The only conclusion I have come to is that they see politics as some sort of game in which you...
Need wide support to form a government. Which means lots of compromise with people you don't agree with. A government which embraced all the polices I personally want to see enacted would gain very few seats. We can have a better government than we've had for the last decade, even if we can't have the one I want. Those people who want to vote to make a point, and not to unseat Tory MPs... that's fair enough... but assuming everyone willing to vote for better not perfect (in their eyes or yours) is either a Tory, or gullible, well, it's just the usual condescending approach this thread is full of.
Which means lots of compromise with people you don’t agree with.
Hasn’t stopped the tories has it?
The Tory party is built on compromises. People are in it, supported it, and voted for it for a wide range of reasons. Some of those people need to be persuaded to give another party a chance. Hopefully enough will at the next election.
Need wide support to form a government. Which means lots of compromise with people you don’t agree with.
Ok, so can you list some of these compromises being made by the right of the party?
well, it’s just the usual condescending approach this thread is full of.
Considering how condescending your post is it is fascinating you accuse others of it.
so can you list some of these compromises being made by the right of the party?
They’ve promised not do do anything that could be described as a traditional Labour Party policy. Funding the NHS and wider public sector, working with the unions, giving workers more rights and better pay. That sort of thing, they won’t be doing any of it, because ‘compromise’.
Which means lots of compromise
Yeah, the very latest opinion poll only gives Labour a 23% lead over the Tories, so I can see the need for further "comprises".
https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK/status/1675888375880876034
And once in government lots more "comprises" just in case the Tories win the following general election, which they probably will.
Basically it is a question of always letting the Tories and the right-wing press set the agenda.
Edit: By "comprise" we mean adopting Tory policies, right?
Starmer could insist that british newspapers are owned by british citizens that pay uk tax......but he won't.
Edit: By “comprise” we mean adopting Tory policies, right?
No, “we”, or rather “I” mean that my policies are not I ones with wide support… so, “I” (not Labour) have to be prepared to compromise on my ideal policy platform to support a possible improvement in how we are governed. I know there are people that genuinely think “things will be worse if Labour get in”, but I’m not one of them. So the choice is easy, in my seat anyway… return the scumbag Tory MP again (and our one really is)… or vote Labour. I don’t share the “they’re all the same” pessimism at all. “Not my way” doesn’t mean “not a better way”. I’m not a revolution or die person. Not a “my way or the highway” person. Compromise is baked into democracy.
On a recent Rory Stewart podcast he was saying how the vote for a soft brexit was defeated by 2 votes because remainers refused to vote for any brexit deal at all. Quite sobering information.
If starmer offered me a better brexit deal I'd be voting for him. I can't bring myself top vote for someone who defends the hard tory brexit when he doesn't have to. The man is a **** and I ****ing despise him.
No, “we”, or rather “I” mean that my policies are not I ones with wide support… so, “I” (not Labour) have to be prepared to compromise on my ideal policy platform to support a possible improvement in how we are governed. I know there are people that genuinely think “things will be worse if Labour get in”, but I’m not one of them. So the choice is easy, in my seat anyway… return the scumbag Tory MP again (and our one really is)… or vote Labour. I don’t share the “they’re all the same” pessimism at all. “Not my way” doesn’t mean “not a better way”. I’m not a revolution or die person. Not a “my way or the highway” person. Compromise is baked into democracy.
I am not sure what you are saying there but the only way I can see it described as a compromise is if Labour adopts Tory policies. If they are not adopting Tory policies where is the "compromise"?
Tory policies such as keeping the utilities privatised, low taxation for the top 5%, Universal Credit, anti-trade union legislation, maintaining the House of Lords, no universal free childcare, balanced budgets, etc.
Having policies which you actually fully support and want is not a compromise.
Compromise is baked into democracy.
Ok so once again where is the compromise?
Are all of your policies really that unpopular? A compromise would be a group trading off policies to get some sort of balance.
Your definition on the other hand seems to hand the vote and then pray.
Given the centre right handed the tories over to the loonies I am not quite sure why the compromise should be Labour gives them a new party to screw over.
The man is a * and I * despise him.
