap dental and prescription charges, introduce free school meals for all, subsided essential food items, and massively invest in the NHS, and still remain outside the EU.
"Declaring" the end of austerity has done bugger all for the local schools, hospital, GPs, dentists, social services, or anything the local authority is tasked with providing... nor has talk of 40 new hospitals, a tunnel to Ireland via the Isle of Man, or any of the other games played out in the media while supporters cheered on Johnson buggering up our economy for at least a decade.
So you don't think that Theresa May and Boris Johnson were left-wing enough. I totally agree.
That doesn't somehow translate into meaning that they moved the Tory Party to the right, they didn't. Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak did though.
It has nothing to do with “lexit”.
I really don't know why people - including those supposedly 'on the left' - still don't understand that the UK, as a sovereign currency issuing nation, which just happens to have one of the most valuable and most respected currencies in the world, can't spend pretty much anything it wants in it's own currency on things in this country which would benefit everyone in it. Sure there are limitations associated with inflation and resources and some insecurity related to market confidence but on the whole the government investing in its economy would be universally well received. What we spend on hospitals and schools has got bollocks all to do with being in the EU or not.
So you don’t think that Theresa May and Boris Johnson were left-wing enough.
Pretty sure Johnson was a secret MMTer. We all know he had little respect for 'the rules', and he no doubt knew that govt finances are completely different to those of a family or business, which would explain his largesse when it came to things like HS2, building new airports or even his crackpot plan of a tunnel to Ireland. I can never remember Johnson saying to voters that he couldn't afford to spend money on things, which probably explains why he was so popular.
Short memories. Boris Johnson smashed up HS2. Along with plenty of other levelling down the North.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/18/hs2-rail-leg-to-leeds-scrapped-grant-shapps-confirms
And nothing else you mention came to anything. Hot air is not investment.
So you think that Boris Johnson moved the Tories to the right Kelvin, that's how he "got brexit done"?
Well I guess if it fits your preferred narrative stick with it, and just redefine what is meant by left and right.
However based on the more conventional definition:
Boris Johnson has sensed the way the wind is blowing and tacked accordingly. Since becoming prime minister he has announced the biggest increase in public spending in more than 15 years, abandoned a planned cut in corporation tax, raised the minimum wage, promised a budget that will boost spending on public infrastructure projects and nationalised Northern Rail.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/30/boris-johnson-tories-left-economy-labour
Edit: And that ^^ was before the pandemic. During the pandemic he was accused of being a Corbynite socialist by some in the right-wing press and the Tory party hard-right. At one point despite his huge majority he even needed the support of Labour MPs in a vote.
And how many of those promises were actually delivered?
An end declared to austerity eh? Sounds as convincing as GW declaring "mission accomplished" 😂
Did you actually believe any of that crap you wrote or do you just like to insult people's intelligence?
Did you actually believe any of that crap you wrote or do you just like to insult people’s intelligence?
Where have you been squirrelking? It's been a while since I have received any personal insults from you. Been too busy insulting Neil from Superstarcomponents accusing him of "making shit up"?
The "crap I wrote" was copied and pasted from an article in the Guardian newspaper. Do I believe that Johnson moved the Tories to the left? Well of course I do because that is precisely what he did. Read the Guardian article.
And how many promises did he deliver? Well that's not relevant to whether he moved the Tory party to the left or not, it's a totally different question.
Theresa May also moved the Tories to the left, both she and Johnson were to the left of David Cameron. Not necessarily because they wanted to but because they felt it was needed.... circumstances.
Read the Guardian article, voters were fed up with austerity and Labour was making a powerful argument against it.
Cameroon on the hand, helped greatly by the LibDems, was able to sell austerity to the majority of voters in 2010.
Looking forward to your insulting retort SK, proving that you listen to no one other than yourself.
And how many of those promises were actually delivered?
I’m not saying he would have delivered, but the small issue of covid and his subsequent dethronement got in the way of doing any of the stuff he wanted to do.
Would you prefer Johnson as PM with all his promises of doing stuff and not caring about the cost, or Sunak (or Starmer for that matter) who tells us there is no money to do anything and everything is just too difficult?
The simple reason Johnson was so popular with voters was that he appeared to want to do stuff that they wanted. Corbyn was the same in 2017.
Boris wouldn't have delivered, any extra spending went into the pockets of the wealthy asset classes, delivering aid and services to those that needed it was just coincidental to the main aim of trickle up economics. But he offered a clear campaign of lies to shift the blame for the causes of peoples problems to false targets.
and to quote myself from a few pages back
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.
Boris wouldn’t have delivered
That is quite irrelevant to the point being made, which is that like Theresa May he moved the Tories to the left.
Corbyn also didn't delivered but it doesn't mean that he didn't move the Labour Party to the left.
What Corbyn also did was to shift the agenda to the left, which no doubt played a part in Theresa May declaring "austerity over", true or not.
And back on topic, no one can seriously argue that Sir Keir Starmer has moved the agenda to the left. Most people recognise that SKS is actually staunchly following the Tory agenda.
Most? I count about five of you
but 95% of posts mention it so it must be true 😉
Boris wouldn’t have delivered
You don't actually know that, none of us do. It's no different to all the people who said Corbyn would never deliver the stuff he wanted to do. There's a thing in this country where people have been fooled into thinking politicians can't do anything because there is no money or because stuff is too difficult, and many on this forum seem to have fallen for it hook, line and sinker. This country is one of the richest countries in the world with a strong and stable economy and currency. We can do pretty much anything we want, but we need politicians with the vision and determination to do it.