Forum menu
It’s pragmatism, for me – I’m completely aware that Labour is not perfect
Same for me. No party will ever exactly match what I personally want and thinking it will is ridiculous.
What I do know is that pretty much everything the Tory party does and stands for is the exact opposite of what I want to happen so anything is better than that and given current choice of contenders the only party is the Labour party which is close enough.
I still think they need to get a more charismatic leader though to give them a better chance.
'Speaking an event organised by the Labour To Win group last week, Lord Mandelson used the famous SAS motto "Who Dares Wins" as he assessed the direction he believes Sir Keir should take at the helm of the party.Pointing to the removal, in January, of the pro-Corbyn Scottish Labour leader Richard Leonard as a step in the right direction, Lord Mandelson added: "Keir will be tested like that again and again, by Corbyn, McCluskey, and the corrupt far left."By the antisemites who are still in our party in large numbers, by the same old fantasy tax and spenders, and by far-left candidates, and by the need to develop credible, affordable policies. "He continued: “We must strengthen Keir’s hand in the tests he’s facing - show the country they have their Labour Party back again.""Keir is not yet a fully formed leader - Covid hasn't helped."But he contrasted the state of Labour now with how it might have been had Mr Corbyn been the leader, insisting the party would have found itself in a "terrible position.""That's why Keir is important," continued the Labour grandee. "He exudes calm confidence and strong values."After the near-death of experience of the Corbyn years, we need to show we are not done." Looking ahead to the forthcoming local council and mayoral elections in May, Lord Mandelson predicted Labour "will do well in some places" but he said the elections were an "unfair test" due to the pandemic. He urged Labour to mount attacks on the Conservatives over their claim to be the party of low taxes. "We should not be nervous about attacking them on this," he said. ' (JC)
So the LP becomes even more rightwing and sectarian and less broad church with more expulsions and he aspires it to become low tax party for his filthy rich. 'Low taxes and low pay for nurses NOW!' A slimmed down near death party might make it easier for his acolytes to be nominated as candidates though. His broad aim is to appoint a new membership.
Leonard gone? Good.
Corbyn gone? Shame, but his choice.
McCluskey corrupt, and to be “resisted”? Hell yes.
The Conservatives riding high going into the May elections because of Vaccine success, and propaganda around it? Hard to deny.
I don’t like Mandleson one tiny bit, but his words you’ve quoted there don’t seem hugely controversial to me.
His broad aim is to appoint a new membership.
Well, you left. So if that really is the aim, you took a step to help him.
“He exudes calm confidence and strong values.”
Calm confidence? Just seems a bit sleepy to me. As for strong values - at this point I have no idea what they are. Not fair pay for nurses, not corrupt ministers resigning - help me out here- what does he believe?
Nah, he helped me. His beliefs? Decency, togetherness, integration, 2.1%.
His slogan for the Red Wall campaign 'pay less tax and f the nurses'.
Nah, he helped me. His beliefs? Decency, togetherness, integration, 2.1%.
I had to check the lyrics to Village Green Preservation Society.
this is broadly speaking a conservative (small c) country that tends to vote Conservative unless the Labour party offers something that doesn't look like a threat to the aspirational values that have been instilled in the population by hundreds of years of free market economics, technological progress & a right wing led media.
Until Labour in all their forms get that clear they're f****d as BillMC so clearly demonstrates.
I agree nurses deserve more pay but what does an appropriate wage amount to and have you costed it? If it looks ridiculous and fantastical the Tories will tear it apart.
I agree nurses deserve more pay but what does an appropriate wage amount to and have you costed it?
I’ve already answered that. Something like 50% more than they currently get paid will put them somewhere near to professionals in other fields. And what do you mean costed? It’ll cost whatever it costs. Why is that important?
I don’t like Mandleson one tiny bit, but his words you’ve quoted there don’t seem hugely controversial to me.
Are you taking the piss? Mandelson is more right wing than most tories. He cares about nothing and no one outside of his own narcissistic self-interest and is the last person labour should be taking advice from.
I agree nurses deserve more pay but what does an appropriate wage amount to and have you costed it? If it looks ridiculous and fantastical the Tories will tear it apart.
The cost could surely be presented in contrast to the test and trace splurge?