See this is the attitide i dont get, both the irrational hatred and the refusal to vote for a party solely on the leader. So you dont like his policoes or approach fair enough, but all the astericks are a bit strong. Lets leave the hate for people Brois and Mogg who really are venal self interested scum bags, theres no pretence there of having any policies pr interest in anyone other than themselves.
I really didnt like Corbyns policies or his persona, I did respect him as a politican, I thought most of his politics were far too left, but I could respect him for holding genuine beliefs. I still voted for the Labour party when he was leader as I wanted the Tories out and I could see the only realistic chance of that happening was by Labour getting in. It wasnt my ideal political result but it would have been a lot better than what followed. Thats what i meant by the idealogical purity or bust comment, some on here seem to expect to go from the total self serving chaos of the Tories to some untried and radical approach to policies. It might even be theoretically possible but it wont happen in one electoral cycle. The left moan about the right wing press etc, maybe get a Labour governmentnin and they can start to curb some of the more extreme ends of that cos it sure as well wont happen under the Tories.
None of us agoing to get what we want but that shouldnt stop us voting to move the country closer to where we would like it to be. The idealogical pure label doesn't really apply to centerists, by their very nature they are compromisers, you also cant appply it to the current right wing Tory loons unless naked personal greed and ego stroking is an idealogy.
See this is the attitide i dont get, both the irrational hatred and the refusal to vote for a party solely on the leader.
It depends on the party and how much influence they have over it. Lets take the next election where potential labour mps are being selected based on loyalty to Starmer.
Or, of course, Johnson. Given the mps voted for him that rules any of them out for getting my vote.
Thats what i meant by the idealogical purity or bust comment, some on here seem to expect to go from the total self serving chaos of the Tories to some untried and radical approach to policies
This is a strawman. Whilst some are advocating radical policies most people are suggesting that just some vaguely left wing policies might be a good idea rather than keeping the current policies going.
The idealogical pure label doesn’t really apply to centerists, by their very nature they are compromisers
Sorry but this is simply wrong.
Of course it depends on the definition of "centrist" but if we take the example of new labour. The "third way" took more traditionally (if by tradition we go back to the 80s) right wing economic policy and traditionally left wing social policies and so is considered centrist. However many if not all were very ideological about those positions and unwilling to compromise them.
If starmer offered me a better brexit deal I’d be voting for him.
Starmer can't offer you a better Brexit deal any more than he can offer you a different ending to World War 1. Brexit has happened. We have Brexited. It's shit.
It’s damn easy to hate Tories but it’s slightly trickier hold your own party at arm’s length.
You should try it. Plenty of us managed it under Corbyn.
Starmer can’t offer you a better Brexit deal any more than he can offer you a different ending to World War 1. Brexit has happened. We have Brexited. It’s shit.
Starmer can absolutely decide what kind of post Brexit relationship he wants with the EU.
Ok so once again where is the compromise?
I’ve already explained. But here’s an example…
None of us agoing to get what we want but that shouldnt stop us voting to move the country closer to where we would like it to be.
We come from very different political positions, but both saw that voting Labour at the last election was the best option.
Lots of words above, but the big hitters who I really listen to on this thread still slip towards saying Starmer is basically a Tory.
So, I'm doubly happy with my choice to switch my vote from Labour to someone else.
Thanks for clarifying and helping me make my mind up. Keep up the good work, though.
I'm going to advocate for other people to do the same. That way we will definitely end up with the kind of socialist government we want.
👍
I’ve already explained. But here’s an example…
I was asking about how it was baked into democracy. By which I would expect items such as whilst free schools meals cant be done we can offer milk instead.
Or for example saying whilst no quick way back into the EU that brexit was a mistake.
Whereas your idea of compromise is just getting to vote for the least worse option in the hope it will move politics slightly your way.
I’ve already explained. But here’s an example…
None of us agoing to get what we want but that shouldnt stop us voting to move the country closer to where we would like it to be.
That is not an example of compromise. It is simply restating the alledged need for compromise.
How about actual examples of compromise, ie, adopting policies which Labour would rather not have to adopt? And since you claim that this doesn't involve adopting Tory policies it would be handy if the example(s) aren't Tory policies.
