Forum menu
'Keir Starmer voted for replacing Trident with a new nuclear weapons system'.
I suppose we could argue about what's a 'reasonable' increase when you're prepared to go along with giving the nurses 1%, but...
Corbyn was not politically clueless.
He really was. Completely and utterly clueless. He didn't have a single shred of political instinct or nous.
Thats why before he became leader by mistake, he'd spent his entire decades long 'career', such as it was, as a completely anonymous backbencher untroubled by a shadow or government job as even the most junior of bag-carriers.
He may have been good at making placards and signing petitions but thats not really the same thing
I suppose we could argue about what’s a ‘reasonable’ increase when you’re prepared to go along with giving the nurses 1%, but…
What are you on about? Starmer has stated Labour's opposition to both the warhead numbers being increased, and the nurses only getting a 1% "rise". He's not "gone along with" either.
What are you on about? Starmer has stated Labour’s opposition to both the warhead numbers being increased, and the nurses only getting a 1% “rise”.
I don't stalk Starmer and catch his every word but it is obvious in this thread that a lot of people whining about him are not paying attention to anything he says and are just making it up.
By “We” you mean “You”. “We” as in the majority of the country don’t want socialism at all.
Just don't mention socialism. Labour always has popular policies, but a general election is not a referendum. He who should not be mentioned and who I never voted for understood that people don't vote based on their agreement with individual polices.
People say that they want all these things, just like they say the'd like world peace and a kitten, but when push comes to shove they won't put their money where their mouth is and actually vote for it. Mention the 'S' word and they conjure up images of Soviet Russia and run mile
This was tested to destruction at the last 2 elections. I despair at this just as much as you do, but thats where we are in this country. The UK has never elected a socialist government and it never will.
As Kelvin said, he who must not be mentioned (IRAQ!!) knew this. Starmer appears to get it too
Apologies for this...
https://twitter.com/modernuklabour/status/1373995802159353867?s=20
...I'd best run away from this thread now.
The UK has never elected a socialist government and it never will.
Not sure if serious...
He didn’t have a single shred of political instinct or nous.
Except on many things he appears to have been way ahead of everyone else:
Rail nationalisation - implemented by the tories
Green Industrial Revolution - nicked by the tories
Funding public investment and spending via borrowing/QE - done by the tories
Improving local bus services - Done by Burnham and supported by Starmer
I'm sure we could add to this list. For someone who didn't have 'a single shred' of political instinct he sure does get copied a lot. 😄
The UK has never elected a socialist government and it never will.
There's a simple reason behind that, because it's never been offered one. Labour, even under Atlee, Foot and Corbyn has never been a socialist party. Instead they are a capitalist party which wants to implement socialist-style policies whilst retaining a capitalist economic system.
…I’d best run away from this thread now.
I watched that and agree with him. Let me say again, Blair is right. That's why instead of frilling round the edges of the existing status quo by raising pay for nurses a bit, or increasing tax on the rich a bit, or creating recovery bonds or whatever, labour need to be offering something which actually provides solutions to all the failures which have been proven over the past 30 years within a single identifiable objective. They had that in '45 (the welfare state), in '97 (modernising for the 21st century) and partially in 2017 in the form of 'For the many, not the few'.
So what is Starmer's big idea going to be? We're all still waiting but as far as I can work out it's 'trust us not to do anything too radical'. When he should be talking about climate change, automation, monopolism and inequality, he's waving flags and doing his best to avoid talking about anything at all.
The government would have made some absolutely monumental * up with the NHS or something really important, supplying the leader of the opposition with a wide open goal, but he’d written his PMQ’s questions about buses 3 days ago (including shouty 10-second Twitter clip) and he wasn’t going to change then just because of some epic government cluster-* that had happened in the meantime.
And now the govt have killed thousands and pocketed billions and all Starmer does at PMQ is look aloof while Johnson blusters and lies with impunity and the public lap it up and say what a good chap he is. Something needs to change!
Well, in the Have I Got News For You style PMQs, nothing will change from your description of how it's working without one or both of the leaders changing. Johnson doesn't have any answers, and he doesn't need them. He wasn't elected to be across his brief and do his job. Starmer is doing a good impression of someone who could actually carry out the role of PM... but that will never cut though when the people are still loving the clown. Starmer needs to step aside before we get to a general election. I doubt he will, and I'm damn sure the Labour Party are too inflexible to replace him if to comes to that.