The British public have been educated to believe that their proper position in below stairs in some sort of real life Downton Abbey - until we can find a way past that we will continue to be ruled by the privileged who laugh in our faces as they help themselves to our money
hundreds of years of free market economics
This is total bollocks by the way. We’ve had fuedalism, rentier capitalism, monopolism, keynesianism and most recently neoliberalism. The latter is closest to free market economics but has only existed for 40 years, not hundreds. What comes next is up for debate, but it will be different and the changes are already occurring and are being accelerated by covid, climate change and automation.
The cost could surely be presented in contrast to the test and trace splurge?
In this context that's just whataboutery - the Tories are Teflon and the media are very happy to turn a blind eye to it as it suits their bias. Labour however HAVE TO BE squeaky clean with their promises or it will get called out and ridiculed. IT'S NOT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD and the Tories and their supporters control everything, They have the money, can afford the brains and have an in built lack of scruples that allows them to do and say anything with impunity.
I'm not suggesting that nurses aren't worth it AT ALL just it's going to take a
DazH I'll admit I'm no economist and I didn't even do social studies at school so i may have gotten the exact term wrong and there may be more accurate (and pedantic) ways of describing it but apart from a bit of rationing during the war/s I can't see that this country has operated on any other basis for hundreds of years. I agree we're at a turning point to something point but arguing semantics is just the sort of 6th form bull that won't ever succeed in changing things.
What Labour (or the next major opposition) need is a hugely charismatic figurehead that is universally loved and has nothing in the closest. It sure a **** wasn't Corbyn and it doesn't appear to be Starmer. Blair was that guy. Perfect he wasn't but he at managed to ride a wave of Cool Britania and the media (mostly) went with him.
To change the Zeitgeist is going to take more than a few pointed questions at PMQ.
Agreed Speeder. What Labour need to do is let Starmer take the party to “safe” for the voters that were lost at the last election, and then step aside before the next election to make way for someone who can “inspire”. He’s too dull to win. They won’t do that, they are institutionally too slow and inflexible for that.
If Starmer steps down before a general election campaign, he’d go up in my estimations. Hell, stepping down after losing a general election would be a step in the right direction compared to the last leader.
It's a regulated market economy as is pretty much every economy in the world. Regulated for safety, workers rights, trading rules, tariffs, taxes etc etc
It's is a political decision on the level of regulation.
Terminology is important. Terminology creates a narrative and if it becomes embedded it is very hard to change. Just look at the endless nonsense in the media about having to pay back debt
Are you taking the piss?
Oh, I missed this. No, I wasn’t. And I said I don’t like the man, and one of the many reasons for that is because of exactly what you say. I was addressing the points in the quote though, most of which I agree with.
arguing semantics is just the sort of 6th form bull
What’s sixth form (or middle school TBH) is making incorrect sweeping statements like ‘we’ve always had free market economics, so it can’t be changed’. The economy has taken many forms, has changed many times, and will change again. I’m more interested in how those changes happen and what form they take than the trivial issues of which flavour of politician is in power.
Just look at the endless nonsense in the media about having to pay back debt
Well, funnily enough, now Sleazy Sunak has started borrowing big time, the BBC have decided that it's OK. Remind me why I have to pay for a licence fee to watch the Tory Media Outlet?
Agreed Speeder. What Labour need to do is let Starmer take the party to “safe” for the voters that were lost at the last election, and then step aside before the next election to make way for someone who can “inspire”
I have been saying that for years. Leader first, a couple of high level populist polices next, detailed policies last - that is the order you need to win an election these days.
Majority of people won't be either reading the policies or watching any political programs where the policies are questioned word by word.
The problem still exists though, the leader has to be a Labour MP and I can't think of one that would be any good as a charismatic person who people would like and therefore vote for.
Agreed Speeder. What Labour need to do is let Starmer take the party to “safe” for the voters that were lost at the last election, and then step aside before the next election to make way for someone who can “inspire”
Apart from he's not doing that. He's making Labour silent, irrelevant and uninspiring.
Angela Rayner jumping through hoops on Nurse wage rises - 1% here 2% there, pay review body blah blah.(inflation at 0.9%)
Your 2019 manifesto said 5%.
Yeah - apparently this is a left-wing party.