The left moan about the right wing press etc, maybe get a Labour governmentnin and they can start to curb some of the more extreme ends of that cos it sure as well wont happen under the Tories.
And it sure as hell won't happen under a New Labour/New Labour on Steroids government❗
If you are serious about curbing the power of right-wing press barons you are going to need a government led by a radical such as Corbyn, which you reject. Why do you think they were terrified of Corbyn becoming PM?!?
A Blair-Starmer type PM is just going to roll on their back and let the press barons like Murdoch tickle their tummy. And then celebrate the fact that they are allowed to write articles for them. ffs
adopting policies which Labour would rather not have to adopt?
I’m not speaking for Labour. But about the need to compromise my/your/our own personal political wants to best effect a change of government. It’s for Labour to decide what they can do, and how to persuade the public to give them a chance.
Some policies I want the UK to have that Labour aren’t likely to be offering at the next election?
Universal Basic Income, EU Membership, end charging for Education, public ownership of key infrastructure.
Will I let that stop me seeing that returning a Labour MP instead of Tory MP in this seat would be better for us here and the UK as a whole? No.
Libdem or Greens for me. That'll see us right. 👍
*pops head around the door*
I see the revolution is going well then….
Carry on….
Universal Basic Income, EU Membership, end charging for Education, public ownership of key infrastructure.
Well it's a bit of a negative stance to focus on what Labour aren't offering but yeah, that brings them in line with what the Tories are also not offering.
My point about compromise being just another way of saying adopting Tory policies still stands.
In the case of not abolishing tuition fees and not nationalising gas, water, and electricity, which brings them in line with the Tories, these aren't even vote losing policies so there is clearly no need for "compromise" on those issues to win the next general election.
The U-turn on tuition fees is an interesting one as Starmer has broken convention and decided to do a U-turn on the issue before even winning the general election.
Admittedly Starmer is still apparently committed to nationalisation the railways but that is also interesting as the Tories are currently doing precisely that - nationalising the railways. Despite desperately trying for decades keeping the railways privately owned isn't feasible, so again that more or else brings Starmer in line with the Tories.
Is the next general election really going to be just down to who is the more competent Tory?
*pops head around the door*
LOL! "Pops" ..... who are you kidding binners?!? It has long been obvious that you closely follow this thread! You are however quite incapable of contributing anything to political threads beyond hyperbolic rants, which isn't really appropriate for you when the subject matter is Starmer.
It is different when the subject matter is Sunak, or Johnson, or Braverman, or Truss, then you can rant to your heart's content.
On the Starmer thread you are reduced to pretending that you aren't interested and posting the occasional picture 😃
In the case of not abolishing tuition fees and not nationalising gas, water, and electricity, which brings them in line with the Tories, these aren’t even vote losing policies so there is clearly no need for “compromise” on those issues to win the next general election.
When asked about any individual nationalisation, the public say they want them. Offer them all up, and what happens?
Your sticky position is that Labour have moved their policies since 2019 and have (apparently) gained the support of more voters. Especially in the seats they need to win off the Tories. You believe that moving some major policies back wouldn’t result in a change of polling/voting fortunes. You might be right. But that’s a big gamble for those tasked with getting Labour out of opposition (rather than just chewing the fat on the internet).
Yes, much of the public are sick of the results of privatisation. And yet keep voting in the Tories. 🤷🏻♂️
When asked about any individual nationalisation, the public say they want them. Offer them all up, and what happens?
They still want it, that's what happens. Even the Daily Mail can't ignore that fact:
To nationalise or not to nationalise might be the most important issue on people's minds but there is no evidence at all that nationalisation of the utilities is unpopular with voters.
In fact the reverse is true - there is significant evidence that nationalisation of the utilities is very popular with voters.
You miss the point. Ask the public if they support nationalisation of any key infrastructure, and they say yes. Offer them a programme of mass nationalisation and they turn out to vote Tory and stop it.
Labour can still lose this. A believable (by people not on the Left) policy platform is essential to not being on the opposition benches, yet again, watching the UK burn.
