Forum menu
A 7% lead is the best opinion poll lead for Labour in about a month, the recent average lead has been about 3%
According to the swingometer that would give Labour a fantastic, 25 seat short, majority. Time to start celebrating binners...... what better news could there be than the possibility of Labour not quite winning a general election?
And the poll was conducted 28-30 March, a period which covers the news that Downing Street faces unprecedented fines for illegal activities.
Which obviously gave Labour a huge boost and explains the only 25 seat short of a majority prediction.
With increasing reluctance I vote SNP. Not sure I'd vote SNP if it enables a Keir Starmer government.
A solid chunk of lib dem votes are tactical anti labour votes. A 'progressive (sic) alliance' is a chimera and one of the ways the Labour Party dies.
Tax breaks for people on lower incomes to buy electric cars. Massively subsidise the cost of public transport.
Free/ very cheap electric car for every carer who drives for part of their job. We dont pay them enough so...
A 7% lead is the best opinion poll lead for Labour in about a month, the recent average lead has been about 3%
I don't trust polling, they get every election wrong by a margin. With this Tory government being the worst shitshow of a govt I can remember I reckon Labour are further ahead than this. Surely to Christ they are further ahead?!
They are in London. Apparently Labour has a 30% lead over the Tories in London.
That will be the metropolitan Islington trendy leftie politico types that binners despises and rants so much about ....with their allotments and grey beards.
Not like the salt of the earth clog dancing pie-eating northern types.
nickc
Full Member
I wouldn’t get too optimistic, it would still be a hung parliament I think.
I get the feeling that some on here believe that if it's not Angela Rayner and Len McCluskey leading labour at the next election then it might as well be the tories running the country anyway.
I used to live opposite the marble steps in Corbyn's constituency, it does tickle me how the people in that area are ludicrously stereotyped on here but hey, there's no accounting for folk.
I found this interesting. I realise some of you will dismiss it as 2 centrists patting each other on the back. Others will find it worthwhile.
I did listen to it and you were correct how you described it.
I still know nothing more about Starmer's attitude or his vision that might change lives in a meaningful way.
Surely to Christ they are further ahead?!
Proper street language that.
Don’t you be coming on this thread and be spoiling the mood of spirit-crushingly depressing pessimism
'Cos there's isn't anything remotely good to look forward to currently.
Lord Master Starmer is just not offering up anything to be optimistic about.
The very definition of nothing.
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1509575284911136774?t=q4mSsyB-F4JaCqq6tHQIVw&s=19
Centrism - vote for us to send a message.
I still know nothing more about Starmer’s attitude or his vision that might change lives in a meaningful way.
Surely he mentioned that his dad was a toolmaker?
Own up, who is it?
https://twitter.com/fesshole/status/1509627851875704838?s=21&t=qvxEf5_Lp7LMk5LHaOwGTg
That could be so many people on here
What was that derogatory term for STW? Same Ten .......
That's a very lofty thing for you to say.
With reference to my comment earlier :
I think argee the problem is that you are stuck in the 1980s and 90s.
This is the 21st century. The neo-liberal experiment has failed.
I have just learnt that as of tomorrow a quarter of rail operations in the UK will be run by the public sector :
https://www.therailwayhub.co.uk/63009/quarter-of-train-journeys-on-services-run-by-public-sector/
"The current situation is a sharp contrast with four years ago, when no operators were in public hands. Issues with finances or performance have led to a growth in public sector operation."
The railways failed because of the lack of profit the companies could actually make whilst running a poor service, it's one of the biggest failures this country has ever seen, and still dealing with, the liabilities that are now back in the hands of the taxpayer is not good, and probably the only reason these franchises haven't been relet.
As stated earlier, i would love us to own the railways, power, etc, but not in their current state, or at their current cost, the railways have been run into the ground in the last 30 years, they were already in a poor state prior to privatisation, it's even worse when you look at the rest of what we've sold off, how it's been asset stripped, run down or just binned.