“How can wealth persuade poverty to use its political freedom to keep wealth in power? Here lies whole art of Conservative politics.”
-Aneurin Bevan
Instead they are a capitalist party which wants to implement socialist-style policies whilst retaining a capitalist economic system.
And that is the closest you are going to get to it. You can stamp your feet all you like but the majority of the country simply do not want a socialist state.
You can stamp your feet all you like but the majority of the country simply do not want a socialist state.
Err, that's fine by me. I've never suggested labour should dismantle the capitalist system. I certainly don't want a socialist state, as I'm not a socialist. The last thing we need is a bunch of socialist worker types who think they're the vanguard who speak on behalf of workers.
THe majority want to live in their front rooms pretending to be servants in Downton Abbey while Stanley Johnson swans off to Greece.
Starmer needs to step aside before we get to a general election. I doubt he will, and I’m damn sure the Labour Party are too inflexible to replace him if to comes to that.
I think of there was a shoe-in candidate in the wings it would happen pretty quickly. Sadly I don't think there is.
this is an interesting article for those of you impatient with Starmer.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/26/joe-biden-left-parties-power-radical-winning
I think of there was a shoe-in candidate in the wings it would happen pretty quickly.
There was in the form of Rayner, but she's been exposed as an opportunistic careerist who lacks any political intelligence. I look at her now as the labour version of Priti Patel, but her backstory and political capital she had with both the membership and ordinary voters would have made her very popular. All she needed was some academic clout behind her to guide her on the policy side. But instead she chose to ally herself with the wrong side of the party which makes her previous sucking up to Corbyn look utterly pathetic and completely disengenuous.
Sadly I don’t think there is.
Not at the moment. There might be someone ready in a few years time. Those single-mindedly attacking Starmer for what he has done, or hasn't done, or they've have just dreamt up he wants to do, keep being asked who should step in and replace him if they want him gone now... tumbleweed.
this is an interesting article for those of you impatient with Starmer.
Thanks for the link TJ, will have a read in the bath.
I look at her now as the labour version of Priti Patel
Oh, for **** sake.
tjagain
Full Memberthis is an interesting article for those of you impatient with Starmer.
I'm not sure I see the relevance tbh? I'm impatient with Starmer because he's nowhere. If he could run as a middle ground moderate, win, and then deliver more potent policies then the Biden comparison would be apt but that's not what's happening.
I think that is what is happening northwind. He looks like a moderate safe pair of hands. very similar image to Biden
Biden is boring; Biden is making a significant difference. Is that it? I’ll have a read…
…well worth the read TJ, thanks.
I’ll mull that over and do what I can to avoid all the “Starmer is doing/opposing nothing” noise being generated for a while. It includes a lot of often repeated nonsense/lies, so discussing it all is getting boring/tiring anyway.
Biden is boring; Biden is making a significant difference. Is that it? I’ll have a read…
pretty much
Despite not living in Uk anymore I still take an interest in UK politics . Very disappointed with Starmer .
I am not even sure he mentioned Brexit since signing Boris deal .
With PMQ , he is not far from Corbyn bus timetables level . Food exports to the EU down , Deloitte consultants paid 1000s a day , and he talks about foreign aid and size of the army ??
If he carries on like that he will never win an election .
Biden is boring
He is but a safe and steady leader is what is needed after Trump and even over here it is a massive relief not to wonder what crap Trump is going to come out with next.
I think Starmer would be a pretty good PM, I just don't think he has to what it takes to actually get voted in.
Those single-mindedly attacking Starmer for what he has done, or hasn’t done, or they’ve have just dreamt up he wants to do, keep being asked who should step in and replace him if they want him gone now… tumbleweed.
Andy Burnham would be better but I'm not sure he wants the job any more.
Burnham is beyond the pale for playing the race card to get elected mayor. Utterly disgraceful
this is an interesting article for those of you impatient with Starmer.
