Forum menu
So she needs sacking due to being a poor media performer?
Absolutely. I would say moved rather than sacked though. The public are never going to look at her and imagine her in the second most important role in government, but she has plenty to add as part of a shadow treasury team.
So whats your stance on Starmer again?
That Labour should replace him before we get to a general election, because he doesn’t have the charisma or connection with the public that is needed to win a general election.
It’s because she is a poor media performer,
It's very much not this. Her media performances don't help, but she needs replacing because she dsplays all the worst traits of a politician I outlined above. As nickc says she may recognise that we're entering a period of government activism and public spending, but she either doesn't recognise or refuses to be honest about the changes to the economic system which will enable this spending. There is nothing to be gained by persisting with the lie about how money and government finances work, and if she's not willing to be honest and make that case then she should step aside for someone who will.
Blair (never voted for him) didn’t drag the UK to the right
He really did. The 'War on Terror', with it's systematic demonisation of Islam/Muslims, simply fuelled the flames of xenophobia, and made millions of British people the target of right-wing fear and hatred. You can apologise for/ignore Blair's failings all you like, but the society we live in today, with its divisions and injustices, is the product of the kind of politics started by Thatcher, and continued by Blair.
That Labour should replace him before we get to a general election, because he doesn’t have the charisma or connection with the public that is needed to win a general election.
Who would you replace him with?
Well, the tories have currently been responsible for less deaths, worldwide, than Blair, but I suspect you’ll be ignoring that fact.
Yep, as I said I will be ignoring it because it is nonsense. Thanks for playing.
He really did.
‘Iraq!’
It is one of the things that kept me away from voting Labour ‘till Corbyn became leader. I have never ignored it, or defended it, or accepted it. You can choose to ignore everything that Labour did in government that the Conservatives would not have, if you wish.
Who would you replace him with?
Me? Lammy. But it won’t happen anyway, Labour aren’t ruthless enough, and will be trying to avoid anything that focuses ‘inwards’ on party politics… there is no chance of a run off before the general election loss (which I obviously wish wasn’t coming… but is hard to ignore coming down the tracks like a runway freight train).
Realistically we’re looking at strengthening the ‘alternative cabinet’ before an election, and running on having a team ready for government, with Starmer being dull but fair and ‘for all’, and other shadow ministers needed to energise different groups of workers. I can’t see it working for Labour… unless the constant stream of obvious self interest and what we’d call ‘corruption’ in other countries damages the government members enough over the coming years.
is the product of the kind of politics started by Thatcher, and continued by Blair.
And we're back to neoliberalism. Blair was an unashamed cheerleader of the neo-liberal project, the crowning glory of which is brexit. What it didn't contend with though is a global pandemic. Now that everyone has seen that the rules we've been told are sacrosanct for the past 40 years are not rules at all, and are instead arbitrary policies which can be changed or reshaped as necessary to combat the pandemic and other problems we face, things will start to change (they already are). Starmer has a simple choice, he can pretend the old rules still exist, or he can put himself and his party forward as the best people to create the new political and economic environment which will govern the next 40 years. He has a golden opportunity to be a radical reformer, but he looks like he's not interested. It's tragic.
Yep, as I said I will be ignoring it because it is nonsense
So, fact = 'nonsense' now. Fake news, eh?
Thanks for playing
Don't mention it. Shame you didn't turn up though. 😉
Blair (never voted for him) didn’t drag the UK to the right.
Yes he did. He normalised the tories hard right policies as standard in the UK and in several cases put in the building blocks for them to push further from.
The NHS is a perfect example. In his ideological extremism he pushed the PFI approach way beyond what the tories thought was sensible and so has created a debt burden which will be carried for years to come. So one point for the increased funding but minus far more in how it was channelled via the private sector with him following the tory position of public is bad and inefficient.
Blair was an unashamed cheerleader of the neo-liberal project, the crowning glory of which is brexit.
Is there any point engaging with this? Which politicians were/are really proposing an end to the “neo-liberal” project, and which meaning of that term are you referring to? It’s easy to make the case for Brexit being either a revolution against new-liberalism, or an extension of it… “neo-liberal” is a junk term used to describe mutually contradictory political and economic ideas.