The choice has to be made between taking the lead from your financial sponsors and the press or engaging in campaigns over the real issues affecting people now and seeing eg protest and strikes as part of the democratic process and not just wait n years till I get elected. Rushanara Ali outshone the shadow front bench speaking about threats to women, and she's no leftwinger. I think Blair set in motion the separation of the party from any sort of campaigning base opened it up to outside bids and saw currying favour with Mr Murdoch (whereas he favoured curry with Mrs Murdoch) as an alternative way to communicate with voters. It worked well for him, now a very rich landlord and receiving largesse for all his work to passify some of the middle east. Not sure if Starmer has both the grease and the polish to achieve the same. As the LP trickles down the electoral drain it will be fascinating to see the claims of how better it is post-Corbyn etc and on here I guess sixth-formers will be getting caned again.
Crises like these bring into sharp focus where the political parties really stand and who for and the parties have to try to conceal this with fuzzy valuespeak, cuddly capitalism, housewives' budgets, flags and tea cosies, dressing up and down, 3 word alliteration, and so far they've done quite well getting away with it. Not sure if it can last though.
Journo "So if not 1% what do you think the pay rise should be?"
Labour MP "Our 2019 manifesto said 5% and I think considering what has gone on this past year and also considering that nurses have had an effective 10% paycut over the last 10 years this should be the minimum."
Journo "How will you pay for it?"
Labour MP "The same way the Tories have paid for(lists Tory waste and corruption) and remember the massive majority of this money will stay in the economy, be spent in shops, on goods and services not be offshored to tax havens like these scandalous PPE deals."
Jess Phillips this morning on Marr, after giving a heartfelt and eloquent interview about violence against women then says nurses should get 'at least 2.1%' but refuses to say how much more she really thinks they should get because 'it's not her brief'. I think that pretty much sums up the labour party at the moment. It's beyond pathetic, and given the new approval ratings showing Boris ahead of Starmer for the first time, it seems most people agree.
Approval rating is way down with both Tory and Labour voters too.
How's appealing to the middle ground going? Attacking the left of your party working out well?
Go back to being the Labour party for God's sake. Stand for something other than a purge.
AttackingBeing attacked by the left of your party working out well?
Not well at all. Every time Labour looks like it might have public sentiment on its side (be it feeding kids, nurses wages or the new crime bill) it is attacked for "not opposing" even though it is, or not going far or fast enough, or for not pushing public opinion rather than working with it (the call to lead not follow) and, once again, looks divided and at war with itself. The public see the division and chaos... and go back to "Labour would have been worse".
Stand for something other than a purge.
What purge?
Remind me why I have to pay for a licence fee to watch the Tory Media Outlet?
Detectorists and Mortimer & Whitehouse: Gone Fishing
Not well at all. Every time Labour looks like it might have public sentiment on its side (be it feeding kids, nurses wages or the new crime bill) it is attacked for “not opposing” even though it is, or not going far or fast enough, or for not pushing public opinion rather than working with it (the call to lead not follow) and, once again, looks divided and at war with itself.
That's what members of the corbnite cult do: attack other parts of the left for being wrong. There can only be their version of the left allowed to exist after all.
Once again I will say the tories are riding high in the polls because of the covid vaccine/end of lockdown effect, that will pass, but this not why the attacks on Starmer are happening, its just their version of the left must be re-installed, the one that helped the current Government into power, so its logical to attack your opponents now, even if it is in full view of the 'other opponents' and the public.
They won't get another opportunity like this for a while.
its just their version of the left must be re-installed
Or just 'the left' as it used to be called, before the 'centre' became the 'old right'.
That’s what members of the corbnite cult do: attack other parts of the left for being wrong.
Whereas the centrists have always been a model of broad church left wing unity of course.
It's amazing how everything is the left's fault, even when they are no longer in charge of anything.
I don’t think the voters care who is throwing the stones, and who currently has the big chair in the glass house… it doesn’t make them look ready to govern either way.
Starmer wasn’t one of the “centrists” throwing stones before he was leader though. Mandelson, well, he deserves what’s sent his way. But attacking Starmer because of what Mandleson says makes for a happy and more relaxed Conservative PM.
I don’t think the voters care
You could have stopped there.
Starmer is an utter irrelevance. As daz says their big chance to make a splash on an emotive issue and all they can do is advocate unconvincingly for a marginally less terrible deal than the Tories. Anyone who thinks a 13 point lead is only about vaccines is incredibly optimistic.
The Conservatives are now the party of England. Changing that will be hard
Not much to disagree with in that article. It sums up the problem for Labour perfectly. Calls for “say a bigger number” completely miss the problem… Labour has to change sentiment in a wide range English voters, not play top trumps with policy details that play well to the true believers. Attempts to “keep it simple” on issues where Labour can try and peel voters away from the Tories are met with a barrage of calls to “be more radical”.
