It's an easy conclusion to come to, I'll grant you that.
Oh well you’re gonna have to remain unhappy. Sorry about that.
Par for this particular course.
It’s an easy conclusion to come to, I’ll grant you that.
Well personal digs is what I like.
So much less worrisome than carefully thought out counter-arguments.
So much less worrisome than carefully thought out counter-arguments.
There's no point with your level of responses.
Sorry guys - whether you agree with him or not Ernie has the best debating skills of anyone on here! frustratingly good at times.
Ernie for PM! ( so long as he agrees we can go back into the EU!)
Sorry guys – whether you agree with him or not Ernie has the best debating skills of anyone on here!
One mans debating skills are another mans annoying near troll I suppose.
Very much this and if you look to Scotland you can see this in action!
Starting to wish I was in Scotland. 'Tone' of government is way different.
So predictable! As I wrote it I knew exactly what was coming.
I'm not surprised: you seem to know what everyone is thinking.
'Get a grip' I take to mean do what you're doing but more effectively. Is this meant to be 'opposition'?
Sorry guys – whether you agree with him or not Ernie has the best debating skills of anyone on here!
LOL
Starmer sticking the boot in again
<div class="quoted__contents">
[Johnson is] not fit for office and because he’s not fit for office, he won’t resign and the question really is for Tory members of the cabinet, Tory MPs, to ask themselves are they prepared to put up with this?
He’s not fit for office. He’s not going to be fit for office.
Are they prepared to go through the degrading of themselves and their party, to go out to the media, have to defend the indefensible for months to come?
Or are they going to actually have the courage now to challenge him and say you’re not fit for office?
</div>
One mans debating skills are another mans annoying near troll I suppose.
Yes, in reality I don't think that the Nationality and Borders Bill is a nasty and unnecessary bill which Starmer should be focusing more attention on, I was trolling. FFS
And don't talk shite TJ, I don't possess any particular 'debating skills' as you claim. I left school with grade 2 CSE, such is my lack of literary skills.
You are passing off me being occasionally spot-bollock correct with some imaginary debating skills.
If you are wrong you are wrong, all the debating skills in the world won't change that. I am a trade building worker with very basic education, if someone can't come up with a convincing counter-argument as why Starmer shouldn't be focusing more on the deeply nasty and pointless Nationality and Borders Bill, which went through parliament yesterday, then that has nothing to do with debating skills.
Starmer focused on the PM’s lying at PMQs (again) because it is costing the PM support. If he’d focused on “Nationality and Borders” instead, no one would haven been more grateful for that than the PM. It’s his safe ground when it comes to shoring up his support.
This got petty and nasty for a while.
if someone can’t come up with a convincing counter-argument as why Starmer shouldn’t be focusing more on the deeply nasty and pointless Nationality and Borders Bill, which went through parliament yesterday, then that has nothing to do with debating skills.
As for ^this, I think Keir is playing it right. Yes, this Bill is awful and needs to be effectively opposed, but to prioritise that right now means going up against a strong and unified government (on this Bill).
If Keir can use trust, integrity and Christmas parties as a lever so confidence is undermined, Tories are rebelling, the PM is under threat and the Tory majority can't be relied on, that's a much more effective way of opposing any other legislation, shirley?
And don’t talk shite TJ, I don’t possess any particular ‘debating skills’ as you claim. I left school with grade 2 CSE, such is my lack of literary skills.
Debating skills is nowt to do with literacy - and if you are shite how shite is everyone else? I assumed ( and I know....) that you had honed your skills in the revolutionary front of judea
but to prioritise that right now means going up against a strong and unified government (on this Bill).
You obviously didn't read the links that I provided, I even made a point of choosing the Guardian as a sauce.
They are not strong and united over the bill. There were over a couple of dozen Tory rebels, even Theresa May expressed reservations over the bill. One of the most outspoken critic was a former Tory cabinet member/ deputy leader.
And if right now whilst the bill is going through parliament isn't the time to prioritise it when is, in six months time?
The Labour Party might be excited about wallpaper and Christmas parties because the right-wing press also is but the Tories will still, whatever happens, be in government in 6 months time. The lost rights of refugees and asylum seekers won't be.
And remember, the reason people like David Davis are opposed to the bill isn't simply because it will deny refugees basic rights, but because it is a pointless and costly exercise that will achieve nothing, other than keep ranting Daily Mail column writers happy. Not that even they believe the bollocks that they spout.
I assumed ( and I know….) that you had honed your skills in the revolutionary front of judea
Yes the Party educated me, I won't deny that. But also don't underestimate what a semi-educated building worker can achieve with easy access to the internet and spellcheck......when it doesn't let me down 😃
choosing the Guardian as a sauce.
and spellcheck……when it doesn’t let me down 😃
😉
Who are Election Maps UK? That is an impressive 8% lead for Labour. The LibDems on 1% higher than the Greens is suspect though. If correct I can't see the LibDems taking North Shropshire next Thursday.