PFI funding was a mess. Not all increased health spending was channeled though it though. Imagine if there had been no break in Conservative rule between Thatcher and now… are you really arguing that would have resulted in the UK being less “to the right”? Really?!? Cloud cuckoo land. Have you not been watching what has happened since the Tories got their majority in 2015?
So, fact = ‘nonsense’ now.
Nope. You can judge how successful a government has been for UK society on the number of deaths via war but to me that is nonsense and has no bearing on the choice between a future Labour or Tory government.
Would Labour have got involved in the Falklands war?
Would the Tories have been involved in Iraq?
I would say Yes - probably, to both of those. Nobody actually knows.
He really did. The ‘War on Terror’, with it’s systematic demonisation of Islam/Muslims, simply fuelled the flames of xenophobia, and made millions of British people the target of right-wing fear and hatred.
Can I raise a point of order?
Did those blokes who hijacked the airliners and flew them into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, killing thousands of people, share any responsibility for this? Or was it entirely Tony Blairs fault?
and which meaning of that term are you referring to?
You really should watch that Graeber video I posted above. What I'm talking about is the system which has existed since the 70s where the postwar settlement was replaced with liberal political rights and a withdrawal of economic benefits/protections in favour of cheap credit. This system enabled the rise of the plutocrats and oliigarchs and the monopolism we now live with which is destroying the planet and threatening the futures of billions. Just like after WWII and the 1970s we're at another transition point, caused by the banking crisis and the pandemic. As I've said before, a smart politician would see this and take advantage. Biden has clearly seen the opportunity, Boris too for entirely different motivations. And Starmer? Care to tell me what his great idea is because I haven't the foggiest.
Right... so Blair (never voted for him) withdrew which economic benefits/protections from who? Was introducing the minimum wage a withdrawal of "economic benefits/protections"? Were tax credits a withdrawal of "economic benefits/protections"?
And, as it happens, I find all your attempts to unify Biden and Johnson as having similar political/economical approaches, while attacking Starmer as "centrist" and a "neoliberal" stuck in the past as laughable.
I'll ask again... why is Starmer a "centrist", yet Biden is not?
are you really arguing that would have resulted in the UK being less “to the right”? Really? Cloud cuckoo land
Could you explain how exactly how you made this leap of logic. Are you incapable of thinking that, just maybe, Blair didnt have to push the policies that he did?
However since you brought it up oddly enough it is a tad more complex than your simplistic "cloud cuckoo" land and comes back to where the perceived middle ground is.
That this shifts really isnt controversial and that is the problem with the triangulation politics.
How exactly it would have ended up under the tories would be highly unpredictable and would depend which wing had power. You only need to read some rightwing blogs and forums to see the complaining about the tories having to move leftwards on some issues to try and get votes, I mean even Binners has spotted this, whereas with the chase them rightwards approach they have no choice but to move further right.
Blair (never voted for him) withdrew which economic benefits/protections from who?
They were already removed, it happened in the 80s under you know who. Blair didn't bring them back, unless I missed something. He made it a little more tolerable for a few years with his tax credits and minimum wage, and made some things worse with PFI etc but did little to roll back thatcher's revolution. In the end once labour were gone we were still left with what thatcher created, and that lead to where we now find ourselves. Watch that video.
Can I raise a point of order?
Did those blokes who hijacked the airliners and flew them into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, killing thousands of people, share any responsibility for this? Or was it entirely Tony Blairs fault?
No of course not - but then are you unwilling to accept the West's general meddling before and after this as part of the problem?
Terrorism didn't start with 911. You know, America and its allies have a history.
And further to that how was what Blair did any sort of solution?
Would Labour have got involved in the Falklands war?
Would the Tories have been involved in Iraq?
The answer to the second is definitely judging from their voting pattern although without Labour support they would have struggled.
The answer to the first is far more interesting.
The actual question should be would they have needed to?
It is something which should have been a lesson for Starmer and co around covid which is that poor performance during a crisis can be hidden by a semi ok outcome.
The Falklands happened since the tories far from being the defenders of the military had cut the funding so far the Argentinians thought they had a chance and, if they had waited a year, they would have walked it.
