Forum menu
No it isn't, you are absolutely right, this thread is about the leader of the Labour Party in Westminster.
Which is why I asked you who had the most left-wing manifestos in the 2017 and 2019 Westminster elections after you claimed that over the last 10 years the SNP has moved well to the left of Labour.
I am not sure that you can discount 4 years out of the last 10 as irrelevant.
this is not the thread for the minutiae of scots politics.
Which is lucky for our SNP-supporting friends, as the SNP doesn't seem to have updated their policies since about early 2016!
https://www.snp.org/policy-area/economy/
“It is mathematically impossible”.
Ehh, that's bobbins when the number of voters fell, fair enough.
this is not the thread for the minutiae of scots politics.
Just mention Corbyn and binners will be along to thread police it back to his safe spot.
Talking of Corbyn, he was in Scotland the other day and he's decided he's in favour of IndyRef 2. Which is a change from when he was leader, when he was against it. Which was a change from before he was leader, when he was for it. Corbyn took Labour from 1 Scottish MP to 7 Scottish MPs (2017) to 2 (2019). Shambles.
Good thing Sir Keir of Starmerville doesn't change his mind about important policy issues so lightly, or isn't so unpopular in Scotland... 🩴🩴🩴
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-calls-future-labour-30780434
https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,jeremy-corbyn-attacks-snp-over-unwanted-and-unnecessary-independence-vote_7211.htm
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/06/08/sir-keir-starmer-ed-miliband-scotland-claims-north-sea-oil/
Talking of Corbyn, he was in Scotland the other day and he’s decided he’s in favour of IndyRef 2. Which is a change from when he was leader, when he was against it. Which was a change from before he was leader, when he was for it.
You appear to have totally misunderstood the role of the leader of the Labour Party, which isn't entirely surprising given the behaviour of recent Labour leaders.
It is not the role of the Labour leader to only espouse policies which he or she personally supports. He or she is there to make the case for policies which have been democratically decided upon.
If Corbyn had previously supported a second Scottish independence referendum but the majority of Labour members were opposed to it, it would have been wholly unacceptable for him, as you suggest, to have argued in favour.
He is now no longer Labour Party leader so he can now freely express his personal views on the issue. Don't slag him off for respecting the democratic will of party members, there are plenty of other genuine reasons for slagging him off.
Including apparently his continued support for IndyRef2. Constitutional referendums are at best a once in a generation event, you can't keep having them every few years until you get the exact result which you particularly want, and then stop having them, ffs.
Schools are crumbling, rercruitment and retention are in crisis and the LP's response? Reading around the class, games of chess and getting primary kids to clean their teeth. Inspirational!
Including apparently his continued support for IndyRef2. Constitutional referendums are at best a once in a generation event, you can’t keep having them every few years until you get the exact result which you particularly want, and then stop having them, ffs.
Seems to work ok for the Swiss.
Sort of.
I tend to believe that if a party has a referendum in its election manifesto and it subsequently becomes the government then the referendum should go ahead.
Anyway, there should be a special thread for Scottish politics
What like a separate one?
Independent of this one?
I don't follow Swiss politics closely but I believe that their referendums mainly concern legislative issues, I don't think the 26 cantons regularly hold referendums on whether they should be independent of the Swiss Confederation.
I tend to believe that if a party has a referendum in its election manifesto and it subsequently becomes the government then the referendum should go ahead.
And yet many people believe that David Cameron should never have honoured his election manifesto commitment to hold a referendum.
Anyway the Tories didn't get much in the way of the usual party conference bounce this week .
https://twitter.com/wethinkpolling/status/1710294002036007077
I expect that Labour will manage much better than that next week.
It's pretty bloody disheartening to see that 28% of voters would still vote Tory at this point. It truly makes your wonder what they would have to do to at make them vote LibDem/ Green* if not Labour?
Kill off around 200k people? Nah.
Ensure a lot of the Tory demographic die before receiving medical treatment? Nah.
Build on a field near their house or threaten the triple lock pension? Yep. That'll do it.
*I jest. No way are Tory voters going to vote Green.
It’s pretty bloody disheartening to see that 28% of voters would still vote Tory at this point.
I always wonder that. What have the tory party done or are planning to do that makes people think, yes that is the best option.
And with news of highest taxation, highest number of immigrants and so on you would think the set tory voter would turn away at that point but I suppose they have no where to go and just can't vote for other parties as none are close to their fundamental beliefs although Starmer is trying.