Clearly not everything should/can be run at a profit. Run things efficiently of course as better for everyone but trying to actually make a profit make shareholders happy etc,. should not be anywhere near common services.
The railways failed because of the lack of profit the companies could actually make whilst running a poor service
An interesting, and completely wrong analysis on why rail privatisation failed. It didn't fail because the rail companes couldn't make enough money, it failed because applying market ideology to something that is inherently monopolistic is utterly f****** stupid. Same goes for the energy industry, water and a whole host of other things where the consumer doesn't have any real choice but to use these services. Privatisation of strategic infrastructure is a scam operated to enrich shareholders. That is literally it's only purpose.
Clearly not everything should/can be run at a profit. Run things efficiently of course as better for everyone but trying to actually make a profit make shareholders happy etc,. should not be anywhere near common services.
Absolutely this. There is no need.
Efficiency on spending to offer the best services by apparently allocating resources better is a complete myth for the private sector - certainly on the large scale.
And the NHS and the like doesn't need to be efficient. By design the government can afford it.
Everything is wrapped around this idea of spending money wisely because it's finite.
Sure spend well but that shouldn't be the priority - especially when the private sector does such a dismal job with public money.
In lots of ways the pandemic has accelerated the need for public services and both Labour and the Tories have their head in the sand over the future, and the required investment.
Whoever spends big now will win big later.
The future needs to be redefined and both political parties don't have the imagination or competence to take us through.
I can't street enough we are at the turning point for Thatcher's 40 year experiment - which has run its course and done the damage, and shown to be moving in the opposite direction for society's needs.
Someone needs to have the balls to stand up and make this call, and fend off our horrific establishment press.
Surely he mentioned that his dad was a toolmaker?
Yep. Think there was a lot about his mum. Fair enough.
But what are you going to do about anything Starmzy?
Same goes for the energy industry, water and a whole host of other things where the consumer doesn’t have any real choice but to use these services. Privatisation of strategic infrastructure is a scam operated to enrich shareholders. That is literally it’s only purpose.
Water particularly bothers me.
You don't actually get a choice to buy from a different service provider!
There's no market at all as far as I can tell.
Also Friday night rant - if I hear one more liberal politician say windfall tax on energy companies...
They don't need to do that. It would take ages to legislate anyway. You are actually putting a block in the way by asking for a windfall tax..
Bloody Ed Milliband and some Libdemmer going on about it.
See the problem tax is needee to pay for things causes?
Just subsidise the cost.
Surely he mentioned that his dad was a toolmaker?
Yep. Think there was a lot about his mum. Fair enough.
But what are you going to do about anything Starmzy?
Well I think you have failed to understand what Starmer is saying.
What is he going to do? ...... the answer is really quite clear.
Expect to hear a lot more of "my father was a toolmaker" as the general election approaches. When coupled with the soundbites which you posted at the top of this page...... vote Labour because Britian deserves better and vote Labour for a party on your side, the message is "Don't worry about policy, don't concern yourself with detail, I'm an average guy just like you so you can trust me to do what is best for you".
Obviously Starmer avoids mentioning that his father owned the factory where the toolmaking was going on as that would spoil the message. As would mentioning that he went to an independent school in a particularly affluent part of leafy Surrey.
On the other hand he might well mention the fact that his father was a factory owner when he's rubbing shoulders with the bods in the CBI, and he's attempting to convince them that he's on their side and will do what is best for them.
After all he is known to adjust his principles and beliefs to suit his audience.
With headlines like this :
Yahoo News: UK police to issue first 20 fines over Downing Street lockdown parties.
https://news.yahoo.com/uk-police-issue-first-20-082735756.html
And a Parliamentary Labour Party united.
This is what a Starmer leadership achieves :
The latest YouGov/Times voting intention figures show Labour narrowly in front, holding 37% of the vote (n/c from our previous survey on 23 - 24 March) to the Conservatives' 33% (-2).