There is a report that under the previous Labour government the Argentinians were sabre rattling but it was handled by simply letting it slip that one of the nuclear attack subs had been dispatched to the general area. Which made the Argentinians pause on the grounds that they still fancied having a fleet.
Oh and for those who think a inquiry into Covid would be damaging to the tories they should look up the one into the Falklands.
Did those blokes who hijacked the airliners and flew them into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, killing thousands of people, share any responsibility for this? Or was it entirely Tony Blairs fault?
The hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. So was bin Laden. Guess which country is our ally?
For a whole host of reasons the UK has has a Tory government for over 40 years, right now I'd really welcome a red Tory to get rid of the purple Tory government.
Maybe once we have a red Tory government we could convince people to go for a blue Labour government then a red Labour one.
What I don't want is a red Labour or green government right now because as we saw with the blue / yellow government, people want unrealistic levels of change at the same time as not wanting change at all and that'll be the end of you.
You really should watch that Graeber video I posted above.
I went and looked for something short written by him in support of the History of Debt book (I'm not inclined to watch an 80 minute video by an anarchist, it's unlikely to get to the point), and was sad to see he's died. Maybe I'll find time to watch it later.
What I don’t want is a red Labour or green government right now
The mistake you're making here is thinking too much about different flavours of government when really there's almost no difference. Government is government no matter where the politicians come from, and the politicians largely come from the same background, play by the same rules and have the same career ambitions. That's why we get so many politicians in the wrong party, and why party divisions are almost meaningless. The sad fact is that we live in a one party state, but we pretend we're in a democracy for no other reason than it makes us feel superior to the likes of China. It's all very stupid really.
The sad fact is that we live in a one party state, but we pretend we’re in a democracy for no other reason than it makes us feel superior to the likes of China.
What a load of old *********. If you really think that all "politicians are the same", why do you point to the positive changes Biden is making after taking over from his predecessor? If Labour had won either the 2017 or 2019 elections, we would have a very different government, and this country would be changing... and I would argue for the better. If you honestly think that it matters not which politicians, and which party, are in government... why are you posting in a thread about a party leader?
EDIT: apologies, I agree we have a highly flawed system that needs improving.
I’m not inclined to watch an 80 minute video by an anarchist, it’s unlikely to get to the point
The fact that he's an anarchist is besides the point. Make the effort, he's one of the most incisive and insightful analysts I've ever heard or read, and has a real talent for explaining complex issues in non-academic language. And yes it's a tragedy that he died so young.
Interestingly his anarchist politics come from his experiences as an anthropoligist studying how societies around the world function without effective government. The stuff about dual power structures in places like Madagascar is pretty mindblowing.
why do you point to the positive changes Biden is making after taking over from his predecessor?
Trump wasn't really a politician was he? He was an outlier, and shouldn't really be used in any comparisons. If you compare Biden to other US presidents he's not much different. A Corbyn government would have been marginally more different to all the others, but really he wasn't proposing any major fundamental changes to how government and democracy works. He certainly wasn't planning any major economic changes other than spending and taxing more.
So, both Biden and Corbyn are "centrists" then?
Both support the "neo-liberal" system?
Why is Starmer standing in the way of what you want, but neither of those were?
So, both Biden and Corbyn are “centrists” then?
It's all relative. When I talk about centrists I mostly mean political cowards who don't want to change anything. Centrist is the wrong word, really they're just conservatives. Corbyn would have changed things, and to my surprise Biden is going further than I expected, but they still exist within a narrow hierarchical political culture. They may not be centrists, but they're still politicians.
The sad fact is that we live in a one party state, but we pretend we’re in a democracy for no other reason than it makes us feel superior to the likes of China.
Mate, much as I love you, you don't half talk some shite 🙂
Interestingly his anarchist politics come from his experiences as an anthropoligist studying how societies around the world function without effective government. The stuff about dual power structures in places like Madagascar is pretty mindblowing.
Its all explained here...
So, both Biden and Corbyn are “centrists” then?
Both support the “neo-liberal” system?
Why is Starmer standing in the way of what you want, but neither of those were?
It doesn't answer your question but this recent article flutters with your point. Meadway is a tax and spend economist that believes in borrowing to finance stuff - so I don't agree with him in that respect but he does know his left politics as he was key advisor to McDonnell.