It’s amazing how everything is the left’s fault, even when they are no longer in charge of anything.
Indeed: the left voted for Starmer in significant numbers, have been kept well away from power, yet are still being blamed for Labour's dismal performance. I suppose it's our fault in that we were foolish enough to believe that Starmer might not be spectaculary useless.
That’s what members of the corbnite cult do
Excuse my language but please f off with this deluded fantasy. There is no Corbyn cult, there's just the 'the left', who are the left? They're the vast majority of the labour party who make up the membership, local constituencies, trade unions and wider campaigning organistation which make up the labour movement, and they vastly outnumber the small number of labour MPs and assocaited hangers-on who think they own the party.
Far from not compromising, the left have done everything they can to unify the party so that they can focus their efforts on defeating the tories. When Corbyn was elected leader he tried to keep many of his critics in the shadow cabinet, they refused, and then organised a pathetic failed coup. Even after that they were allowed to stay in the party when many others would have slung them out there and then. Then after Corbyn resigned the left voted in massive numbers for a candidate who they suspected wasn't on their side but still supported him based largely on his promises of unity, only to have that thrown in their face at the first opportunity. At every stage the left have bent over backwards to accomodate this small number of professional, self-serving parasites from the right of the party, and yet they still get blamed for their failures.
Well no more. I know I won't be fooled again, and I think there are many like me who realise that nothing will ever change with these self-serving cowards at the helm. They don't represent working people, they don't fight for the disposessed and disadvantaged, and they don't want more equality or social justice. All they represent is their own tawdry career interests. They can all f off.
Well, I’ve always been to the left of the Labour Party, and still am. Corbyn moved the policies closer to me, and got me voting Labour for the first time after a lifetime of saying that “just a bit more progressive” was not good enough. The country didn’t come with me. Many did in 2017, but not nearly enough. They might have done a few years later, if Corbyn had helped the party find the right successor to build on that 2017 shift and consolidate and build confidence in a now truly leftward looking Labour, rather than the hubris to think it was a stepping stone to both moving the party’s policies further left and to winning an election himself. The voters were never going to take that step. It was political naivety, pushed on by many of his supporters and his Straight Left advisors that had no real feeling for where English voters stood. Watching the toys being thrown out of the pram by people on the left now depresses me no end. It puts me in the weird situation of thinking that I might have to actually become a party member, to help make up for the sulking departing members, despite the very real likely hood that the polices at the next election will have shifted further right again, past the 2017 point. Starmer was a chance to correct the 2019 mistakes without over correcting. That’s not enough for some though, they’re in “no retreat from 2019” mode, despite all the signs being that permanent opposition is all that would result from that. The end result will be a Labour Party less leftward facing than it would have been if they engaged and support the new leadership, rather than throw around insulting petulant language and retreat from the only UK wide party that has any chance of representing their interests in government.
It’s amazing how everything is the left’s fault, even when they are no longer in charge of anything.
How about the responsibility of providing a credible opposition? Certainly didn't happen 2015-2020. Probably not going to happen until at least 2024.
The Conservatives are now the party of England. Changing that will be hard
So that article is pointing out that the tories will ride whatever unicorn of change to suit their agenda while essentially remaining as the complete c**ts they are, while Labour...labour under the illusion of yesteryears politics. You have to go with the times and new Labour understood where the country was socially and politically at that time. Cue the rage from a few folk for mentioning the time when the Labour party actually won elections. Three no least. But even the current politics of new labour is out of date.
So now we have a stagnated party that has to win over voters who's mindset willingly or otherwise has been informed by increasingly right wing politics.
So why has the labour party stagnated?
There is no Corbyn cult, there’s just the ‘the left’, who are the left? They’re the vast majority of the labour party who make up the membership, local constituencies, trade unions and wider campaigning organistation which make up the labour movement
I wonder.
How about the responsibility of providing a credible opposition?
Quite right. Any other leader would've been 20 points ahead.
Oh.
Meanwhile..
While its disappointing, the reality is the vote from black, asian, and ethnic minorities are not going to win elections for the Labour party.
Quite right. Any other leader would’ve been 20 points ahead.Oh.