Except Starmer has already pinned his colours to policies which are the very opposite of what Biden is doing. Where Starmer and Dodds talk about fiscal responsibility and 'paying back the debt' Biden is creating money and dishing it out like Stephanie Kelton on steroids. Biden gives everyone a 1400 dollar cheque (among other things), Starmer proposes a savings account. Biden promises massive green infrastructure investment and jobs, Starmer proposes interest free loans to buy electric cars. Biden made peace and found a way to work with the left, Starmer calls them all racists. Honestly there is no comparison. Starmer is not the new Biden, he's a pale imitation of John Major.
I think Starmer would be a pretty good PM, I just don’t think he has to what it takes to actually get voted in.
This was my view during the leadership elections, and nothing he’s done so far had convinced me otherwise.
I’m still mulling over the Biden thing… but worry that one big difference is that in the USA it was clear to a large proportion of the population that the Republican Party had been hollowed out and there was nothing in it that would reign in a second term Trump. I don’t think the UK voters have really appreciated how the same has happened to the Conservative Party. Plenty of Tory voters are still voting for something that no longer exists.
Plenty of Tory voters are still voting for something that no longer exists.
while that is indeed true, what’s worrying for Labour (and for as any sane person in this country) is how many people have voted for exactly what the Tory party now is...
A nasty, mean-spirited, anti-liberal, anti-EU, anti-everything rabble of small-minded, insular, backward-gazing, racist, English nationalists.
Plenty saw that and decided that’s who they wanted running the country. A lot of those people were ones who’d previously voted Labour
That’s the reality. An utterly depressing one
Corruption in local govt! Quelle Suprise! Will the Tories go looking for more? I'm sure they'll find it if so.
That’s the reality. An utterly depressing one
Yep. While the country has always been full of horrible people it managed to have what would be in comparison to now a fantastic period with Blair's government but that is now long gone and it has fully swung.
Awaits, the "well, Blair started the move" which I will simply say, bollocks did he.
What's Toby Perkins got to say today?
her previous sucking up to Corbyn look utterly pathetic and completely disengenuous.
Thinking that 'some' politicians don't have an agenda is the same as thinking that when a stripper smiles at you; see likes you.
Thinking that ‘some’ politicians don’t have an agenda
I'm not under any illusions, it's why I have little time for party politics. But Rayner is a special case, because she makes such a big thing about her background and the fact that she is a 'normal person' rather than an oxbridge educated political careerist clone. But in fact she's no better, or in fact worse because the other careerists are at least honest about it. The sad thing is that much like Burnham, when she tries to play that game she looks like an amateur and loses all credibility as a result, where if she'd just stuck to what she was good at she'd get to the top anyway.
Meanwhile Anneliese Dodds saying protesters should express their 'discontent' by 'other means', which presumably is what the Labour front bench are doing - opposing the government by 'other means'.
It was on the radio. What he quotes is all the context I could find.
If you look on twitter there are numerous clips of the police just attacking people for no reason. And our compliant media tell us it was the opposite including the state media which is run by a party apparatchik.
The 'opposition' don't really dare complain too much for fear of being branded traitors.
Welcome to Putin's Russia.
https://twitter.com/PaulR5458/status/1375763840315559943?s=20
Ir's quoted at the bottom of this article
Ah, so it’s about the attacks on police and property? I agree, that’s not the right response to either the draconian laws that the government want to implement, or as a response to dangerous and violent actions by the police.
Yabbering on about Labour is waste of time unless you're centre-right.
Corbyn or Starmer - it doesn't matter.
Neither of them would or will make any radical changes to UK society.
The solution?
A left party that has UBI as its 'Brexit'.
A radical change with the power to improve the quality of people's lives.
It should take the UKIP approach of not being bothered about Westminster or elections.
It should be indy friendly - to offer an alternative to SNP/Plaid/Labour.
Thank you.
Ah, so it’s about the attacks on police and property?
Somewhat disingenuous since the critics of the protest have not drawn any distinction between the majority of people who went to the demo and those who went looking for trouble.
Dodds, where she was quoted in that article, was talking about the violence, and that protestors shouldn’t resort to it… no?
The shadow chancellor, Anneliese Dodds, said that “whenever there is violence, that is completely unacceptable” and told BBC Breakfast that protesters should be using “other ways of expressing whatever dissatisfaction they have”.