"The same patterns have appeared across the developed world, as the economic failures of the decade or more since 2008 have mounted. But where centrists and the existing centre-left in Europe have self-destructively alternated between contempt, derision and terror when confronted by their own new lefts, the Biden team have deliberately sought an engagement with its representatives."
Engagement works both ways, and arguably it was happening ‘till Corbyn refused to use that report to draw a line under an issue Labour needed to move on from. Ever since then Starmer has been treated as the enemy, rather than someone to work with. And those that have worked with him have been treated with contempt as well… the stuff that Rayner now has to put up with is pretty depressing. As I said before when Biden’s “engagement” with the left amongst the democrats was brought up, perhaps a pressing election soon after the appointment of a new leader here would have focussed minds on a joint policy platform and seeking office… but with so much time to kill, Labour returned to battling with itself, especially once Corbyn lost the whip. Labour needs to become working a coalition. It’s not happening.
Ever since then Starmer has been treated as the enemy, rather than someone to work with.
Oh come on, Starmer courted the left's vote but turned his back soon enough. If people are treating him unfavourably then perhaps it's because they don't like being used.
The difference between Starmer and the part of the Labour party that dislike him is that he has a better idea of what needs to be done to win an election and doesn't hold onto things and ideas that won't help that.
It falls apart because he is not the right person to win an election and he probably doesn't realise that or won't give up the role. The same as Corbyn really who did okay at the start and got new people interested but then clung on when it was clear he should have passed it to someone else within a year as he was never going to be good from an election point of view after that.
It looks like the anti-lockdown anger and the ‘Covid is just seasonal flu’ ‘debate’ just coalesced and settled around Starmer at a pub in Bath.
Thanks to the plucky landlord, Keir Starmer and Labour have come to represent not only the Tories handling of the pandemic but also the cause of UK’s plummeting economy.
Boris must be enjoying a pint somewhere.
Mate, much as I love you, you don’t half talk some shite
But you said pretty much the same yourself when correctly raising the issue of the tories nicking labour policies. If as you say all you want is a less cut-throat type of capitalism, then what does it matter if it's the tories or labour implementing 'labour' policies? It doesn't matter because there's no real difference between the parties.
Its all explained here…
Have a read...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsimihety_people
It doesn’t matter because there’s no real difference between the parties.
This isn't true. Why don't you just go and join the Tories?
[ not really, just please go and work out who really doesn't give a shit about you and yours ]
Can I raise a point of order?
Oh dear...
Did those blokes who hijacked the airliners and flew them into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, killing thousands of people, share any responsibility for this? Or was it entirely Tony Blairs fault?
So, the 'all Muslims are terrorists' trope. Great. Thanks for reinforcing my point that Blair's actions led to the demonisation of Islam and Muslims across the UK, emboldened the far-right and all manner of deluded nutjobs, saw the increase in hate crimes particularly against Muslims (but also against Brown people in general), and contributed to the rise in xenophobia and divisions in our society we see today, though.
Nope. You can judge how successful a government has been for UK society on the number of deaths via war but to me that is nonsense
Of course. Brown lives don't matter.
Wars are wars and I don't think they are based on skin colour. Most wars are pointless and I pretty much support none of them. But as I said, that has no bearing on most peoples choice of future government, i.e. nonsense.
just please go and work out who really doesn’t give a shit about you and yours
Does labour? I don't know if they do. Starmer's actions since he won the leadership indicate otherwise, because so far he only seems interested in making sure people like me are not welcome in the party. I believe the wider party and movement have my best interests at heart, but labour MPs seem to want total control so they can ignore what the party wants. I have zero faith or confidence that the vast majority of labour MPs give a shit about me and my family, and instead am pretty sure they are only in politics to further their own careers.
So, the ‘all Muslims are terrorists’ trope.
That really is the worst strawman I've seen in a long time.
Brown lives don’t matter.
Said no one. Bridges, every person you have engaged with in this thread was against the Iraq war at the time (I think), and in hindsight still think it was wrong.
making sure people like me are not welcome in the party
How?