Anyway the Tories didn’t get much in the way of the usual party conference bounce this week
I don't know why any of the parties bother these days. It's just an opportunity for voters to see the evident confusion in policy when parties announce the grand go-ahead on projects that were completed years ago and on projects that were cancelled by them six months ago. The voters realise from the ovations that none of the attendees understand this either and that these people vote for our leadership candidates
It’s pretty bloody disheartening to see that 28% of voters would still vote Tory at this point
Because lots of people aren't really into politics and don't really watch the news or pay attention to this stuff. They have their "team" and that's who they vote for when they're asked (If they can be bothered) It wouldn't ever occur to some folks to either look at manifestos, change their vote or anything.
This website tends to have a load of threads that just show most live in a bubble away from the realities of the UK, and wider planet, there's a reason they've been in power so much over the last generation, and the real demographics in the UK tend to always favour them. Why do 28% still vote Tory, it's simple, they are aligned to their principles, they always will be, there is probably more than 28%, but a few % will always complain and say something different in a poll, but the minute they're actually voting, it's only ever going to be tory.
The next election will be tight, forget all these opinion polls up to the month of the election, there's a lot more that'll happen to swing voters, i tend to see the UK as similar to the US with Labour/Tories, if Labour get a bad feel before the election, then a lot of voters just sit it out and don't vote, which costs labour seats, whereas tories are like republicans, they will complain, moan and whinge, but always vote.
I expect that Labour will manage much better than that next week.
That shouldn't be difficult, it's a stunningly low bar!
there’s a reason they’ve been in power so much over the last generation, and the real demographics in the UK tend to always favour them
You are making "real" do a lot of work there. I think its rather more accurate to use a "biased voting system" favours them and a rather unbalanced press.
Why do 28% still vote Tory, it’s simple, they are aligned to their principles
Which doesnt really work when you look at how the tory principles change.
whereas tories are like republicans, they will complain, moan and whinge, but always vote.
Interesting you use another country with a rather unbalanced voting system. A cursory look at the voting numbers in the US doesnt really support this claim although it does support the dubious voting system argument.
Plus a similar dependency on those seats which are filled with people claiming not to rely on the state whilst massively relying on the state.
I don’t know why any of the parties bother these days.
Wasnt it really meant more as a jolly/get together for the party faithful and, for the lib dems and labour, a chance to vote on party policy?
I don’t know why any of the parties bother these days. It’s just an opportunity for voters to see the evident confusion in policy when......
Times have changed. There was a time when Conservative Party Conferences were highly stage managed events, devoid of any real political debate and simply an opportunity to parade Tory policies before loyal party members, many of whom knew more about baking cakes than about politics.
In contrast Labour Party Conferences were an example of democracy in action, with intense political debates igniting great passion and all sorts of bartering and compromises resulting in among other things "composite resolutions" .... exactly the sort of chaotic scenes which you would expect in a highly democratic environment where everyone has the right to both an opinion and to be heard, accumulating in a final great show of unity, as everyone together sung a rousing rendition of the Red Flag before bringing the Conference to a conclusion.
Today as a result of the failure of the neoliberal experiment the Conservatives are ideologically rudderless, they are no longer certain what they should believe in. This inevitably results in constant contradictions, from the Liz Truss mini budget to HS2. It obviously becomes apparent at their Party Conferences.
And today as a result of the New Labour years Labour Party Conferences have degenerated into grotesque stage managed events where dissent is not tolerated, see the manhandling of Walter Wolfgang as a classic example, and its primary purpose is to provide a platform for the party leader, who then, with his adoring wife by his side, preforms the laborious task of shaking hands with adoring party members, USA style.
This is an interesting slant on how politics is "done" and how/why the main parties become so similar... https://theconversation.com/ed-balls-and-george-osbornes-new-podcast-is-essential-listening-but-not-for-the-reasons-they-think-214747
Somewhere along the way Neoliberalism became the accepted way of running the UK's economics. And it was believed that if only done correctly it would work very well for all of us.
Trouble is very little of Neoliberal economics is supported by data. For instance probably all of us on here would agree trickle down is a failure but it's still the way we operate, and going forward even with a Labour government it will still be the model despite Starmer calling it a piss-take.
Most Neoliberal economics, and Monetary policy is built on nothing other than a wealthy person's version of society. So for instance there is no data for the BoE to support that fact that interest rates actually do anything useful for controlling inflation and - it's their number one tool. And has in fact worked in the opposite way - certainly in the US where's it's equivalent to a budget deficit of 6% more than normal. Trillions into the economy. I wonder why adding trillions to an economy doesn't slow supply based inflation? (That would correct itself eventually.)
Something will break if they keep going for sure - but not currently. After all inflation control is to try and use unemployment as the buffer stock to control it. Rotten, messed up logic
The point I'm getting at is nothing is coming along to replace the current model - Labour talk reform rather than spending and the Tories think tax cuts.