Remember '92 - untold years of Tory rule, Major scraping a majority, despite the 'bastards'?
If Blair is going to be held up as a failure - let it be judged against what came before.
If nothing else, the political structure of the Labour Party is inherently more democratic - our more hardened brethren ^above have obviously lost their faith, but Keir can't become a Man of Steel overnight.
Well I think it is you that is missing the point Kelvin. There is no evidence at all that people vote Tory to specifically stop nationalisation, just some evidence that it might not be the most important issue on most voters minds.
Do you even hear yourself?
There is no evidence at all that people eat honey to specifically become bees, just some evidence that it tastes good on voters tongues.
When talking specifically about policy and high level approaches, not mentioning political party, most people I have ever talked to about it are on the side of fairness and those that aren't even seem to realise themselves that they are selfish. Those fair policies tend to be traditionally left rather than right.
Corbyn was on right track and was popular at first but he clearly was not the right person and that is one thing that ruined it. Another was that when you offer people big change (even for the better) they don't believe it and think something is up. It is like a mass brainwashing over 40 years and fighting against that is almost impossible.
Probably start with 1 or 2 really big things that you can repeat and are simple to explain for the next 12 months. What are Starmers 1 or 2 big positive changes?
Universal Basic Income, EU Membership, end charging for Education, public ownership of key infrastructure.
And all of those have obvious compromise options between the level you want and the tory approach.
Your sticky position is that Labour have moved their policies since 2019 and have (apparently) gained the support of more voters.
Correlation doesnt mean causation. I would be rather surprised if you could show a strong link between Starmer throw away policy of the day and a shift in the polls. As opposed to tories doing something even more insane.
That Starmer doesnt get the same individual lead over Sunak as Labour does over the tories suggests it isnt overly down to his policies.
You might be right. But that’s a big gamble for those tasked with getting Labour out of opposition
And its also a major gamble to assume that if you pitch your policies to the tories then nontories will continue to vote for you.
Probably start with 1 or 2 really big things that you can repeat and are simple to explain for the next 12 months. What are Starmers 1 or 2 big positive changes?
I agree with this, for two reasons.
First, the Corbyn campaign suffered from presenting a cavalcade of increasingly ambitious and less-considered policies to the point of it being seen as magical assortment of implausible promises. The Tories otoh have always been good with banging over and over with 1 or 3 policies (or even just slogans). This is entirely a question of presentation.
Second, Starmer just hasn't put out a graspable vision of how Labour will radically improve ordinary people's lives. This is partly presentation and partly substance...
It's a bit surprising that people are still banging on about Corbyn's radicalism. In European terms his policies were middle of the road and fully costed but he was sunk by militant supporters of apartheid.
Anyway, all this rightward drift jockeying for privilege and power will make little difference, maybe different colour ties, maybe not. Change will only come from organised labour like the doctors, teachers, nurses, posties, Amazon workers etc. If you are disappointed with Starmer U-turning now, just wait till he's in No. 10.
Second, Starmer just hasn’t put out a graspable vision of how Labour will radically improve ordinary people’s lives. This is partly presentation and partly substance…
I think its on purpose. I think, unless you're exposed to them, it's hard to overstate just how pilloried Labour are in the tabloids every single day of the week, and have to put with "Where's the money coming from for that?" in a daily way that the Tories never ever have to do. I mean, I read only last week in a Red Top use of the "There's no money left, sorry" joke note as an explanation for why inflation is so high.
Plus also all the things that'll need fixing (That Labour will have to fix, naturally, otherwise the Tabloids and the Tories won't ever STFU about it) will cost so much money I can see the headline that'll accuse Labour of outright failure and wasteful with Mrs Miggins hard earned taxes if we're only shin deep in shit on the beach rather than the knee deep it would've been had the Tories stayed in power. repeat that over and over again for Railways, the NHS, Education...Plus of course; Brexit. any teeny hint that Labour might reverse, hell, just even relaxing anything to do with Brexit will just be months of screaming "Betrayal" headlines, and non-stop shite from the Tories at PMQ for the next 3-4 years.