It’s Focal Data polling. EMUK report all election and poll results, I follow them for local politics by-elections between UK wide elections (because I’m dull) but there are great for compiling poll results as well.
On North Shropshire, I suspect the Conservatives will hold it, despite such poor attitudes towards them at the moment… because the opposition vote will be split.
if someone can’t come up with a convincing counter-argument as why Starmer shouldn’t be focusing more on the deeply nasty and pointless Nationality and Borders Bill
Perhaps because he is not against the bill. His attitude to immigration is more Tory than Labour:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/09/keir-starmer-calls-for-immigration-to-be-reduced
It’s Focal Data polling. EMUK report all election and poll results
Ah gotcha.
Well if the LibDems are polling so low and yet claiming to be in a better position than Labour to win North Shropshire then I can see a big split in the anti-Tory vote.
Although the Tories themselves will have to contend with another 4 right-wing candidates, I can see the pandemic deniers votes going to them. So the Tory vote will almost certainly spilt too. They never had to deal with so many right-wing rivals last GE
North Shropshire should be interesting that's for sure!
Edit : I have never heard of Focal Data btw.
The LibDem vote will surge. I expect Labour to come third. I grew up in Herefordshire, and any soft Tory vote in the rural border area (Shropshire/Herefordshire/Gloucestershire) will go to the LibDems. To unseat these Shire Tories we need the LibDems to sort themselves out (they are a mess right now) and Labour to give them a clean run in key seats.
and Labour to give them a clean run.
Why? According to the national poll you have just posted Labour are 34 points above the LibDems. And 2 years ago in the general election Labour received twice as many votes in North Shropshire as the LibDems did.
You want them to throw all that away to give a chance to a party that when it was a position to make a difference decided to jump into bed with the Tories and rain down austerity onto the British people?
Edit : Labour's message should be "if you don't want the Tories in power don't vote LibDem".
Because of local differences. There are areas where the LibDems can win voters off the Conservatives that Labour simply can not. Even when the LibDems are as weak as they currently are. The UK is far from homogenous. Minimising the number of Conservative MPs requires other parties to campaign smarter and make room for each other where need be. FPTP stinks, but for now we’re stuck with it, and Labour needs to recognise that. It’s one of the reasons Clive Lewis is in my top five for next Labour Leader.
Edit : Labour’s message should be “if you don’t want the Tories in power don’t vote LibDem”.
Of course there are seats where that approach just results in a Tory win. Replacing LibDem MPs with Conservative MPs after the coalition years didn’t benefit Labour (or any of us).
Well I don't see the point, from Labour's point of view, of giving credibility to a party which for the last 10 ten years has had so little credibility in the eyes of UK voters. In the last general election even its leader couldn't hold onto her seat.
One of the reasons Labour didn't win in 2010 is precisely because the anti-Tory vote was split. Helping to breath new life into a party which has done so much to discredit itself makes no sense for Labour.
I get your point about how easily Tory voters can switch to the LibDems though, that's no great surprise.
But opposing the Tories in a meaningful way requires hard work with convincing arguments - providing real alternatives, not the easy "we will say whatever you want as to say".
Problem is the brutal and reactionary sectarianism of Starmer is likely to split the Labour vote. The only saving grace is that real change is much more likely to come from the workplace, streets and community whoever presides in Downing Street. It certainly wasn't the LP who defeated the poll tax nor the NF.
Ernie, I’m sure it was you that said only the other day that Blair only won at least one of his elections because the LibDems did so well? That in some elections since then Labour won a bigger share of the vote, but didn’t get into government? Something about Blair benefiting from the vagaries of FPTP? Apologies if I’m wrong. The rural areas of the Shire border counties, just like the West Country, are nothing like the conurbations of the South East, central England or The North of England. Flipping seats to Labour there may not be impossible, but, for now, it still doesn’t look likely, even if national polling is looking better than it has for a while. If Labour go for a “win every seat” campaign at the next election, the Conservatives stand to keep their seats in these areas, if not gain more.
That in some elections since then Labour won a bigger share of the vote, but didn’t get into government? Something about Blair benefiting from the vagaries of FPTP? Apologies if I’m wrong.
No I said that. I pointed out that Blair got less votes in 2005 than Corbyn got in 2017.
It still doesn't make sense for Labour to increase the credibility of a rival party, whose vote has massively collapsed in the last 10 years by helping them to win a high profile by-election.