I have zero faith or confidence that the vast majority of labour MPs give a shit about me and my family
Well, I wouldn't apply that description to any Labour MP I've ever spoken to. But then, many of those are no longer in parliament sadly. Anyway, it's a sweeping statement that surprises me, even coming from you. If you really think it matters not whether our representatives in parliament are Labour or Tory... I'm not sure why you care who leads the Labour Party, and how they go about it, to be honest.
am pretty sure they are only in politics to further their own careers.
If that was true why would they choose the Labour party? If your only reason for becoming an MP was career based, with no ethical or moral consideration, then you would be standing as a Tory MP surely to increase future opportunities.
so far he only seems interested in making sure people like me are not welcome in the party
You identify as an Anarchist, you're not supposed to feel welcome in any political party. That's sort of the point...
You identify as an Anarchist
I don't identify myself with any label. I'm actually quite a pragmatist. My core principles align with those of anarchism, but I'm not ideologically against parties or politicians as long as they are honest and do what they promise. Under it's current leadership and with the current PLP, labour do neither.
I’m actually quite a pragmatist
You not that long ago responded condescendingly to pragmatism and claimed it never got anything done.
responded condescendingly to pragmatism and claimed it never got anything done.
Nope, don't remember that. Centrism probably, but not pragmatism. Funny though isn't it, because while centrist 'pragmatists' construct silly fantasies about reds under the bed fomenting revolution, I'm supposedly an 'ideological puritan' for being generally dismissive and distrustful of MPs and others who hold power who prove time and again that they can't get things done and are not to be trusted.
Centrists (at least the UK and european ones) are not pragmatic. They are ideologues hanging on to an outdated and bankrupt philosophy which has been proven to have failed, and which is being abandoned across the world. Starmer needs to catch up, as everything has radically changed since the 90s.
dismissive and distrustful of MPs and others who hold power who prove time and again that they can’t get things done and are not to be trusted.
I am with you on that and I would completely change the whole setup. Interesting that most democratic countries do similar things with MPs, governments etc, though isn't it.
Interesting that most democratic countries do similar things with MPs, governments etc, though isn’t it.
Yeah they all make, and repeat, the same mistakes and have the same problems, and fail to solve them even though the solutions exist and are there to be tried. The one commonality is the disproportionate concentration of power in the hands of a few, and the absence of any effective mechanism to challenge and dilute that power. We really shouldn't have to riot on the streets or wait for crises like covid to affect change when it is necessary. We don't do that in other walks of life, so why politics?
Centrists (at least the UK and european ones) are not pragmatic.
Oh, isn't that sweet... someone arguably a 'centrist' wins power in the USA, and then once in position starts turning things around, not just for his country but for the world... and suddenly... no, that 'centrist' is fine... it’s the ones trying to get into positions of power here that are bad because... er... they'd do just the same in power as the right wing self serving corrupt nationalist nut jobs currently in government. Quite apart from Starmer not being a 'centrist' (unless all Labour leaders in my lifetime have been), the approach of pulling in voters who are not of the left into the fold has worked over there, it can work here… and doing so doesn’t preclude any resulting government from acting quite differently to the one it replaces, and doing so in the interests of far more people, if they win.
Nope, don’t remember that. Centrism probably, but not pragmatism.
Yep, definitely pragmatism not centrism. It stood out as one of your more curious statements.
it’s the ones trying to get into positions of power here that are bad because…
The reason Biden is respected by the left is because he made a deal with them to do the stuff they want in return for their support and campaign operation. Now he's in power he's making good on that deal. Starmer made a similar deal in the labour leadership election. When he won he called all the people from the left who supported him racists, ditched all the promises he made about policy, sacked the leading leftwing shadow cabinet member, and threw their former leader and many activists out of the party. Spot the difference?
When he won he called all the people from the left who supported him racists
Er, yeah, right. Of course he did.
This is all about Corbyn and Long-Bailey, isn’t it?
This is all about Corbyn and Long-Bailey, isn’t it?
It's partly about them. It's mostly about trust though. Starmer didn't have much to start with, but many (including me) voted for him on the basis of his promises which we believed, despite the fact that many on the left told us we were being fooled (I had quite a few people express their disagreement with my voting for him). To build on that initial trust, Starmer needed to demonstrate that he would include the left as partners in his project and repay that trust, as Biden has done. The sacking of RLB and ridiculously over the top treatment of Corbyn clearly showed the opposite, and his actions since then have confirmed that. As a result he now has a party at war, a demoralised activist base, a much reduced membership, and breakaway parties reducing the labour vote. Nice job!
