Forum menu
TJ stated he voted for them in the past, but as he’s in Scotland he’s backing the SNP,
Never voted SNP in my life - never said I have. I find them too centralizing and controlling and their actions over wildlife crime are deplorable. ( although now they have got rid of F Ewing there might be a shift)
Scottish labour is a different set of issues to english labour. Its the Bain principle and their only policy being SNP baaaaaaad along with an absurd absolutist position on the constitution ( although Sarwar has made a few tentative moves away from this; Scottish labour are also significantly to the right of English labour IMO. there is plenty to attack the SNP on but they constantly pick the wrong issues. their line should be not "SNP baaaaad" on everything but " SNP policy good but does not go far enough" and they need to engage constructively at holyrood rather than sulk on the back benches
SNP would happily do a supply and confidence deal with labour and will allways vote down a tory government so the idea that SNP taking scots seats means no labour government is just not in accordence with the electoral calculus
BTW - polls vary - last one I saw was an 11 pt lead for labour
As for your “boring details” that report is about what would happen if there were no UK MPs for Scotland
It shows rather more than that and was just the simplest way of showing what votes what where but hey ho.
Another point on scottish labour - at the last but one GE they ran a pact with the tories against the SNP which resulted in the tories gaining enough seats that May was able to form a government. without that pact May would not have been able to form a government and Brexit would never have happened
There is a Scottish diimension to allthis that to me is more important than what happens at Westminster and the tories are a poor third in my constituency for westminster.
the simplest way of showing what votes what where but hey ho
Before 2015.
BTW – polls vary – last one I saw was an 11 pt lead for labour
Yes they do. Since the first week of February there have been 2 polls giving Labour a double digit lead, one 10% and one 11%, all the others, dozens of them, give Labour single digit leads. The last two both give Labour a 6% lead, which is probably higher than the average for the last couple of months.
In contrast to the national situation Labour have about a 30% lead over the Tories in London, which it has to be remembered is not automatically always Labour territory - Johnson was twice elected mayor in London-wide polls.
In Croydon, which has mostly been under Tory control, Labour is expected to actually increase its vote as it is swept along a tide of London-wide anti-Tory feelings. Despite Croydon's Labour group bankrupting the council with harebrained policies, dodgy missing £millions which is being investigated by the Met Police, and a scandal which hit the national media when Croydon council were found to have council tenants living in conditions which a farmer could expect to be prosecuted if he kept pigs living in the same conditions.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-60291877
I love how the BBC have used a photo of Freddie Mercury to illustrate an article about corruption in Croydon Council
#SpuriousLinks
I don't claim to speak for all Labour voters - and I have voted Labour in the past, I moved to the UK in 1995 and generally voted Labour - mostly because I only ever voted for women back then, and if there was only one woman on the voting paper, she was never a Tory. (I accidently voted for Tommy Sheridan once in the early days of MMP up here - the ballot paper had no women so I voted for the smaller parties to encourage them. Oops). Things are much better up in Scotland now with a very gender balanced parliament.
I couldn't vote for Labour under Corbyn I just didn't agree with him, and not high-jacking this thread on that. I may vote for Labour under Starmer but that is two years away. Local elections are very "local" around here and the local lib dem guy is big on cycling so he will definitely get my vote.
I understand the connection implied that Starmer supporters are not "real Labour voters" and again I don't claim to speak for all, but it is not true in my case. I will never understand not wanting Labour to win unless it it your guy - is that Trumpism? I should probably stay out of this thread I know when I am outgunned, just my reflections....
Replacing Starmer is pointless, the problem is much deeper than that. Otherwise the PLP wouldn’t be so satisfied with his leadership, which they very clearly are.
I do agree with this. The westminster labour party is dysfunctional and has forgotton its purpose and roots. Not as badly as the scottish party but its not great. Its only the absence of anything at all realistic as a alternative that gets them votes
The solution for the Labour Party is the same for the country. More transparency, greater devolution of power and influence, and a functioning democracy. The Labour Party has all the structures already to make this happen, but it won’t because labour MPs and staffers despise the membership. The PLP thinks less democracy, not more, is the answer. The result is an out of touch PLP and leadership who listen more to lobbyists and establishment influencers than the people they seek to represent. It’s little wonder they struggle to get people to vote for them.