There is no doubt that the LibDem vote in 2010 helped to stop Ed Miliband becoming PM. But since then they are more likely to win over the disaffected Tory vote than the disaffected Labour vote. Which is great news for Labour.
The LibDems are no longer seen as a particularly anti-Tory party in the way they once were.
Labour needs to drive home the message that voting LibDem when the alternative is Labour only helps the Tories. Not suggesting that they are also an alternative to the Tories.
piemonster
Free MemberAlthough prior to ‘97 the last Labour election victory was ‘74 and that took a couple of goes.
So if they were “leading” prior to Blair they were doing a crap job of it.
For the 50 millionth time, they were absolutely leading prior to Blair, the only reason Blair became PM is that John Smith died after doing all the hard work (well, John Major did a lot of the hard work too to be fair). One of the various problems Labour has is that a lot of them have deleted key parts of the past, so "Blair made us electable" is the law and people constantly want to be another Blair, while Smith who actually achieved it (and Kinnock who took them a lot of the way there but didn't quite get across the line) are overlooked.
In more recent times…
The reason Kier is not very popular is simple, he's a bit dull and measured.
Ironicaly these are qualities that are needed in leading a government, blanced, considered, not showy or reactionary.
Someone should inform the electorate.
Just listened to his reply to Boris's statement last night. He said absolutely the right things, got some nice little digs in, but in such a dull way.
For the 50 millionth time
I'd say that anyone who cares/remembers knows this (and had Smith become PM some on here would shortly after be calling him a traitor to socialism and bigging up Benn). I could go further back to Healey losing to Foot, entryists and the grim Thatcher years. But anyway - Starmer and the long walk back to electability and, probably conditional on SNP if not libdem support, power.
In more recent times…
Do we have the poll numbers for Starmer vs Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak? 🤢
Blair got less votes in 2005 than Corbyn got in 2017
The electorate had grown by 2 million, the libdems had collapsed, and corbyn lost.
For the 50 millionth time, they were absolutely leading prior to Blair, the only reason Blair became PM is that John Smith died after doing all the hard work (well, John Major did a lot of the hard work too to be fair). One of the various problems Labour has is that a lot of them have deleted key parts of the past, so “Blair made us electable” is the law and people constantly want to be another Blair, while Smith who actually achieved it (and Kinnock who took them a lot of the way there but didn’t quite get across the line) are overlooked.
You actually didn't need to tell me any of that. Nobody learned anything there.
Although you may be overplaying Smith and under playing the effect of the Tories being in power for a very long time.
I once attended a rally for election workers/canvassers in a local hall in which John Smith, who was then Labour Leader, and Tony Blair, who was his Shadow Home Secretary, spoke.
The rally was intended as morale boost for election workers as Croydon at the time had an important Tory marginal which Labour very much needed to win. And also to provide publicity through the media.
The first to speak was Tony Blair and remember thinking to myself "why am I listening to this geezer waffling on endless about nothing when I could be doing something useful like knocking on doors or delivering leaflets". It was like listening to a sermon being delivered from a pulpit, utterly dull and easy to switch off.
Then John Smith stood up and spoke and everything changed instantly. He spoke with total passion and the atmosphere was electric. He savaged Thatcher and I particularly remember him denouncing her for saying that there was no such thing as society, which he claimed was quite the worse thing she had ever said.
The contrast between the two could not have been greater, likewise the effect on the audience.
John Smith was on the right of the party, as it was then, for sure. But that was Old Labour and there was much tolerance, and respect, between the different wings of the party, which is certainly not something that exists these days.
Furthermore the right-wing in the days of Old Labour was incomparably more left-wing than the right-wing under New Labour. Dennis Healey's policies as Chancellor would today be denounced as hard-left. Can you imagine what the media reaction would have been had Corbyn's Shadow Chancellor said, as Healey did, that he would squeeze the rich until their pips squeak?
Under Old Labour the right-wing was to the left of Labour's 2017 election manifesto.
Blair got less votes in 2005 than Corbyn got in 2017
The electorate had grown by 2 million, the libdems had collapsed and corbyn lost.
Okay ...... Blair got a smaller share of the vote in 2005 than Corbyn got in 2017.
And Corbyn losing was precisely the point.... Tony Blair was very very lucky because FPTP worked so well for him.
Btw try to remember why the LibDem vote collapsed, it's not a great unsolved mystery.
I see Starmer said tonight that it’s labour’s patriotic duty to agree with the tories. I think that confirms the suspicions many of us have.
I see Starmer said tonight that it’s labour’s patriotic duty to agree with the tories.
That's taken completely out of context and in, consequence, is misleading.
As for N Shropshire - LibDems 2-1 on, tories 6-4.
It is a tragedy that John Smith died when he did.
His imagined survival makes for an interesting timeline.
It's gone though.
