Forum menu
Not sure your theory really flies…
I'm open to other suggestions on how to get Labour (and by extension the Tories) to move Left again.
Unless you don't want them to?
I sometimes forget that 10 years ago this place was probably 50/50 Labour and Tory. Many of the same people are still here but very few would ever admit to being a Tory. Did these voters leave the Tories or did the Tories leave these voters?
I guess for many former Tory voters Labour must look pretty good right about now.
According to the polls Labour are looking good to a lot of people right now. The same was true of Theresa May's Tories. How did that pan out?
I’m open to other suggestions on how to get Labour (and by extension the Tories) to move Left again.
I wouldn't waste your time. Most people don't know whether a policy is left or right wing.
How did that pan out?
Young people came out and voted because they finally felt they had something to vote for. In the aftermath the Tories were dragged to the left with promises of increased spending and support because Labour had successfully moved left.
I wouldn’t waste your time.
It's very lazy of me, but I tend to use Left to mean policies not dreamt up by sociopathic entitled scumbags. There may be a better shorthand term I could use.
I wouldn’t waste your time. Most people don’t know whether a policy is left or right wing.
Of course most people don't know, because most people are pretty stupid and more so when dealing with politics which is why populism works.
It doesn't really matter to me whether a policy or approach is considered right or left wing - I just pick the ones I think are right which coincidentally tend to be left wing policies.
If the tory party ever come up with a policy I agree with I will happily admit I agree with it.
According to the polls Labour are looking good to a lot of people right now. The same was true of Theresa May’s Tories.
Not just right now, for the last couple of years. And for the last year Labour's lead over the Tories has been absolutely huge, at least comparable to 1997.
The only reason that Rishi Sunak didn't call a general election and seek a fresh 5 year mandate is precisely because he knows that margin of error for opinion polls aren't that great.
The opinion polls in 2017 weren't wrong (beyond the accepted margin of error) they were correct at the time they taken. It is just that voters in the final weeks of campaigning changed their minds, one opinion poll even put Labour in front.
It is widely accepted that this sudden change in voting intentions was the result of Labour's election manifesto.
It is of course possible that the Tories will at the last minute pull a rabbit out of the hat and confound 2 years of opinion polls. But how feasible do you think that is?
What do you think that their vote-winning election manifesto might contain? The Tories are spent. They have nothing left to save them. Even their desperate attempts to ignite a culture war has been nothing more than a damp squib.
Short of fabricating a dangerous confrontation with Russia they stand no chance of winning the next general election. Although I do believe that realistically the Labour lead over the Tories on election day will closer than the polls are currently showing.
I don't believe for a minute that the whole country will have a sudden brain fart and decide to continue 13 or 14 years of Tory rape and pillage consciously but there's likely a long way to go to an election, ge results have more to do with the leader's popularity than the party's, and as Bruce points out it doesn't actually take a great number to swing things. People can piss and moan about Labour not being Labour enough, but plenty of people held their noses and voted for Labour under Corbyn. Anyone looking for the perfect match in a political party before they vote for it and expect that party to achieve power is going to be disappointed, again.
The next general election really isn't a long way away, in all likelihood less than a year away.
For it to swing in the Tories favour would need something dramatic to happen with the economy. Which is both beyond the control of Rishi Sunak and very unlikely to happen.
Actually the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict will very likely have negative global economic consequences. Sunak might yet regret not calling for a ceasefire.
Anyone looking for the perfect match in a political party before they vote for it and expect that party to achieve power is going to be disappointed, again.
I was wondering when the accusations of ideological purity would be trotted out.
The problem with Starmers relentless chasing of the centre right vote is he is looking a pretty perfect match for them and hence a crap choice for anyone who is centre left to left.
Voting is like choosing bike tyres, whatever decision you make will involve compromise.
It doesn't however mean that fit for purpose isn't a consideration.
I wouldn't necessarily choose a bulletproof commute tyre for my club run road bike. And vice versa.