So the question as previously asked, if not Starmer to lead the Labour party at the next election, who should it be, who can do what you want, whilst appealing to enough of the voters to get Labour into power? Can someone even list one name, two or three to choose from would be better, but one would do?
If there is a problem with Labour it isn't Starmer.
If Starmer was the problem he could simply be replaced.
Run things efficiently of course as better for everyone
That is problematic in itself since what does efficient mean? I can make a business far more efficient by cutting back maintenance windows or by sacking some of the staff to maximise working hours.
Which is great until the maintenance bill comes due or a major storm hits and we find the advantage of having staff not necessarily at full capacity most of the year is that when the proverbial hits the fan there are enough to respond effectively.
If there is a problem with Labour it isn’t Starmer.
If Starmer was the problem he could simply be replaced.
It's the same with all the parties though, the tories can lever Boris out, even after all his failings, Lib Dems are just tumbling, SNP are just a bit stagnant and taking hits daily just now, but Labour have a chance, and they can't seem to work out if they should get behind Starmer and take that chance, or do something different, but have no clue what that would be!
That is problematic in itself since what does efficient mean? I can make a business far more efficient by cutting back maintenance windows or by sacking some of the staff to maximise working hours.
Which is great until the maintenance bill comes due or a major storm hits and we find the advantage of having staff not necessarily at full capacity most of the year is that when the proverbial hits the fan there are enough to respond effectively.
Yeah, the first part is buying it back, then you have to appraise it, then fix it to do whatever it is you want it to do, all that costs money, time and effort, the Scottish Government are about to hit this with Scotrail, brought back in, but already throwing soundbites out about price reductions maybe not happening, so already you're getting grumblings about it, and they've not even really done anything yet, and that's simply because nationalising something has perceived benefits, and for the normal public, they're thinking of that as being cost reductions, or someone is selling them that line.
Personally, i've seen stuff sold off through privatisation, and it's always been daylight robbery, the same process over and over again, you get the appraisal for the assets, it's way under the value, those who are high up in that area/department/etc suddenly start circling shares and positions in the new structure, it gets moved over, they start selling off the 'hidden' assets (land, kit, etc that's not part of the main picture), parcelling off bits of the business and so on and so on, then you have people who become millionaires overnight, an undersold asset being sold for its market value and split up into near parcels for more profitability. Roll on a few years, the infrastructure is falling apart, the service is crap, lets renationalise it, guess what happens in 30 years time after we've brought it back to life?
but Labour have a chance, and they can’t seem to work out if they should get behind Starmer and take that chance
Really? You must be getting your news from a different source to me.
I see his position as leader completely unchallenged. Apart from very few exceptions the PLP seems solidly behind him.
Which is precisely why when you previously asked who should replace him I claimed it was a moot question.
As would mentioning that he went to an independent school in a particularly affluent part of leafy Surrey.
Yeah, I think you'll find Corbyn doesn't go out of his way to mention that he went to a private school either. But bearing in mind they were both children and didn't really have much say in the matter, it seems a bit pointless to criticise them for it. Again, like the last time you tried to blame the 2016 shadow cabinet resignations on him, this feels a little desperate. There's much to criticise Starmer for, the school which his parents chose for him probably isn't one.
it seems a bit pointless to criticise them for it.
Who is criticising them for it? I can't imagine why anyone would criticise someone for being sent to an independent school. You sound touchy, were you sent to one?
they were both children and didn’t really have much say in the matter
Do you think Starmer had much say in his father being a toolmaker? He mentions it a lot so he clearly thinks that it is an important point.
Btw Starmer was without doubt part of mass shadow cabinet resignations designed to put maximum pressure on the then leader of the Labour Party and force him to resign. If you dispute that it puts you very much at odds with the consensus among political pundits
I can’t imagine that even Starmer himself would deny it.
That is problematic in itself since what does efficient mean?
Of God yes! But to old fashioned Tories it doesn't matter. Penny pinching sits well as a virtue.