Neither of them would or will make any radical changes to UK society.
The solution?
A left party that has UBI as its ‘Brexit’.
A radical change with the power to improve the quality of people’s lives.
It should take the UKIP approach of not being bothered about Westminster or elections.
It should be indy friendly – to offer an alternative to SNP/Plaid/Labour.
Thank you.
Which would fall at the first hurdle that is the English electorate.
Thus effecting no radical change to UK society.
It was love at first sight. The first time Yossarian saw the chaplain he fell madly in love with him.
It should take the UKIP approach of not being bothered about Westminster or elections.
Sounds like you want a campaign and information group pushing for and explaining UBI, rather than trying to become the government. Sign me up. Call it a “party” if you really want. Better to try and enlist candidates for other parties to your cause though, rather than going for the “vote splitting” approach of UKIP. There are current MPs, in a few parties, that are in favour of UBI already, work with them and grow it from there (easier to do if you’re not a party).
Which would fall at the first hurdle that is the English electorate.
Thus effecting no radical change to UK society.
Exactly. Some of us would love radical change but that is not going to happen in the UK with the UK voters. They do not want radical change. The majority actually want changes to be rolled back which was the main point of Brexit.
The biggest change you will get is someone like Starmer and the Labour party under him rather than the tory party, which will do for me.
One day you will just have to accept that is the country you live in, I have. Doesn't make me any happier but removes the frustration of being pissed off about something well out of my control. What is in my control is moving to a country where the ratio of complete ****ers is a but lower but that can't happen quite yet for a few reasons.
There are current MPs, in a few parties, that are in favour of UBI already,
The Green party are fully behind UBI. They seem to have really caught what the voters want with their 4% of the vote...
Ukip got less than 4% prior to 2015. Within a few years they had petty much everything they wanted. It may be negative change but its still change, and it shows its possible with the right plan.
Sadly it's much easier to exploit people's unpleasant monkey brain instincts than it is to inspire positive changes. I try not to worry but we are going in a dark direction imo.
Dodds, where she was quoted in that article, was talking about the violence, and that protestors shouldn’t resort to it… no?
Was she? It's not clear, and I'd say deliberately so, in order for apologists to claim that she was not criticising the vast majority of peaceful protesters many of whom were assaulted by the police thugs while appraising propagandists who have put about stories of broken bones etc, and their sheep-like followers.
I'm sure that Labour will fall in behind the new legislation just as they did with the spy cops bill. You can't get a fag paper between them and the Tories.
What is in my control is moving to a country where the ratio of complete **** is a but lower but that can’t happen quite yet for a few reasons.
this is no longer in my control. Thanks, Brexit. Thanks, red wall voters.
A former police chief has warned that new protest laws move Britain dangerously in the direction of “paramilitary policing” and that UK ministers are “flexing their muscles via their police forces” like repressive regimes around the world.
Michael Barton was head of crime operations for policing nationally, and chief constable of Durham constabulary until 2019, which inspectors rated as one of the best performing forces in Britain.
He and another former senior policing leader, Sir Peter Fahy, told the Guardian they held deep concerns about the dangers the new laws posed for civil liberties already reeling from a year of emergency Covid laws.
Former police chiefs can say it, but the Labour party doesn't dare. Genuine opposition won't be tolerated.
Let's not forget Barbara Castle's 'In Place of Strife' White Paper went on to form the basis of Tory anti-union legislation. From Cable Street through to the Police Bill, you'd be struggling to find the LP playing a role or even supporting major campaigns. It would be delightful to be proved wrong but photographic evidence (and the 'lived experience' of some) suggests not. They prefer you to keep quiet, maybe protest by clapping or holding your breath, like Starmer, and just elect them. Events have already shown their stance.
*
Sadly it’s much easier to exploit people’s unpleasant monkey brain instincts than it is to inspire positive changes.
Absolutely. It was easy for Ukip to tell people its ok to be a bit racist if they want to. I hope there is a similar but opposite angle where telling people its ok to be nicer and more sharing would encourage some people to out themselves as woke lefties (or whatever the current 'insult' is). Lets be honest, if you do want "something else" then the Labour party isn't currently championing that.