No accusation, just an observation. The left of Labour tried in recent history, twice, and failed. I did also suggest that if it is considered that Labour wasn't left enough someone one should start a party with the purpose of pulling them, and the discourse in general that way as Bruce reflected that ukip did for the right.
It should also be pointed out that since the last Labour government, the right of labour have also failed twice.
And here we hit FPTP and why the centrists love it. Even if they then whine about the consequences of it and blame everyone but themselves.
Centrists introduced PR in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and London. It has resulted in continuous centrist government in all of those places except NI, where a cross-aisle coalition was in power until it all fell apart. That's probably more of a reflection of NI politics than the voting system.
Why do the biggest critics of FPTP and Westminster politics want to ignore the non-Westminster governmemts and the PR that is already widely used in the UK?
The left of Labour tried in recent history, twice, and failed.
I have long argued of the total futility of the Left trying to use the modern-day Labour Party as a vehicle for change.
For a moment in 2015-18 I thought that I might possibly be proven wrong. But even I could not have predicted stuff like this:
The Left's single greatest enemy is the Tory Party's Fifth Column.
Centrists introduced PR in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and London. It has resulted in continuous centrist government in all of those places except NI
Giving all the credit to the centrists is a bit special. That was when labour was still a broad church and not the Starmer ideological pure approach. The centrists though did remove the Jenkins review from play.
It is also notable how much more to the left the policies, as far as allowed by the restrictions, the policies of both the SNP and Welsh Labour are compared to whats being offered by Starmer.
Why do the biggest critics of FPTP and Westminster politics want to ignore the non-Westminster governmemts and the PR that is already widely used in the UK?
If you think really, really hard I am sure it will come to you.
It should also be pointed out that since the last Labour government, the right of labour have also failed twice
Fair! 😀
I reckon the main reason Boris Johnson is so hated on here is that he was so popular with normal people. The sort of people many on this forum sneer at and look down on. Obviously you won’t find those people on here, because they can’t afford 5k bikes, campervans or expensive watches, so it reinforces the elitist prejudice that is openly on display on this forum.<br /><br />
What, people like me, brought up working class in a council house, failed the 11+ so went to a secondary modern, never went to college or Uni, except as part of job training. All my cars have been second hand and cheap, except my current one, and it took until I was in my 60’s to afford that.
And I think BoJo was a posh snob, a bully, who thought that using Latin made the little people doff their cloth caps in deference.
He’s an asshole. Have I poked enough holes in your stupid classicist theory?
If you think really, really hard I am sure it will come to you
Admittedly I'm being disingenuous by phrasing it as a question when we all know the answer: it's because they live in provincial England and don't care to know about how the rest of the country works, or because they just ignore inconvenient facts because it doesn't fit with their worldview.
or because they just ignore inconvenient facts because it doesn’t fit with their worldview.
And wrong as usual. I suspect you are, as usual, projecting your failings onto others. You might want to get out of London and speak to people in those areas and see how, deliberately, limited they are and how FPTP still really, really matters/
If we are going for rhetorical questions. Why if variants of PR was good enough for the new parliaments and assemblies did Straw and co kill a heavily watered down variant for Westminster.
Been stewing on that for a while have you?
Why if variants of PR was good enough for the new parliaments and assemblies did Straw and co kill a heavily watered down variant for Westminster.
Because it was a con that was never supposed to concentrate enough power on to one party to allow a working majority government. Labour expected to be constantly in government in some form or another and didnt anticipate being annihilated by the SNP (aided by their own hubris).
It was never supposed to have teeth. But as Jeff said, nature finds a way.
Sure Starmer is now desperately trying to backtrack because weirdly he didn’t expect the current backlash to his claim that Israel had the right to cut off water, a war crime, as he now lies and pretends that he meant something else.
This makes me ashamed to be British, almost expected from the tories, but very disapointed in Labour and Starmer..............
This makes me ashamed to be British, almost expected from the tories, but very disapointed in Labour and Starmer…………..
Careful, that sort of post will get you banned. We're not allowed to talk about the murder of civilians. At least not in that part of the world. Fill your boots on the Ukraine thread though.