Which of course is bollocks. As balanced books my no sense in the context of a country that issues its own currency.
But to your average golf Treasurer ...
There’s much to criticise Starmer for, the school which his parents chose for him
Very small point, Corbyn did a private prep school and state grammar.
But I agree you can't do much about which school you are sent to.
It's what you do later that matters.
Well I think you have failed to understand what Starmer is saying.
What is he going to do? …… the answer is really quite clear.
It sort of doesn't interest me really. These people are media trained so you can see the sound bites scripted in advance.
The old adage people are what they do not what they say very much applies to Starmer and his deceitful mission.
Btw Starmer was without doubt part of mass shadow cabinet resignations designed to put maximum pressure on the then leader of the Labour Party and force him to resign. If you dispute that it puts you very much at odds with the consensus among political pundits
I can’t imagine that even Starmer himself would deny it.
And the reason 21 resignations occurred was due to Corbyn's poor handling of the Brexit saga, he was lampooned in the press, ridiculed in parliament and did nothing, in the minds of many, he was standing on the same side of Brexit as Johnson and Farage!
Okay so they felt they had valid reasons for doing what they did.
How does that deny the fact that they coordinated mass front bench resignations in an attempt to force the party leader to resign?
Edit : Btw that is a particular low for you to attempt to connect Corbyn with Nigel Farage. Try punching above the belt.
Edit : Btw that is a particular low for you to attempt to connect Corbyn with Nigel Farage. Try punching above the belt.
But weirdly true that the far right and far left wanted the same thing, for completely different reasons!
The Brexit vote split the party at the time, and still does, Corbyn trusted the likes of McCluskey, Murphy and Milne, and it cost him.
All you need to know about the sort of MP Starmer wants in his party. The fact that this utter **** can be in the PLP and not Corbyn speaks volumes.
https://twitter.com/solhugheswriter/status/1510200217504821249?s=21&t=DoCP0GYmrmBwKoJw5RhLmg
How do people like that get to be a MP?
The Brexit vote split the party at the time, and still does, Corbyn trusted the likes of McCluskey, Murphy and Milne, and it cost him.
Obviously that comment flies in the face of actual facts.
When Starmer was part of a coordinated mass front bench rebellion he cited brexit as the driving factor.
"Brexit has changed the challenge ahead" Starmer claimed. Corbyn's response was to make Starmer shadow brexit sec, despite the fact that he was clearly a committed remainer.
Furthermore Corbyn capitulated to Starmer's demands for a second referendum.
So Labour's policy went from fully accepting the result of the referendum and a commitment to implement it in 2017, to not accepting it and calling for a second referendum in 2019.
The electoral consequences of that policy shift, which was championed by Starmer, can be seen by how badly did in specifically leave areas in 2019 compared to 2017.
The idea that Labour's 2019 brexit policy was driven by the likes of Milne is patently absurd. Labour shadow brexit sec was clearly the man who influenced the policy.
Long after the horse has bolted Starmer obviously now accepts the electoral folly of his policy. He now agrees with Corbyn :
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/keir-starmer-brexit_uk_620a1851e4b03230246d43a2
.....he now wants to focus on 'taking advantage of the opportunities' of Brexit.
Starmer’s comments are significant because, as shadow Brexit secretary under Jeremy Corbyn, he was the architect of Labour’s support for a second EU referendum.
All you need to know about the sort of MP Starmer wants in his party. The fact that this utter **** can be in the PLP and not Corbyn speaks volumes.
I know very little about this MP, but the fact that he crossed the floor to Labour tells the story, publicly denouncing Johnson as he crossed. He'll be out at the next election, but this action has provided positive press for Labour, and ammunition to fight Johnson on.
As for Corbyn, again, i believe he has a route back provided by Starmer, but is unwilling to apologise for his comments that had him suspended from the PLP.
As for Corbyn, again, i believe he has a route back provided by Starmer, but is unwilling to apologise for his comments that had him suspended from the PLP.
Who's talking about that?