Forum menu
that’s not be really happening though starmer is creeping back up as Sunak continues to sink
Your graph is on one specific question, keeping promises (I mean, if you are struggling to beat Sunak on keeping promises then just throw in the towel).
Overall net favourability paints a different picture:
I thought last night’s QT started well
My mum was in the audience. Fame (by association at least) at last
Then I fell asleep, tbh.
So did I, don't tell her.
Ernie you're at again although this time you're having a pop at MCTD this time. As for people needing to get in the real world I think it's you who could with stepping away from the keyboard and getting a breath of fresh air.
We can see how passionate you are about the palestinian's terrible situation but unfortunately that's not typical of the average voter. If they really knew what was going on they might be quite horrified but most won't be following it in any detail and will be significantly more worried about issues that directly affect them at home. That's human nature, even more so in post Brexit, post Johnson times. Arguing anything else isn't really very credible.
I am not generally a massive fan of Guardian editorials, and there are a couple of points which in this one which I might not totally agree with, but it does imo make quite a few very good points, eg
There is also a lesson here for Labour’s Sir Keir Starmer. He ought to rethink his strategy of adopting positions unpopular with his party’s base under the cover of big poll leads. In trying to duck an embarrassing vote, Labour increased the chances of Sir Lindsay being replaced by a speaker from the Tory benches.
and the fact that like a growing number of people I believe in a free democratic and secular Palestine
You know that if secular Palestinians tried to set this up, one of the forces against them would be Hamas, right?
? was this sarcasm??
The SNP motion and amendments from Gov and Lab all included a ceasefire, different interpretations and conditions certainly, but when you're in the middle of a conflict you only care that it stops.
A complete vote by MPs would be a stronger signal here and elsewhere than complete farce
Also what’s Hoyle on about with a Terrorist attack?
I suspect he’s referring to 22 March 2017.
But a number of attacks have been stopped since then.
My comment abou you saying weird stuff was prompted by
I am absolutely certain that, initially at least, Starmer was extremely pleased with himself concerning how things had panned out with the SNP ceasefire motion.
His number one priority was clearly to avoid a damaging split over the ceasefire vote, that was obviously the most important thing to him.
He might regret his shenanigans now though, see the Guardian editorial above. Or maybe not.
Hope you don't mind more weird stuff from me 🙂
You know that if secular Palestinians tried to set this up, one of the forces against them would be Hamas, right?
Yes I do. What is the point you trying to make?
Is it connected to Starmer's position on the ceasefire?
Anyway, I’m out….can’t argue with people who believe you should hold Labour politicians to a higher standard than Tory….you should hold all politicians to the same standard
Correct and that should be a high one.
The ones who seem to disagree are the starmerites who take the approach that when the tories do dodgy things its bad but when the glorious leader does its just politics.
What is the point you trying to make?
That your position (a secular Palestine) is fantasy. What would you see as a realistic goal?
Claims about fantasy and impossibility are all about maintaining the status quo and it's the status quo that is the cause of the strife. I think most well-adjusted adults can live in a secular democracy without one ethnic group dominating. A 'Palestinian' state would be very much like a bantustan and anyway the Israeli aim seems to be genocide and expulsion and refusal of a two-state 'solution'.
Also what’s Hoyle on about with a Terrorist attack?
Guy Fawkes?
Guy Fawkes?
Let's not give the scrotes around here another excuse to let fireworks off.
As for Israel and Palestine, as you’re one of the people who thinks Israel shouldn’t exist at all as a homeland for the Jewish people
That's some slur. Nobody on this thread has denied the right of Israel to exist. Many of us simply want to see Palestinians afforded the same rights of sovereignty as anyone else. Rights currently being denied by a fascistic genocidal regime.
You know that if secular Palestinians tried to set this up, one of the forces against them would be Hamas, right?
Israel has been systematically destroying any chance of democracy existing in Palestine for years. The ensuing power vacuum has allowed the Hamas extremists to take control. This has suited the Israeli regime very well; it gives them excuses to further deny Palestinians human rights. If a secular moderate Palestinian National Authority were to emerge, it would expose Hamas as dangerous extremists and opponents to peace, and de-legitimise them in the eyes of the majority of Palestinian people. But the Israeli regime don't want that, as their ams are clearly to wipe Palestine and its people of the face of the Earth.
Ultimately, I think an internationally recognised Palestinian state is the only fair way out of this mess.