No one is talking about the murder of civilians. What was mentioned is that Sir Keir Starmer, King's Counsel, and former DDP, publicly declared support for breaking international law and now, unconvincingly to many people, claims that he meant something different to what he actually said.
Whether a country should or should not abide with international law is not a controversial issue. Even Israel claims to only act within international law.
I could've sworn Sheepy Lammy claimed that international law was a latter of opinion.
I could’ve sworn Sheepy Lammy claimed that international law was a latter of opinion.
Bit like his second job.
Rachel Reeves getting ticked off for her new book pillaging Wikipedia articles ... just like her effing economic ideas.
I can definitely sense a tonal change in Labour's distance from the Tories as competent Leaders - ebbing away.
When you're committing genocide is a 'humanitarian pause' a bit like a fag break?
Keir Starmer needs to apologise, retract his comments and stop the gaslighting of Muslims
A pro-Starmer NEC member waved “good riddance” to a Muslim Oxford councillor, also an NHS doctor who worked through the pandemic, describing her as “barely Labour” and a “hack”.
And an unnamed party official allegedly responded to Muslims resigning by telling Jewish News political editor Lee Harpin that Labour was “shaking off the fleas”.
What a dehumanising way to talk about Muslim members!
Keir Starmer is doing his best to lose the next election
A pro-Starmer NEC member waved “good riddance” to a Muslim Oxford councillor, also an NHS doctor who worked through the pandemic, describing her as “barely Labour” and a “hack”.
Called six people that. That one was Muslim is only the key point if you’re picking anything to fit your story (not you somafunk, the writer of that piece). I’ll dig out the tweet/x…
https://twitter.com/lukeakehurst/status/1715452353904550364?s=20
I was gutted about brilliant Oxford Labour councillors Shaista and Amar resigning last week. But good riddance to these 6 ineffective Momentum hacks. They were never Labour, always Momentum.
Shoddy shitty stuff, but it isn’t an attack aimed at just a Muslim councillor.
Can’t comment on the fleas nonsense, as no real details, but again if it was referring to “Muslims” rather than a number of candidates of many faiths and none, I’d be surprised (and disgusted).
Keir Starmer is doing his best to lose the next election
That sort of stuff should matter but can't see it making a massive difference to how people vote as 99% of probably not even aware of it.
Starmer commissioned Martin Forde KC to investigate sexism and racism within the Labour Party. The conclusion Forde came to was that islamophobia, as well as racism, is widespread within the Labour Party:
You might want to get out of London
lol!
how FPTP still really, really matters/
Because it's been such a magic bullet in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and London?
Starmer is looking pretty isolated on this. Would be highly ironic if his unwavering support for Israeli war crimes was his undoing.
unwavering support for Israeli war crimes
Jesus.
His line on Israeli action is out of step with much of his party, and he’s clearly trying (and failing) to show a cross party UK, USA and EU consensus on Israeli action (urging restraint, not declaring anything and everything done to go after Hamas as a war crime).
I suppose you missed him saying that Israel had the right to starve and deny basic humanitarian needs to civilian refugees? And that’s even without his support for indiscriminate bombing of civilian neighbourhoods.
I saw/heard the clip. His answer to the question about whether Israel can defend itself was clearly wrong. It can, but it shouldn’t use those tactics.
Going after Hamas without hitting civilian neighbourhoods is impossible. For that reason I don’t think they should even try. I suspect many in Israel want “something done” though, after the recent terror attacks and continued rocket attacks. Easy from back here, where we feel safe in comparison, to say step back and do nothing… leave them bedded in and preparing to attack again.
Would be highly ironic if his unwavering support for Israeli war crimes was his undoing.
The problem for Starmer is that he simply didn't expect such strong opposition from within his own party.
And he had reason not to have expected it, he has preformed a multitude of U-turns and whatever the outcry and disappointment within the Labour Party he has simply sat back and waited for it to die down.
However he didn't calculate that this is different. This is no longer about politics, it is about common humanity and saving innocent lives.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the conflict the now thousands of children that have been killed by bombardment were innocent. And tomorrow morning (Israel tends to strike Gaza at night) there will be more dead innocent people.