We're stuck as I see it. No one willing to make the decisions we desperately need to properly fix and fund things because of a failed and outmoded understanding of the economy that only serves the circular and parasiticial markets, and Tory pals
Somewhere along the way Neoliberalism became the accepted way
No it didnt, our economic management has evolved to this point due to societal change and what the wealthy will allow. Where we are is far from perfect but a great deal better than 100 years ago which was better than 200 years ago. What you continue to propose is also completely untested and would require a revolution rather than continued evolution. That wont be allowed to happen due to those pesky markets, the fact the world is a global economy and people arent ready for such a change. The electorate is not capable of dealing with complex issues or ready for the results, Brexit proved that.
Truss tried to do something different and look where that got us.
I do agree raising interest rates is not an appropriate tool for resolving our current inflation isues and the fact Sunak thinks halving inflation is a good thing shows how little the electorate understands economics. To have a similar standard of living to a few years ago we need deflation or huge wage rises which will be inflationary.
I thought this was quite a funny quote:
Conservative Party chairman Greg Hands said: “We all know Keir Starmer won’t tell us his plans if he becomes prime minister because he’s afraid of losing votes, and he changes his position to whatever he thinks people want to hear.
“Our country faces an important choice: Rishi Sunak, who will make the hard but necessary long-term decisions to get the country on the right path for the future, or Sir Keir Starmer, who is just like the same old politicians that have come before – always focused on the short-term and lacking the backbone to make the big changes Britain needs.”
Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/keir-starmer-labour-nhs-b2425988.html
It's almost like Starmer is following in Corbyns footsteps to electoral oblivion. Same mistakes... Sitting on the fence for too long will only get you knocked off the fence...
Corbyn tried that trick with brexit by keeping shtumm and it turned out he was a hard core racist brexiteer to rival the likes of Jacob rees Mogg, but granted, for very different ideological reasons.
We need open policy and statements of intent from PMs in waiting, and all MP's for that matter.
Not tactical fence sitting, or Escher style vocal gymnastics.
Say what you mean, and mean what you say...
It's not rocket science.
John McDonnell piece in Guardian yesterday said the same. Starmer actually needs to tell people, clearly, what he is planning to do. Having no clear idea of what he is actually going to be doing can cause voters to just switch off.
See what comes out this week as so far from any interviews I have seen with him it is not clear at all what differences he will try and make and I follow these thongs a bit closer than the average "I don't really do politics" voter.
'Corbyn was a hard core racist,' fascinating stuff, can you provide us with some evidence of this?
Corbyn tried that trick with brexit by keeping shtumm and it turned out he was a hard core racist brexiteer
Corbyn has always been a Brexiteer. He's also been too cosy with racists and anti-Semites, but despite these two things, I don't actually think he's a racist. He is not very bright (which is why he doesn't see the subtext of graffiti of big-nosed bankers dividing up the world, or why laying flowers at a PLO graveyard when you don't speal Arabic and don't know who's buried there is not a good idea), and he is also quite smug (which means he never admits he was wrong or over looked something, and thinks that being proved right is an important thing). Corbyn also has an incredibly simplistic view of the world where his enemy's enemy probably has quite a few good points (which is why he's been so happy to work for the Iranian government, favour nationalist terrorists in NI, and share platforms with "friends" from Hamas etc).
Truss tried to do something different and look where that got us.
I’m not sure it was different, more the same old discredited supply side economics that have been shown not to work.
Well, the conservatives are a bunch of *'s
Labour are a bunch of *'s
So my vote with the Lib dems or the greens, just by default.
I find it really offensive when people say 'you have to vote labour to keep the tories out' - it's just perpetuating the cycle of abuse...
..the voting public are in an abusive relationship with MP's.
I'm very bad at making good points, but why should I vote for something shit? I won't. I'll vote for a party I think can actually make a difference.
And that's not Labour, and it sure as hell isn't the conservatives.
I always wonder that. What have the tory party done or are planning to do that makes people think, yes that is the best option.
And with news of highest taxation, highest number of immigrants and so on you would think the set tory voter would turn away at that point
In any given batch of Vox pops the nearest thing to support for the tory policy you'll hear the phrase 'the other lot would be worse'. So how ever badly Tory policies are working out for the country or for them personally they don't see change as the answer. They're people who can't look at how bad things and think how they could be better, but instead more readily imagine how they'd be worse. These are the people the tory party are playing to when they blurt out all the 'you''l be forced to share 7 bins within a 15 minute radius' crap.
Truss tried to do something different and look where that got us.
She didnt really. She just ran standard policies but just at max speed. If it hadnt been for the pension funds running dubious new strategies which were prone to sudden shocks she probably would have got away with it.