If you make a deal with someone, then break it, you can't expect the other party to trust you or deal with you again. I don't really know why he has done what he has. I think he was probably sincere when he made those promises, and then buckled under pressure from the nutters on the right of the party. Even if that's not the case, at the very least it's shockingly incompetent leadership.
The sacking of RLB and ridiculously over the top treatment of Corbyn
So it is about those two. They both made their positions impossible. There are plenty of other left wing people in the Labour Party for Starmer to work with, and many are working with him. You are right that the sidelining of those two has enraged a hell of a lot of supporters, but it had to happen... sadly. It's on them, as far as I'm concerned. They let down so many people. I'd rather have had both of them inside and fighting the Tories.
The sacking of RLB and ridiculously over the top treatment of Corbyn clearly showed the opposite
Really? RLB was hopelessly naïve if she thought re-tweeting Maxine Peake's nonsense wouldn't get her into hot water, and what else was Starmer supposed to do about Corbyn's frankly idiotic "Sorry, not sorry" statements?
Fair enough Starmer has to be inclusive, but at the same time, you've got to want to be included, and ultimately; lead by your party's leader...If you do stupid things that are likely to get you sacked, don't be surprised if you get the sack.
If that was true why would they choose the Labour party? If your only reason for becoming an MP was career based, with no ethical or moral consideration, then you would be standing as a Tory MP surely to increase future opportunities.
Why would the Tory party want any of this lot?
Harder on his own party than the Tories has got him where?
Hard on his own party how? Or is that comment also about the same two individuals?
So it is about those two.
No it's about trust. The trust between the two factions of the party was a much bigger issue than RLB or Corbyn, and Starmer could have recognised that. Instead he chose the option which he knew would piss off the left the most, probably at the behest of people telling him he had to use a big stick to show them who's boss.
And in other news..
https://twitter.com/GregClinker/status/1385256950686957570?s=20
Your point is? That he should attend events no matter who attends? Or that he shouldn’t take into account advice from certain Jewish groups? Just as last year, Starmer has been welcoming of Ramadan…
https://muslimnews.co.uk/news/ramadan/ramadan-messages-political-leaders/
Why would the Tory party want any of this lot?
I take it you haven't seen many Tory MPs...
Can we stop thinking Biden is the second coming?
Your point is? That he should attend events no matter who attends? Or that he shouldn’t take into account advice from certain Jewish groups?
That being in favour of a boycott of Israeli dates isn't controversial or anti-semitic and that he should grow a pair, but he won't because he has rich Israeli-lobbyist backers?
It isn’t about the boycott. Where did him get that from?
EDIT: Oh, the tweet Dazh shared claims it’s about “sanctions”. Look into it a bit more, it’s about support for Cage UK.
It's not the tweet it links to a Times of Israel piece saying it was pointed out by another attendee that the guy in question had supported a boycott of Israeli dates - the stuff about Cage is only mentioned incidentally.
The original JC story mentioned both. An awful lot of people want to paint Starmer’s no show to be about the sanctions not the support for Cage. Caution not to be seen to support this guy seems wise to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cage_(organisation)
Can we stop thinking Biden is the second coming?
Yeah, the centrist bastard! He’s no Bernie Sanders.
Can we stop thinking Biden is the second coming?
In direct contrast to Trump he sort of is.
Indeed. Not waking up and wondering if the US president has nuked Iran yet is a major bonus.
And it looks like he's doing a bloody great job, to me. He's hit the ground running in no uncertain terms!
But it seems that no matter what he does, he will always be vilified by a certain section for simply not being Bernie Sanders, by the same people who were never going to give Starmer a chance either, simply because he isn't Jeremy Corbyn.
So far, so predictable
And in other news..
TBF, Anyone with any ties to The Cage isn't exactly the sort of folk any normal politician should be seen within 200 yards of, so Starmer was given a good steer (and obviously thought so himself). Although clearly any advice taken from any rabbis and and reported in the Jewish Chronicle obvious means Starmer is in the pay of Israeli Intelligence.
the same people who were never going to give Starmer a chance either, simply because he isn’t Jeremy Corbyn.