Growing opposition within the Labour Party is because it isn't necessary (Israel is not about to be overrun by Gaza) and because with every day that passes the death toll increases by a horrific rate.
However he didn’t calculate that this is different. This is no longer about politics, it is about common humanity and saving innocent lives.
Blair had the same problem with Iraq. Whether Starmer likes it or not labour members and supporters will never be able to bring themselves to wilfully ignore the killing of innocents, whatever the supposed justification. He needs to recognise that he leads a party which for better or worse actually cares about the lives and security of other people. This isn't a game.
It's astonishing how much Starmer has positioned himself on the wrong side of half decent values, without even being in power.
It really is a good job the Tories are so awful otherwise he'd have been totally irrelevant.
It really is a good job the Tories are so awful otherwise he’d have been totally irrelevant.
Agree. He is offering nothing other than a method to get rid of a tory party that after 13 years even the voters can see how bad they are.
Starmer is just trying to always say what he thinks he should say rather than what is right or wrong. Trying to mirror the tory party when trying to do the right thing is not a good start.
H
Agree. He is offering nothing other than a method to get rid of a tory party that after 13 years even the voters can see how bad they are.
That's it in a nutshell.
Although your average working class tory, 50+ bloke with a terrified timid little wife. They've seen it all, done it all and have been right about everything since birth. It's like speaking to the same bloke, the same tropes about organised homeless gangs. They've all got a useless brother-in-law on 500 quid a week benefits. Everything's fine, it's just these woke lefties and lazy millennials exaggerating problems that don't exist in their hard working (retired/semi retired) pulling your socks up world!
It’s astonishing how much Starmer has positioned himself on....
IMO it would be naive to believe that Starmer is his own man who positions himself based on personally held beliefs.
Starmer really isn't a politician, he is a lawyer. Don't be fooled into thinking that he actually believes what he says.
Whatever case he makes, whatever argument he puts forward, is based on what circumstances dictate. When Corbyn was Labour leader Starmer was happy to make the case for a radical alternative to the Tories and spout left-wing slogans.
Now his brief has changed and he is happy to make the case for conservative fiscal prudence. Different circumstances, different arguments.
But because Starmer is not a conviction politician motivated by passionately held views he has to rely on others to tell him what to believe and what positions to take.
Labour Together is a think tank within the Labour Party which is powerful enough to dictate policy and strategy to Starmer, but secret enough that, unlike say Momentum, most people have never heard of. Labour Together don't even seem to have a Wikipedia entry.
Starmer also relies on a couple of individuals for day-to-day advice. Such as David Evans his general secretary and almost certainly the main driver behind the purges and expulsions which have come to characterise Starmer's time as leader.
Another individual is Steve Reed who is very likely the one who has pushed Starmer to take an aggressive pro-Israeli anti-Palestinian line.
You will note that Starmer often comments several days after an event has made the headlines, the lawyer needs time to discuss the issues before deciding what argument he should make.
A recent example of that is the interview he gave to LBC when he claimed that Israel has the right to cut water supplies to Gaza. The comment caused an immediate outcry, not least because as a lawyer he would have known that it is a war crime, but it was at least a couple of days before he decided to claim that he had been misrepresented.
A point which he would have made straight away if he hadn't needed to discuss it with anyone.
Edit: Starmer's 10 Pledges "based on the moral case for socialism" will have been written by Labour Together who were behind his candidacy - in fact they pressurised him into standing.
if he hadn’t needed to discuss it with anyone
As any political leader should. You don’t run a government by locking yourself in your head.
The man is (I hope) preparing for the most difficult job in UK politics… not a polemic on GB News or Press TV.
Starmer really isn’t a politician, he is a lawyer. Don’t be fooled into thinking that he actually believes what he says.
Absolutely not! But he still positions himself where believes the votes will go rather than what is often sensible and pragmatic.
No different to Johnson but less gobby.
You will note that Starmer often comments several days after an event has made the headlines, the lawyer needs time to discuss the issues before deciding what argument he should make.
Definitely noticed this.