As for keeping with what we have, ermmm, look where that has got us.
Your lets compare against 100 years ago misses the changes in the middle and how things have been dropping again.
I find it really offensive when people say ‘you have to vote labour to keep the tories out
Prepare to be offended 😁.
but why should I vote for something shit? I won’t. I’ll vote for a party I think can actually make a difference.
And that’s not Labour,
I feel the same way about the Lib Dems, but would vote for a Lib Dem candidate in the GE in a Tory/Lib Dem marginal to get the Tory out. If you don't vote Labour in a Tory/Lab marginal, you're helping the Tories to stay in power.
We may not like it (I hate it) but this is what we have to do until we get PR. Which will never ever happen under the Tories.
We may not like it (I hate it) but this is what we have to do until we get PR. Which will never ever happen under the Tories.
I don't hear Labour being supportive for PR either. The parties it would help are green, lib dems, whatever UKIP are now called. Tories and Labour don't need it.
Tories and Labour don’t need it.
Until the election after next , when the scumbags will oust labour with yet more hatred politics.
@kerley, I’m pretty sure it was voted for at the last Labour conference.
However there’s nothing more likely to mobilise the Conservative vote than the idea that if they don’t vote this time then this will probably be the last ever Conservative government.
Until the election after next , when the scumbags will oust labour with yet more hatred politics.
Even then though FPTP gives the centrists outsized power on the left. So some are happy to have the tories in power in return for them occasionally getting it.
Why do 28% still vote Tory, it’s simple, they are aligned to their principles, they always will be
Not really. Most people don't know what Tory principles are, or even their own. Most people are in favour of "taxing fat cats" for example but most people also don't know that Tories are ideologically opposed to that.
If we had to learn about basic politics in school the Tory vote would collapse.
Not really. Most people don’t know what Tory principles are, or even their own.
This. And it's why we have all the dross at the conference. Their actual ideology is pretty indefensible.
Somewhere along the way principles have been doomed in favour of so called centric pragmatism. But pragmatism is still apparently to carry on as we are with the shit that goes with it.
Political pragmatism would actually be to take control of failed private ownership of many services and bolster those that are crumbling. That would be true pragmatism but neither party at biting.
I've said it many times by way of example you can let the government pay for your water services or you can reap the bigger bills as an individual for failed utilities and skim cash to shareholders.
If we had to learn about basic politics in school the Tory vote would collapse.
In the latest poll of 18 - 24 weren't just 1% said to be voting tory? That would suggest it is not the people coming out of school. The strong tory voting age is mid 40's onwards when what was taught at school is long forgotten and people have their own money and prejudices well formed so tory seems like the answer for them.
i.e. an 18 year old probably cares a lot less about immigration than the average 60 year old.
She didnt really. She just ran standard policies but just at max speed. If it hadnt been for the pension funds running dubious new strategies which were prone to sudden shocks she probably would have got away with it.
Absolutely this.
Truss has become a catch all for 'crashed the economy' which is fine for anti-Tory sentiment but is total misunderstanding of a complex economic situation.
She's was out of step with the BoE (that shouldn't happen she should have been technically allowed to carry out her wishes) - and leverage in the markets is a problem always waiting to happen.
The pound crashing - well it pretty much recovered a few days later and arguably the pound should be weak to reflect general poor economic stability.
It mostly gets bought back up. It's currently weak again. That's the point of a floating currency.
Truss didn't really try anything solidly different - she stormed on with more neoliberal nonsense when having just come out of a pandemic - we needed stability. Growth doesn't come from tax cuts anyway that's her main error.
But this needs flipping around, if a progressive government does want to enact change - bond vigilantes and the BoE shouldn't be able to get in the way.
There has to be some big ripples if we want a better society, along with much push back of a systems that doesn't really serve us. Blaming Truss for interest rate rises is total misinformation - that was already underway with your central bank - with both political parties making a blessing of the BoE's mandate.
https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1710934231063433653?t=uz9NNnwAi2z9j5-VKwF0Xw&s=19
Delusional.
You can't carbon copy the Tories approach to the economy (growth comes magically from the private sector to pay for the public sector) and not expect the same results.
He still cannot articulate where the growth comes from - because he can't.
Don't rip-off faulty economic ideas from the Tories - would be a useful tip.
Daunting. What's his issue with setting a better narrative ?
Isn’t the definition of Keynesian economics stimulating growth by funding public services and infrastructure? 🤔
Also, crap transport infrastructure outside London and underinvestment in the health service (with resulting long waiting lists) are brakes on growth.
I think we’re going to end up with a Labour government next time round because people want any change rather than because they’ve a compelling/exciting offer (unlike eg. 1997).