So how is this "centrist" project going Binners? Still predicting stunning electoral results?
Is the policy of being neither this or that inspiring the electorate?
Because winning elections and maintaining the status quo is all that counts. Apparently.
Or are UK voters all secret radicals who won't give Starmer a chance?
Or are UK voters all secret radicals who won’t give Starmer a chance?
I think the UK electorate are not so secret Tories, who prefer Johnson aren't they?
So how is this “centrist” project going Binners?
Ernie, Labour needs to be a coalition of what some people call "centrists" and those of us on the left. While both or either fight against that, the party will fail. Full stop. If it can only be one or the other, it will never get the support it needs to replace the Conservatives in government. With a different way of electing a government it could be different, but that's where we're stuck.
TBF, Anyone with any ties to The Cage isn’t exactly the sort of folk any normal politician should be seen within 200 yards of, so Starmer was given a good steer
Last week he was being slagged off for not doing his homework and being involved with a religious group with dodgy views on homosexuality. This week the very same people are slating him for doing his homework and (sensibly) deciding that Cage is a group that you don't want to touch with the proverbial barge pole
He can't win. He never could with some people.
Or are UK voters all secret radicals who won’t give Starmer a chance?
Like it or not, a lot of the UK population are small 'c' conservatives, and a lot are big 'C' conservatives. And with the economy opening up again and people able to go to the pub and Primark again, the pre-covid status quo appears to be exactly what people want. And you ca't really blame them for that
I know that a lot of you are disappointed by the lack of appetite of most people for radicalism, but thats the electorate for you. The bastards! Perhaps if you berate them more, they'll change their minds?
And with the economy opening up again and people able to go to the pub and Primark again, the pre-covid status quo appears to be exactly what people want. And you ca’t really blame them for that
I assume from that comment you have re-evaluated the situation and are no longer predicting stunning election success for Starmer.
Is this based on the fact that the last 3 national opinion polls have put Labour on 34%, exactly the same as Labour achieved in the last general election?
Btw binners ref : "And you ca’t really blame them for that" it is very generous of you not to blame the electorate.
And, if I may say so, rather unusual for you not to point an accusing finger.
Btw binners ref : “And you ca’t really blame them for that” it is very generous of you not to blame the electorate.
I've never blamed the electorate. Quite the reverse. It's the Corbynite left who've consistently done that with their 'we won the argument' nonsense. Its always baffled me that they can be openly hostile to the majority of voters for not sharing their joyless, po-faced but oh-so-worthy idealogical purity, then be surprised when they don't vote for you.
Competitive and overly-conspicuous virtue-signalling may go down a storm in the common room, but most people just roll their eyes when they see it.
I assume from that comment you have re-evaluated the situation and are no longer predicting stunning election success for Starmer.
I predicted a couple of weeks ago labour will lose the Hartlepool by-election. I've stuck a tenner on it at 1.9/1 (odds are a lot shorter now)
The question is whether Boris can resist the temptation to call a snap election on the back of it? If he does, labour is ****ed!
Covid and the vaccination programme is the only game in town right now. Ironic that it'll be the dedication of NHS staff that could potentially deliver another 5 years of tory rule
Its always baffled me that they think that by being openly hostile to the majority of voters for not sharing their joyless, po-faced but oh-so-worthy idealogical purity, you’re then surprised when they don’t vote for you.
You mean like the comment you have just made binners with regards to the electorate only being interested in shopping in Primark and going down the pub?
And we know what you think about the common man down your local pub binners, according to you you called everyone in the pub "bigots" before storming off never to return. How many votes do you think that little performance won?
He didn't say they were "only interested" in those things, just that it's giving the public a lift. I know my hour in the sun in a beer garden post ride properly cheered me up on Sunday.
I know my hour in the sun in a beer garden post ride properly cheered me up on Sunday.
Did it turn you into a Tory voter as binners suggests?
Btw was that before or after you popped down to Primark?
How many votes do you think that little performance won?
You know that I'm not actually standing for election, right? I'm just a nobhead on the internet.
Do you want to come up and try a pint in my local, mate? You seem to spend an awful lot of time thinking about it and its regulars. Today would probably be the perfect day for it. I bet they've got the flags out.