Classic Cult saying there. I would say you're living in cloud cuckoo land, but your in those sunlight uplands the tories were talking about, they're going to be disappointed to find you lot there, they shouldn't worry though, there's something in the Police, Crime, Sentencing, and Courts bill that will see to that.
I tell you what, why don't you tell everyone who should be in charge, and what vision you have that will make the country see sense and vote Labour.
kelvin
"Corbyn moved the policies closer to me, and got me voting Labour for the first time after a lifetime of saying that “just a bit more progressive” was not good enough"
Just out of interest Kelvin, who DID you vote for before? You don't have to answer, it's obviously private.
I'd vote for Ronald F****** McDonald if I thought he had chance of beating the Tory in my constituency. Anything else is a wasted vote and simply helps the Tories.
^^ That's where my vote would go these days.
Can't remember the last time we had a non Tory MP here though.
Anyway online to find out?
Quite right. Any other leader would’ve been 20 points ahead.
Oh.
Any evidence for this? Or is it the same as the reason I don't think any other leader would be ahead and personal opinion.
why don’t you tell everyone who should be in charge, and what vision you have that will make the country see sense and vote Labour.
Don't go asking tricky question like that. My question along the same lines of what would make a non-labour voting person vote Labour gone zero response.
Classic Cult saying there.
Of course: criticise the flag waving nonentity and you're a cultist. Do you not realise how pathetic that makes you sound?
who DID you vote for before?
Off on a tangent from this I’ve pretty much concluded I won’t vote Labour for the foreseeable future. The party lacks the unity needed for me to trust them, they just look like they’d spend more time bickering bitterly amongst themselves.
Which leaves me with either the SNP or Greens, SNP if there’s a Tory/Labour risk Green if not.
Me? If I was north of the border I’d be voting SNP at UK elections, and Green in Scottish elections. In the past (before 2017) I voted LibDem mostly, occasionally Green. Now vote Labour locally and nationally, but didn’t vote for them in the last ever EU parliament elections (voting system was partly do to with that, votes weren’t “wasted” in the same way with the system used there).
Speeder, I agree with you as regards playing the FPTP system for what it is, and voting for one fewer Conservative MP, no matter who the opposing candidate is or what party they are from. I’m in the lucky position that I can vote Labour here to that aim, because as it happens their policies are closest to mine anyway. But if they weren’t, I pretty sure I’d still find myself voting for them if that was the best way to unseat our Tory MP.
Speeder, I agree with you as regards playing the FPTP system for what it is, and voting for one fewer Conservative MP, no matter who the opposing candidate is or what party they are from.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, can you explain why?
I can't be arsed. If you're happy with permanent Tory rule, you crack on.
I can’t be arsed. If you’re happy with permanent Tory rule, you crack on.
This isn't about me and what I'm happy with. I was wondering if there was any more depth to your thinking than tribalism, but I guess not.
Speeder, I agree with you as regards playing the FPTP system for what it is, and voting for one fewer Conservative MP, no matter who the opposing candidate is or what party they are from.
And if that party is UKIP or the Nigel Farage appreciation company?
but I guess not
Yes, because you read my post about having voted for various different political parties and decided I just vote on a tribal basis. If you happy with a Tory government, then you argue why we should let them carry on indefinitely from a left wing voters perspective. I'm not going near that nonsense. Thanks.
Yes, because you read my post about having voted for various different political parties and decided I just vote on a tribal basis. If you happy with a Tory government, then you argue why we should let them carry on indefinitely from a left wing voters perspective. I’m not going near that nonsense. Thanks.
Once again, this isn't about me. I invited you to explain your thinking as I was interested in it. As you have declined to do so, I can only guess at your motives, so it would seem a bit rich for you to start getting snippy.
I have been posting in this forum for years on the subject. I owe you nothing. Not another second of my time.
Ethnic minorities can help parties lose elections.
And if that party is UKIP or the Nigel Farage appreciation company?
With 280 Tory seats and no UKIP seats I would take the gamble and vote UKIP if I was in an area where UKIP were the only party that could realistically have a chance of beating the tory to try and reduce that 280. Unfortunately I live where the same tory MP (and one of the worst at that) has received 60-70% of the vote for the last 20 years
Ethnic minorities can help parties lose elections.
Very true. There is a price to pay for backing the Tories as regards anti-immigration policies. You may win over some small c conservative voters away from the big cities, but you are also sending a signal to everyone else as well.
I owe you nothing. Not another second of my time.
I can’t be arsed.