So 'Labour MPs' think the reason Starmer's leadership has stalled is because they've spent too much time 'appeasing the hard left'. And everyone thinks it's the membership and those on the left indulging in internal warfare?
And in other news it seems Dodds is to be scapegoated for Starmer's failure to do his job. I'm not a Dodds fan, but leaking her sacking in advance and blaming her for 'failing to communicate the party's vision' is a f***** disgrace.
https://twitter.com/leninology/status/1376114477247135744?s=20
Jesus. Would the party not need to have a vision in order for it to be communicated?
Having no idea about her politics, she did come across as serious, bright and articulate. Sacking her and keeping MeMe tells a story. I guess his IT spy keeps coming up with new names and associations, where did they get 'appease' from? If you reject 'appease' as time-wasting then you must expel to save time, so 'accuse, ban, silence, sack, wack, dump on, expel' becomes the new LP (long-term, grown up, subtle, strategic, tactical) recruitment drive.
Having no idea about her politics, she did come across as serious, bright and articulate.
Probably, but she was not great on TV/giving message. She is fine behind the scenes but not the sort of person you need if you actually want to get elected. All that a lot of voters see is a few snippets of MPs here and there so they need to come across very well in very short time.
We are not in a time where people will sit back and consider whether the MP actually has what it takes to do the job and they just need to look and sound like they do (which she doesn't)
Many of us on here have said Dodds needs replacing for nearly a year now. With exactly the same reasoning (intelligent and considered but comes across awfully in any media). That invisible shadow Home Secretary needs to go as well. Being across your brief isn’t enough. Sadly politics needs sales people, not just capable people. Doubly true in opposition, where you can’t actually do anything, just talk about what needs doing. I’m hoping for a reshuffle rather than just one of them going. Miliband for shadow chancellor for me, he’s shone as the shadow business secretary (arguably the deputy for the role). And I never voted Labour when he was leader, so I’m not suggesting him as part of a move back to where Labour were then, far from it.
And everyone thinks it’s the membership and those on the left indulging in internal warfare?
That’s exactly what I hear from people who aren’t the joining political parties type, yes. Don’t you hear that as well?
Which would fall at the first hurdle that is the English electorate.
I'm not so sure.
It's a pretty powerful idea that taps into things that most people can relate to.
Wanting more from life than a crap job.
Providing some relief from feelings of fear, anxiety and stress that stifle lives.
I don't think it would be popular because however shit things are a fair number of British people are happy enough as long as someone else is seen to be doing worse than them.
It will be seen as a 'scrounger's charter', and mercilessly characterised as such by the Tory-controlled BBC and the billionaire owned papers.
Sadly, so. I’m fully behind UBI, but moving the public towards it is a 15-20 year project. Politics in England is currently all about kicking out at others, not making things easier for them (even if it would also increase your own sense of and actual security and quality of life). Getting the public to back ANY new universal benefit is a big enough task, never mind a proper universal basic income. Weird to think that we are arguably behind the USA on this now, as they pump money into households with stimulus cheques. Okay that’s small amounts, but do that here and it would be “what have they done to deserve that money?”
Which would fall at the first hurdle that is the English electorate.
I’m not so sure.
It’s a pretty powerful idea that taps into things that most people can relate to.
The population of this country haven’t got the remotest interest in good ideas, or relating to them in any way
A majority just voted for the most monumentally stupid idea any country has ever conceived. Then as the self-harm it’s causing becomes ever more obvious they double down behind the man who delivered it because he keeps waving flags in front of them.
And that, apparently, is what they want
Not good ideas
Flags
... and blue passports
And in other news it seems Dodds is to be scapegoated for Starmer’s failure to do his job. I’m not a Dodds fan, but leaking her sacking in advance and blaming her for ‘failing to communicate the party’s vision’ is a f***** disgrace.
Exactly.
After Starmer's failed fun time purge of the left - they are now seeking to blame the shad cab for their lack of direction and popularity.
This is the desperate part; flags, lack of support for public workers, topsy turvy economics, no opposition on the Tories. Etc.
It's way worse than I thought it might be actually.
It's almost as if focus groups don't work...