It is. I think we are closer to that happening than before October 7th. Ironically, it's the Israeli regime and military's actions which have brought this eventuality closer. It's now clear that Western leaders have finally succumbed to political pressure, and are calling for a ceasefire. Israel is now increasingly seen as a pariah globally, and this is affecting the economy there. I stated way back at the start of this conflict, that what will ultimately dictate how this plays out, will the be inevitable effect on the flow of money. Even Kier Starmer has now been forced to admit that Israel have gone too far. And he will have to cede to Labour's stated aim of wanting a two state solution. If Israel is to survive, it has to bow to global pressure and cease the genocide. Any leader here has to ensure they are on the right side of history. Starmer now knows that continuing to fail to support a ceasefire would be political suicide. He's still only u-turning now for political reasons, but at least it's a start.
That your position (a secular Palestine) is fantasy. What would you see as a realistic goal?
But that has nothing to do with Keir Starmer and all the shenanigans that went on with regards to a ceasefire vote.
The SNP motion had nothing to do with providing a long-term solution for Palestine. It was purely about the senseless and horrific slaughter of innocent civilians right now.
As the call which is chanted by hundreds of thousands of people at the demos across the UK and the world says.....What do we want?.... CEASEFIRE!.....and when do we want it?.....NOW!
Perhaps another time we will discuss why you think that a free democratic and secular Palestine, for all Palestinian Jews, Muslims, Christians, and those without any faith, is unachievable.
And how the actions of successive zionist governments have driven the Palestinian people away from the secular PLO and into the arms of Hamas.
The Red team is meant to be the pathway to hope – it’s done nothing of sort and has gotten much worse recently.
The labour party have essentially become the same as the US Democrats. They're no longer an instrument of change in the interests of working people, now they're just a cynical and soulless political machine whose only purpose is the pursuit, acquisition and retention of power. And we wonder why people are apathetic and disengaged with politics?
I think when looking at politics -it's a bit like charts for the stock market (bear with me.) On a micro level you can see all this little crazy movements in price. You can dissect these little choppy price movements daily as good or bad reflections of value but it often doesn't reflect the state of things accurately.
But if you zoom out and look at the macro trend over a bigger timeframe you see the overall trend. The long term position.
If we zoom out and look at the big picture I see a dire downward trending style of ideology that simply does not serve people or the greater benefit of society.
There is no avoiding it, and there is nothing currently nothing to stop it.
There is no long term push back. I don't know how we can't come to this conclusion.
We came to this because that is what those who gain from it the most are those in control. Very little has been done for the good of society. But then most people (society as a whole) reject socialism, which is pit simply all about the good of society as the primary objective, without asking themselves why they are rejecting it.
But then most people (society as a whole) reject socialism, which is pit simply all about the good of society as the primary objective, without asking themselves why they are rejecting it.
True, and yeah they might hate what they think of as an abstraction of socialism but ask them if they hate the NHS. (Although the machine is underway to take care of that.)
They should hate Neoliberalism to a greater degree because that's what most of us have experienced. But then Neoliberalism is about making you feel grateful for a pitance.
We came to this because that is what those who gain from it the most are those in control. Very little has been done for the good of society. But then most people (society as a whole) reject socialism, which is pit simply all about the good of society as the primary objective, without asking themselves why they are rejecting it.
It's rejected because it's never really worked, as an ideology it's great, the problem is it falls apart, probably worse than capitalism, when you add in the people element.
Hoyle, whose father was instrumental in the creation of ‘Friends of Israel’ in the UK.
I have only just realised that Lindsay Hoyle is the son of Doug Hoyle - I have no idea why I hadn't figured that out, especially as it's an unusual surname!
Yeah it turns out that the Speaker's dad was important in setting up Labour Friends of Israel, so probably not totally unbiased over the issue of condemning Israel.
And whilst I agree that Zionism is a racist political ideology it is most certainly not confined to Jews, you get plenty of Christian Zionists and even Muslim Zionists, and of course atheist Zionists.
Please, just give it a rest. This thread is about Sir Kier Starmer.
Yes and Keir Starmer is a major supporter of a zionist govt which has slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent people, many of them children. I'd say Zionism is a relevant subject to discuss on this thread in that context.
I rather think that discussing Kier Starmer and Labour right now, without mentioning /Israel,Gaza and the current genocide, is pretty much impossible. Especially as the topic du jour is the unholy mess in the Commons regarding the recent vote for a ceasefire.
It’s rejected because it’s never really worked, as an ideology it’s great, the problem is it falls apart, probably worse than capitalism, when you add in the people element.