Yeah, I can see why if you're Starmer, keeping your mouth shut while you're so far ahead in the polls feels like a great strategy
*pops head around the door*
FFS man, a rare outbreak of actual discussion and here you are posting pictures. Can you remember at school how there was always that one annoying idiot disrupting the lessons and calling people swots etc? Well on this thread that's you. Have a think?
First, the Corbyn campaign suffered from presenting a cavalcade of increasingly ambitious and less-considered policies to the point of it being seen as magical assortment of implausible promises.
The thing is, if you paid attention to the timescales and qualification around those policies, they made a lot of sense. But all the public heard was a form of "everything, everywhere, all at once", ignoring that many of the announcements were about things that either wouldn't start 'till a second or third term, or would start very small and build up. And here is the problem... you can talk about the big long term progress needed, but come an election many voters can only see as far as the end of their nose. This is where Labour's decarbonisation policies will come under attack and risk losing the voters come an election... it's going to be a hard sell, despite all the evidence around us about the damaging effects of the status quo. The election isn't going to be the plain sailing the polls suggest. And Labour won't be offering the same as the Tories, even if that is the claim that some people have been repeating repeatedly in this thread for years now. Defending the changes proposed, and the cost of them, is going to be hard.
And its also a major gamble to assume that if you pitch your policies to the tories then nontories will continue to vote for you.
Absolutely true. But remember, Labour have to win seats, not just weigh votes, to form a government. Gaining support in the small towns and surrounding areas of England might not even be possible without losing some support in the cities. Demographics play a big role here. Remember who Labour need to not frighten off if they are to win seats outside London, Manchester etc.
FFS man, a rare outbreak of actual discussion and here you are posting pictures. Can you remember at school how there was always that one annoying idiot disrupting the lessons and calling people swots etc? Well on this thread that’s you. Have a think?
Busy policing everyone else to think like he does. It's telling that he has nothing useful to say about Starmer.
Also - the general theme of 'compromise' ? WTF - The Tories never compromise, so how weak are the 'left' these days that they have no values or direction. At worst inheriting Tory economic 'purity' that the private sector funds the public sector.
You'd think that with the shit slinging in the Tory threads that being of the left might be an obvious solution full of obvious answers. But not this lot who will do whatever they can to defend the ground Starmer walks on.
The current Labour party have low standards and aspirations. Tories don't - they at least have the balls to do what they want to. No one calls them out for being ideologically pure or impure.
Absolutely true. But remember, Labour have to win seats, not just weigh votes, to form a government. Gaining support in the small towns and surrounding areas of England might not even be possible without losing some support in the cities. Demographics play a big role here. Remember who Labour need to not frighten off if they are to win seats outside London, Manchester etc.
Is it really not in the electorate's voting interest for the Labour to have and sell policies to the dysfunctional state of the UK?
Second, Starmer just hasn’t put out a graspable vision of how Labour will radically improve ordinary people’s lives. This is partly presentation and partly substance…
Well exactly. He doesn't have any - he's a coward too scared to change things.
Oh ****ing hell - daft cow Kate Andrew's on QT tonight. The BBC, and her terrible ill-informed Wall Street analysis of the UK's problems seem to be a match made in heaven these days. Starmer had her would get on a treat.
Early bed then.
<p style="text-align: left;">I bet Starmer and Reeve are dead chuffed with themselves being invited to Murdoch's parties. They would see that as rite de passage to power.</p>
A Murdoch-schmoozing, cowardly, u-turning, Tory liar?
I'm super glad I'm not voting Labour this time around.
But they wouldn't be seen dead on a nurses' picket line.
The idealogical pure label doesn’t really apply to centerists, by their very nature they are compromisers, you also cant appply it to the current right wing Tory loons unless naked personal greed and ego stroking is an idealogy.
Centristism is whatever the right-wing media supports.
And that's an utterly uncompromising form of British nationalism.
The lack of compromise was demonstrated by their response to Corbyn and some mild, vaguely socialist, policies.
Like the media; centrists love business, Thatercherite individualism, the military, monarchy, Israel, and anything with a union jack - as long as it's not too obviously racist.
It's instinctively right-wing and conservative.
This will be the next UK Government, irrespective of party.