Yes they do. Since the first week of February there have been,,,,,,,,,,,
Interesting - I had not known that stuff about London
You mean that you didn't know about this TJ?
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/labour-conservatives-keir-starmer_uk_622f178de4b0d1329e879ff3
The Labour lead in London has actually been higher than that, a few months ago Labour had a 32% lead in London.
And bear in mind that not long ago huge chunks of London were LibDem territory, until Nick Clegg swung the party to the right and screwed them.
Agree dazh. Labour PLP are happy with the status quo.
I think greater devolution of power should be Labour's number 1 policy.
Lots of Green and Plaid posters in windows in my area. More than Tory or Labour!
Yeah Opinium improved their methodology over 2 months ago to provide a more accurate picture. As your link points out :
"many Conservative voters are moving to undecided (and being excluded from the headline vote share figure), which is a big part of the reason for the recent Labour leads"
They have done quite a few polls in the last couple of months so any percentage changes now is no longer because of a "new" methodology.
I think other pollsters tweaked their methodology too. Tory voters going undecided reflects the fact that Labour isn't winning them over, they are being alienated by Johnson.
Pollsters are reasonably assuming that they will simply return back to the Tories when the general election comes, as they appear uninspired by Labour.
On the one hand none of this is a suprise to me but it must be to Starmer who thought that if he just eradicated Corbyn and removed actual left-wing 'policies' - he would romp home.
All that said I am surprised that the Tory vote has been so robust. I suppose many world events make it too complex for the average Tory voter to simply move across to Labour. After all they knew in their heart of hearts Johnson isn't particularly skillful.
And let's face it another more ruthless Tory leader is just waiting in the wings. Johnson is simply a fall guy.
Remainiacs podcast won't know how to react to this.
Maybe soon Labour can offer an actual way out for people to get behind?
Too many eggs in the Sue Gray basket.
Starmer should know there's a whole desperate world out there that isn't affected by Partygate that sorely needs help - and not PMQ exchanges as solutions to current issues.
I think you are expecting far too much from Starmer and the PLP. Their goal isn't to change the world, they would rather not win elections than embrace radical policies which are significantly different to the Tories.
IMO you are more likely to see the Tories going off-piste because they aren't burden by the fear of being accused of being radical, in fact they are likely to relish it.
The PLP on the other hand prefer the reassuring safety that the status quo provides.
I think you are expecting far too much from Starmer and the PLP. Their goal isn’t to change the world, they would rather not win elections than embrace radical policies which are significantly different to the Tories.
Other than - they do believe what they do is a path to victory.
I think you are expecting far too much from Starmer and the PLP. Their goal isn’t to change the world, they would rather not win elections than embrace radical policies which are significantly different to the Tories.
He has clearly announced his 10 pledges https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/, with pretty much all of the key policies in the 2019 manifesto being kept, we're over 2 years from an election, so i wouldn't expect any meat on the bones for these yet, so what other radical policies do you expect him to embrace?
Also, again regarding the opinion poll, talking about how Starmer isn't endearing himself to those unsure tories, not many tories switch to voting labour, i'd expect a jump in Lib Dem numbers, which there isn't, so it's just re-polling a couple of points of those uncertain tories back into the tory camp.
so i wouldn’t expect any meat on the bones for these yet, so what other radical policies do you expect him to embrace?
There's no consistency between those pledges and interviews when Starmer avoids anything requiring state funding or ownership.
In fact those pledges are so loose they could mean anything.
I got confused by the 'illegal wars' bit. 'Legal wars' are ok are they? What about journalists who expose war crimes? 'Push power away'...clearly not written by a bot.
I got confused by the ‘illegal wars’ bit. ‘Legal wars’ are ok are they?
Think this focuses on the Iraq invasion, and the process against the UN Resolution that covered this.
In fact those pledges are so loose they could mean anything.
For single paragraphs, those pledges seem to contain a good amount of information, you also need to differentiate between what he is saying now, against the current backdrop, and these pledges. If Labour come into power under Starmer, then he will be held against these pledges, which are on his website, and clearly worded in the main, with descriptive examples for each.
If Labour come into power under Starmer, then he will be held against these pledges, which are on his website, and clearly worded in the main, with descriptive examples for each.
Given the current state of politics I don't think anyone holding anyone to account runs these days.
Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water
And yet this one, this really big one -- has masses of ambiguity attached to it.
Nothing clearly worded about it.
You want to have a crack at what it means because Starmer ducks and dives the issue of nationalisation.
These pledges are simply lazy marketing.
If Labour come into power under Starmer, then he will be held against these pledges,
No he won't, he will just use the centrist mantra "now is not the time" and find an excuse to kick them into them long grass.
'Starmer: I’m ready to break pledges to make Labour electable' (Independent)
No he won’t, he will just use the centrist mantra “now is not the time” and find an excuse to kick them into them long grass.
In one.
Starmer: I’m ready to break pledges to make Labour electable’ (Independent)
Oh yeah that too!
I'm ready to break pledges to be 2 clicks ahead.
Why would you vote for someone just because they wanted to get elected? I always thought everyone who stood wanted to get elected.
I’m ready to break pledges
Surely not. That would make as much of a liar and hypocrite as Boris Johnson. I don't believe it.
Only if you’re a big fan of using false equivalence to try and wash the reputation of our beloved Brexit delivering PM.
This thread really does remind me of arguing about religion, no matter what Starmer states or says, it's put into a negative way, even those pledges, in black and white, on his website and signed are not good enough, as with religion, if only he had the initials JC he'd be way more believable 😂
no matter what Starmer states or says, it’s put into a negative way, even those pledges, in black and white, on his website and signed are not good enough,
Certainly not in my case - I think those 10 pledges are absolutely excellent, which is precisely why I regularly post them on this thread.
They are concise, direct, easy to grasp, and provide a genuine alternative to Tory policies.
Starmer just needs to keep arguing for what he believes in. There is very little in those 10 pledges that the majority of people wouldn't see as commonsense.
Looks like there’s an even harder route back to the party for Corbyn now 😳
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61210585.amp
Who cares?
Oops wrong thread!
This thread really does remind me of arguing about religion, no matter what Starmer states or says, it’s put into a negative way, even those pledges, in black and white, on his website and signed are not good enough, as with religion, if only he had the initials JC he’d be way more believable
Following a neoliberal line in a collapsing neoliberal economy is completely counter-intuitive.
And for the JC comment - he was saddled with a tax and spend chancellor so all is not compatible with the way the monetary system operates in this country to deliver the best economic outcomes.
Unless we break tax and spend (with the likes of the ridiculous windfall rubbish on energy companies) we are designed to fail again and again.
This leaves an opening each time for the kings for the spin of the free market - the Tories.
We can do nuance if we want? (Or you could just explain what common ownership might mean in the context of energy.)
Who cares?
He cares because when Starmer doesn't cut it, it's easy to go back to giving Corbyn a hard time rather than holding the current leader to account.
Amazing.
Whats he done now? Declared the allotment an independent nation state and formed an alliance with Putin
Oh....
Who cares?
How remarkably shortsighted.
I couldn't give a monkeys about Corbyn. He created the mess that he now finds himself in.
The issue here however is that Starmer and the Right are laying the groundwork to exclude anyone who is opposed to NATO from the party, something which Tony Blair in his wildest dreams could not have imagined possible.
And if opposition to NATO is grounds for exclusion from the party then it is perfectly logical to extend that same principal to another much cherished institution which provides the backbone to our democratic society - the monarchy.
Can republicanism have a place when patriotism is so important during a time of international tension and turmoil? Surely these people who insult Her Majesty should be kicked out of the party?
And what about that thousand year old institution in our ancient and globally admired mother of all parliaments, the House of Lords?
Or any other issue which contradicts the stance taken by the Leader of the Party? Surely there is no place for people with such disloyalty?
The latest development with regards to Corbyn simply shows how willing Starmer is to move the goal posts to wherever he feels it is necessary, to silence opposition.
I couldn’t give a monkeys about Corbyn. He created the mess that he now finds himself in.
same here, hence, Who cares?
NATO was signed into being by Atlee. I'm not surprised the Labour party take a dim view of those that oppose it.
NATO was signed into being by Atlee. I’m not surprised the Labour party take a dim view of those that oppose it.
LOL! We have now reached the point where something has to be supported because it was Labour Party policy 70 years ago!!
Dinosaurs!!
Yeah, like the NHS I guess?