A rather simplistic, flawed and naive view, but I do agree that (some) people are the root cause in the failure of Socialism to actually be properly implemented. But this has nothing to do with the ideology, and everything to do with Capitalist interests and the structures of power in our society. Socialism by its very nature, threatens those traditional power structures and ruling elites, so it's no surprise that such have made enormous efforts to ensure socialism can never succeed.
Please, just give it a rest. This thread is about Sir Kier Starmer.
Well talk about him! 😃
Politico lists 27 (and counting) key walkbacks in Starmers spell as opposition leader,
https://www.politico.eu/article/keir-starmer-labour-party-uk-election-u-turns/
Oh we're back - good, plenty to discuss.
It’s rejected because it’s never really worked
Depends what you mean by socialism. If you're talking about the authoritarian version where the state controls the means of production, then no it doesn't work for all the reason history has shown us. If however you mean a govt that implements socialist policies, then it's been massively successful across much of the west and various other places. Stuff like the NHS, social housing, workers rights and decent pay, the welfare state, state funded education, progressive taxation and wealth redistribution etc are wildly popular socialist policies which even the most right wing govts have struggled to dismantle since they were implemented in the postwar years.
The right would like to pretend that anyone who is left leaning is a crazy trot who wants to see gulags, mass reditions of the red flag and a revival of the KGB. And many on this forum (we know who they are) are happy to do the right's work for them by perpetuating this ridiculous stereotype. The reality though is that hardly anyone is like that. I don't want to see the state taking over the means of production and dictating to everyone what they should do and demanding loyalty to the red flag, but I do want to see socialist policies like those above implemented, as do many others who would never describe themselves as socialists.
ill just leave this here
https://twitter.com/GdnPolitics/status/1761442252386386296?t=GXaVuHOxIj3_lVsTuW2ORQ&s=19
as for favourability
that graphs is up to dec 23
since then hes picked up some, im not going to pretend hes taylor swift popular, onvs
I couldn't agree more, me and Lynch are from the same stable.
It's worth reading the article to see what else he said about Starmer.
Lynch's other comments are nothing out of the ordinary.
I doubt anyone is looking to give Starmer carte blanche, a blank cheque or any form of free pass.
From Starmer's side, I doubt there will be any 'rolling over' in response to union demands.
Grown-up politics with a mature attitude isn't too much to expect - or is it?
Yes of course Lynch's comments are perfectly reasonable. But no there are plenty of people who appear to give Starmer a carte blanche to do whatever he wants.
Just look at the multitude of U-turns that Starmer has carried out before even becoming prime minister - it's becoming the stuff of legends.
Some people believe that Starmer's position is perfectly correct before he performs a U-turn, and then they totally support him after he has preformed a U-turn - which is the complete opposite of his previous position.
They give Starmer a blank cheque to do whatever he wants to do.
Some people believe that Starmer’s position is perfectly correct before he performs a U-turn, and then they totally support him after he has preformed a U-turn – which is the complete opposite of his previous position.
It is odd, but probably comes from desperation of just wanting tories out and doing nothing to lessen the chances.
I also want that but can also criticise Starmers massive change from what he was offering just a few years years ago to what he is offering now, especially as it would have probably made no difference to his chances of becoming PM.
Just look at the multitude of U-turns that Starmer has carried out before even becoming prime minister – it’s becoming the stuff of legends.
Seriously!? How many U turns have the actual bloody government made in that time?
If you're focusing on Starmers policy changes, they've got you just where they want you!
Just because the Tories are lying psychopaths doesn't mean that Starmer has to follow their lead down a path of dishonesty.
Your post just proves Ernie's point.
Holding Starmer accountable for his dishonesty doesn't mean any of us are voting torie, but if he wants to give people a reason to vote for him, instead of keeping relying on anti tory sentiment he needs to be more honest. And the complacency that many warn about shouldn't be focussed on the mythical swing voters, it should be focussed on the millions of people who need a labour government to be a an honest party of the people, who Starmer is currently ignoring or at best taking for granted.
I would not mind a U-turn if it actually swung towards good policy rather than away.
Seriously!? How many U turns have the actual bloody government made in that time?
LOL! You do realise that "U-turns" are generally associated with governments not oppositions!
A U-turn in policy is invariable because the policy in question has failed and a change of direction is required, ie, a U-turn.
Starmer's policies fail even before they are implemented!
Well at least Starmer himself seems to think they are either undesirable or not feasible!
Edit: And yes, there have been many Tory government U-turns because, unsurprisingly, many of their policies have failed.
What is Starmer's excuse?