. Weird to think that we are arguably behind the USA on this now, as they pump money into households with stimulus cheques. Okay that’s small amounts, but do that here and it would be “what have they done to deserve that money?”
Yep. We have a nasty problem until we convince the electorate spending Government money is usually good for someone.
You see we why the battle for change in macroeconomic policy is so important?
And why Labour have to push back away from tax and spend. Not that they will in a hurry - I chatted to James Meadway at length and he's got no time for anything other than neoclassical economics. He was John McDonnell's senior advisor.
He thinks spending is just Keynesian. And the Government needs to borrow.
False.
But he doesn't accept you need to change the narrative that the money supply is not limited by tax take.
Biden and Trump moved on from that debate. The Tories hold Labour to account here because Labour is failing to change the narrative - and grasping the fact that balancing the Government books is a really economically a silly idea.
Even Paul Mason is taking it to Starmer!
It’s way worse than I thought it might be actually.
It’s a car crash. It’s amazing how quickly Starmer’s leadership has unravelled. He’s gone from the left wing voting him in and everyone praising his forensic professionalism, to being despised by the people who voted for him, flip-flopping on simple policies like corporation tax, to throwing his senior shadow cabinet colleagues under the bus via the media. He and his blairite cabal (see what I did there? 😀) needs to go asap or labour in England will very soon look like labour in Scotland.
It’s almost as if focus groups don’t work…
Unless the subject of Dodds was discussed in a focus group of course, where I would think everyone would say she is not good from what they have seen, therefore of she goes.
That is what Labour need to do with all of their cabinet to ensure they are all fit for the purpose of getting elected, including Starmer.
The conservatives have managed to hoover up the center right and the extreme right votes in one untastefull, but convienient package.
Labour have managed to alienate the extreme left, the moderate left, and the liberals. They are two, maybe three different parties fighting amongst themselves under one banner.
You don't need a degree in maths from UCL to compute those numbers.
It’s a car crash. It’s amazing how quickly Starmer’s leadership has unravelled. He’s gone from the left wing voting him in and everyone praising his forensic professionalism
He’s gone from the left wing voting him in?
Really? Talk about building your part up.
You realise that the Corbynite ‘left wing’ were an irrelevant 70’s throwback until Ed’s catastrophic error in allowing them to colonise the party for 3 quid a pop
They’re still an irrelevant 70’s throwback, who’s champion never had a cat in hells chance of being elected, but they’ve somehow cast themselves as kingmakers, due to their monumental piousness, self-absorbed sense of importance and joyless, self-righteous arrogance.
Starmer isn’t leader because the ‘left wing’ lent them their votes (to quote the Tory’s). He’s leader because the majority of Labour members, who’s political sensibilities have evolved since doing their A levels, saw the abject folly of the last 5 years, the catastrophic election result it just delivered (again!) and the need for a pretty ****ing dramatic change of course.
That’s what Starmer represented. That’s why Rebacca Wrong-Daily isn’t the leader.
The nation delivered its verdict loud and clear on what ‘the left’ proposed. twice. They weren’t interested.
And that’s why Stermers (or anybody else deemed not to be suitably sanctioned by the beardy messiah) leadership was never going to result in anything other than endless sixth form frothing and whining, no matter what they did.
‘The left’ are too sanctimonious and convinced of their own righteousness to accept the reality staring them in the face so would rather wreck everything, even if that means permanent Tory rule, rather than even begin to countenance the idea that they might be wrong
Really? Talk about building your part up.
Do we have to go over this again? It's obvious to anyone who can add up that Starmer would never have won if members who previously voted for Corbyn hadn't switched their votes to him. These are the people (like me) who it seems Starmer is doiing everything he can to alienate. I'm not a politician, but that seems to me an odd strategy to succeed.
You're really going to have to stop blaming 'the left' for the failure of your intellectually bankrupt, outdated 3rd way nonsense. There's a simple reason it doesn't work any more, because no one believes in it. They don't believe in it because they have memories, and saw that it only papered over the cracks of the stuctural problems in our society, as well as causing some major problems in it's own right. It's this hubris which led to the collapse in Scotland, and now it's happening in England. I suppose you won't care though, because you'll feel vindicated in the fantasy that it was all the fault of those pesky lefties.