I’m not going near that nonsense
*reaches for the chinnyreckon meme*
Look, it's fine. If you don't want to explain the thinking behind your statement, you are free to do so. Just as I am free to infer that there's nothing more to it than shallow tribalism.
I'm not diverting this thread to go into the hundreds of reasons I want the Tories out of government. Or why our voting system limits our choices when that is you aim when your vote in Westminster elections. It's been done to death in many threads.
With 280 Tory seats and no UKIP seats I would take the gamble and vote UKIP
So you would be voting for a party which is more rightwing than the tories in order to deprive them of a seat? Which would then generally go their way anyway.
Odd.
I’m not diverting this thread to go into the hundreds of reasons I want the Tories out of government.
This is your fourth post telling us that you don't want to tell us. You could've explained it by now.
I said this some time ago, but if this country really is 'small c' conservative - which I dispute very strongly - then it makes sense to have people who believe in conservative policies in government. Conversely, if the country is broadly left of centre as I have always beliieved and pretty much all the evidence supports, then it makes sense to have a party which beliieves in those policies in government.
What we have right now is a tory party very much behind a very rightwing agenda, and a parliamentary labour party behind what looks like a traditiional tory 'wet' slightly rightwing agenda. Everyone else - the majority - is disenfranchised at the altar of what the political class decides is good for their careers.
So my advice to kelvin et al who will gladly sell every last principle and moral stance down the river to 'win' (in quotes because whilst you might be in power you haven't really won if you do nothing different) is to stop worryiing about it. Politics is a game played by people who want power. If you're not one of them it makes little sense to play to their rules or invest much energy in it.
Yep, and I can't imagine the muslamic vote would be very impressed with some of Starmer's machinations.
I’m aware that some people are entirely comfortable with us having a Tory government, because for them politics is just a game played down the pub, or on Internet forums, but lives are blighted daily but having this lot in power. So you can ‘not worry about it’ if you want, that’s fine… not everyone has that luxury.
but lives are blighted daily but having this lot in power.
As they will be blighted by having Labour in power with conservative policies. A labour government doesn't automatically benefit people at the bottom, they have to actually do something different to the tories. I know you all subscribe to the 'get in power then do all the stuff we're too scared to mention now' theory but all the evidence of the past suggests that simply doesn't happen. It's a red herring in any case, because labour tried that in 2015 and failed miserably. Voters are not going to put a party in power who don't have the courage of their convictions, and given labour can't do the very easy basic things like propose a pay rise for nurses higher than 2.1%, there is little evidence to suggest they have any interest in changing anything.
So, we're all in agreement:
It is far, far better, for the sake of our beloved idealogical purity, to support a political party that doesn't actually exist, and who nowhere near enough people would vote for even if it did, than to compromise our lofty moral values that we must loudly proclaim at every turn to show the world how virtuous we are?
And if that means permanent Tory government, then so be it?
Glad we're finally cleared that up...
than to compromise our lofty moral values that we must loudly proclaim at every turn to show the world how virtuous we are?
The recycling rate must be excellent in Ramsbottom, given how often you trot out the same bullcrap on here.
For the hard of listening and thinking: plenty of us here have compromised our values to achieve what we thought was a practical objective, which is why Tony Blair was elected on a landslide and is why Keith Starmer is the current leader. So it's reasonable to ask, having lent Starmer our votes, what we might see in return. At the moment, all I'm observing is an unelectable party that doesn't seem to stand for anything at all (except the flags, obvs).
I've asked before and had no response,
One year in, leader of the opposition.
Losing voters.
...
Successful first year?
Leaving aside the talk of policies and direction, bottom line is voter numbers.
He's losing voters.
So give me something to take heart from?
where are the successes to give me hope he can turn this around?
Convince me he can lead labour and win more votes.
(My vote doesn't count, I'm already voting Labour next election whatever happens. I'm stubborn like that.)
So give me something to take heart from?
where are the successes to give me hope he can turn this around?
There is nothing, because as I've also said previously, they've already achieved their objective of winning back control of the party. Plummeting polls and ever increasing disillusion and apathy mean nothing to these a***holes because in their pathetic self-interested minds they've already won.
What we'll see for the next couple of years is more of the same empty rhetoric on policy and a ramping up of the war on the membership on the premise that they cause disunity, resulting in more expulsions and less voting rights. Then Starmer will be beaten with a bigger majority for Boris and they'll trot out the same 'it was the fault of the left' nonsensee and annoint the next careerist in line (Rayner or Nandy probably) and it will all start again.
Don't take this the wrong way dazh, but kind of hoping for a positive response from one of his supporters.
Anything. Anyone. Please.
Look at what's happening with the defence review, Labour criticise it but fundamentally it's in line with what Labour have promised to do anyway.
It's obvious to anyone that they just criticise by default even when they don't really have anything to say, what's the point? 'Well we would do basically the same thing but the emphasis would be slightly different and we'd use slightly different language'.
Dunno about you but when I want a Coke I want a proper one not the pretend-healthy versions that don't taste right.
Keir needs to be more ambitious. Massively more ambitious, its no good trying to be a bit different from the Tories or from Corbyn/ Blair/ Cameron or any previous leader. The Labour Party needs to redraw the lines of battle. Who should the Labour Party be appealing to now? What are its ultimate aims?
New Labour was a successful transformation but only surface level and worked only because Blair was willing to court Murdoch et al.
The Tories are the party of the establishment and do not need to change. Labour needs to change and trying to be another party of the establishment is not going to work.
So you would be voting for a party which is more rightwing than the tories in order to deprive them of a seat? Which would then generally go their way anyway.
Odd.
Only odd because you seem to have missed "where UKIP were the only party that could realistically have a chance of beating the tory to try and reduce that 280". So it would not be likely to generally go their way as if it was I wouldn't gamble on it. It is also based on UKIP having zero seats and no chance of getting enough to do anything with.
It is also completely theoretical and I am never going to see a situation like it so all a bit of a pointless discussion really.
The Labour Party needs to redraw the lines of battle.
Have you been living in a cave for the last 6 years? They tried that. Twice. It didn't work, either time.
The last time was utterly catastrophic and the reason we are where we are, with a right wing buffoon sat on a huge majority
Only odd because you seem to have missed
No I didnt it is just that it doesnt make sense.
It wouldnt be reducing their majority in any real sense of the word since the loons would simply vote with the tories in most cases and on those cases where they disagreed probably want to go futher right and hence still vote along.
On the plus side Starmer is still doing better than Labour did at the last GE
realistically the vaccine bounce sand opening up means that there is little ground to be gained for any opposition right now, but the Tories are still down on their GE performance.
And very similar trends in scotlands polling regards SNP vs Tories
Opposing Patels latest bill & expansion of nukes is absolutely right as well as politically astute- Starmer not vulnerable on these the way Corbyn was helps
Hes still lacking charisma & traction with voters & being outplayed at the media game by the Tories, though
As we open up more the Tories will see a bigger bounce, but economic fallout of covid means that winter is coming & by next winter, we will really know whether Starmer is good enough.
(& thatd still leave enough time to replace him with yvette cooper- which would probably upset the corbynites even more!)
ransos
Free Member
I was wondering if there was any more depth to your thinking than tribalism
I've read some really funny stuff on t'interwebz lately but nothing made me laugh out loud quite like that...
Priceless!
P.S. I now need a new irony-o-meter as my previous one red-lined and the glass shattered.
🤣🤣🤣
Hes still lacking charisma & traction with voters & being outplayed at the media game by the Tories, though
If Labour were prepared to replace him about 12 months out from an election, with someone not lacking in these areas, there might be chance of a bounce over the line when it comes to the vote. But, even if Labour were flexible/nimble enough to do that, who (the hell) would that be?!? That’s the big question.
Labours problem there is that they have 2 tainted legacies; those of corbyn & blair, association with either of those 2 makes it an uphill battle
regardless tho Starmer is leader now & the next big challenge faced by the country is what happens after the Holyrood elections, a pro-indy majority sees the break up of the UK coming to a Supreme Court near you
Labour & Starmer need a position on keeping the UK together (or not) , imho Starmer needs to go balls deep on a federal settlement (including English regions)
I’ve read some really funny stuff on t’interwebz lately but nothing made me laugh out loud quite like that…
Priceless!
P.S. I now need a new irony-o-meter as my previous one red-lined and the glass shattered.
I think your problem there is the very large gap between what I've written, and what you imagine I've written.
The Tories are the party of the establishment and do not need to change.
So are labour. Even under Corbyn they were a party of the establishment. Corbyn was on the privy council FFS, how much more establishment can you get? Under Starmer they're not just of the establishment, but fully supportive of it, and that's what needs to change.