He’s leader because the majority of Labour members, who’s political sensibilities have evolved since doing their A levels, saw the abject folly of the last 5 years, the catastrophic election result it just delivered (again!) and the need for a pretty ****ing dramatic change of course.
And yet as soon as it was announced that a by-election in Hartlepool was to be held you immediately predicted that Labour would do worse than it had done under Corbyn :
binners
Full Member69.57% Leave area?
I’m going to go out on a limb here that the average Hartlepool voter hasn’t seen anything about the 40% drop in trade with the EU since Brexit (and wouldn’t care anyway) so thinks thats all ‘done’, and thinks Boris is ‘doing his best’ so is about to vote Tory as they just had their vaccination so thinks Covid is now ‘done’ too.
An absolute shoe in for BlueKIP
Let them eat cake
Generally speaking opposition parties pick up votes in by-elections as the governing party typically suffers from mid-term blues.
Plus of course Starmer won't have to contend with this :
So anyway, if Starmer is going to lose Labour seats that remained Labour even under Corbyn where are all these new Labour votes going to come from binners - the Tory strongholds?
From Cable Street through to the Police Bill, you’d be struggling to find the LP playing a role or even supporting major campaigns
All the way back to the Jarrow March...
https://twitter.com/aronkeller/status/1376245670592585739?s=19
A painful LoL.
Our local Labour council has taken this approach too, and reminding everyone they're flying the Union flag all the time.
So anyway, if Starmer is going to lose Labour seats that remained Labour even under Corbyn where are all these new Labour votes going to come from binners – the Tory strongholds?
Evening Ernie. Good to see you comrade
Anyway... it was always commonly accepted that in a FPTP electoral system delivers government to those who can win the key marginals.
That bloke who won three consecutive elections knew that. What was his name again? Tony something or other
But that was before the Labour Party - or those who colonised it - decided to elect a leader who would make them so electorally repellent that they would lose massive amounts of the seats that they’d been able to depend on winning since dinosaurs roamed the earth
Now they’ve lost them and the link is broken they haven’t half got their work cut out
So you’d think that ‘the left’ might do a bit of soul-searching, maybe acknowledge the damage they’ve done and maybe show a bit of humility
Yeah, right.
None of that nonsense. Instead they’ll blame everyone but themselves and just carry on with their endless sanctimonious bleating and hold out for the day when the entire British electorate bows down to their obvious moral superiority and acknowledges that they were right t all along and thank god that their idealogical purity has saved us all from ourselves.
Once we’ve all done that, what do we address first... peace in Palestine or nuclear disarmament
Actually... the situation in Venezuela is quite pressing, and we’ve not really got to grips with trans rights yet. It’s a pretty crucial issue in Batley
Our local Labour council has taken this approach too, and reminding everyone they’re flying the Union flag all the time
if you ask your average voter what the most pressing issue is... Potholes or a Universal Basic Income, guess what the answer would be by 99.9999999999999999%
You lot seriously need to engage with the real world some time soon. It’ll blow your mind
The 'real world' is constantly harking back to the 90s? While calling everyone else stuck in the past.
How's that working out currently?
So binners you can't explain why you expect Labour to lose Hartlepool despite Starmer apparently being a great electoral asset, and the seat being won twice by Labour under Corbyn.
In fact Labour very marginally increased its share of the vote in Hartlepool under Corbyn, but you still nevertheless expect Starmer to lose the seat.
Don't you think it slightly undermines your strategy, even if you want to throw in some diversionary stuff about Palestine and Venezuela?
.... FPTP electoral system delivers government to those who can win the key marginals.
Even if they lose their safe seats? Really? Are you sure?
But that was before the Labour Party – or those who colonised it
I do worry about you. No one ‘colonised’ the Labour Party. It’s a fantasy you’ve imagined to explain away the failures that were evident long before Corbyn appeared. The people you seem to despise *are the labour party*. You know, the activists, members, trade unionists and campaigners who make up the wider labour movement. The colonists are the careerist MPs and officials who think the sole purpose of the party is to deliver their career ambitions.
The reality you talk about doesn’t exist, outside of parliament labour has always been a left wing party. What I don’t understand is why you’re a member when you’d clearly be better off in the Lib Dems.