Forum menu
Farage also had an easier job. Stirring up the racists and self interested to get behind ideas based on hate is a lot easier than getting those same people to feel as passionately about a more equal society.
You’re kidding, right?
So, which 2017 policies have been dumped? There seems to almost be a census here that those are the popular polices that should now be built upon, to try and get Labour back up to, and hopefully well beyond, that 2017 "high" watermark in pubic support. So which have been dumped?
Now you’re a little more enlightened, you can apologise.
You keep bringing this thread back to Israel, even when talking about British Jews, and used the "puppeteers" phrase. That brought to mind that trope instantly for me, and I'm very glad to hear that you didn't mean for your words to be taken that way. Thank you for explaining that you didn't "just" mean Israel when talking about puppeteers... but instead the "powerful corporate interests that really rule society"... so who are they? Who are these puppeteers that make you so sure that Starmer isn't his own man? Or can we drop the "puppeteers" word, and say what we mean... is it donors? Political advisors and allies?
So, which 2017 policies have been dumped?
Any of those which cross-reference with his leadership pledges. At first glance: a tax increase for top earners, a commitment to public ownership and abolition of tuition fees.
@Kelvin: Wow. What an incredible lack of self awareness. So you're not actually going to apologise for accusing me of anti-Semitism, even though you have absolutely no evidence other than an imagined idea in your own head? Forming a judgment about someone with absolutely no knowledge of who that person really is, their background, culture, religion etc? Simply because you have some sort of need to 'demonise' anyone who thinks differently to yourself? And you say it's the 'left' that are the problem in Labour?
Wow.
All this tit for tat over the flat refurb with what we have really going on around us is utterly repugnant.
David Lammy and other Labour MPs ought to know better what the priorities for opposing are.
an imagined idea in your own head
I asked why you used the term "puppeteers", you then asked why I was asking, rather than answering, so I told you what that phrase brought instantly to mind. Yes, that trope is "in my own head", it should be in all our heads.
David Lammy and other Labour MPs ought to know better what the priorities for opposing are.
Corruption is what will bring Johnson down, if anything does. I think he'll ride over it just fine... but if Labour MPs weren't challenging where the PM was getting his money, they'd be accused of "not opposing", wouldn't they?
@Kelvin: Don't keep digging, just apologise. It's all you have to do.
What would my apology be? Sorry for asking why you used the word "puppeteers"? Sorry for telling you why, when you asked, it rings alarms bells "in my head"?
I'm stepping away from this, as it's clear you lack the humility to admit you've made a mistake. But try to think on how making accusations against people you know nothing about, might not be such a great idea. Best of luck with that.
Corruption is what will bring Johnson down
This may very well prove to be true. It won't, however, necessarily result in a change of government. As someone mentioned earlier, or perhaps on a different thread, people should be careful what they wish for.
Now, would I love to see a transparent government in charge? One whose policies are genuinely for the better of the masses not just the affluent few? Absolutely. Labour should be this party. Labour should be the party for the masses. Currently its more reminiscent of a drunken, pub squabble over who's turn it is on the pool table. Such a shame. Root and branch reform of UK politics is long overdue.
All this tit for tat over the flat refurb with what we have really going on around us is utterly repugnant.
David Lammy and other Labour MPs ought to know better what the priorities for opposing are.
They got Al Capone on tax evasion. In this sort of case the 'how' does not matter.
So; willing to give Starmer that long?
Why would I need to do that? I am not really sure how that translates to me pointing out that it is perfectly possible to change things from the side line and that, in fact, it can be amazingly effective. If you look at some tory think tanks for example they got rather worried.
Why would I need to do that?
Because it took Farage over 30 years on a single issue by pushing on a door that was already partly open, that's why.
Corruption is what will bring Johnson down, if anything does. I think he’ll ride over it just fine… but if Labour MPs weren’t challenging where the PM was getting his money, they’d be accused of “not opposing”, wouldn’t they?
It's so depressing watching Starmer though, he had zero conviction in the questions he was putting to Johnson just now, it's like he's just going through the motions.
Starmer got Johnson to lie to parliament & then reminded him that doing so is a resigning offence under ministerial code
Johnsons prepared rant about not asking about things that matter was well done
But Starmer knows that he's caught out Johnson & bozo knows it too
Maybe I'd better watch to the end ;o)
it’s like he’s just going through the motions
He asks questions as if they are never going to be answered by the PM, and as if he just wants them on the record for future reference. It's both a reflection of reality, as well as uninspiring. Johnson is so good at sucking the energy out of any attack. Those on the record exchanges will be built on, and referred to, in future though. It's as if Starmer is making a case against an evasive defendant in a very long court case. I doubt the public will pay enough attention to any final verdict, but not sure what else he can try. Get shouty? That won't work either. I hope he can get some things to stick, in the mind of the public rather than those following closely. We'll see... but I fear "lying to parliament" won't lose Johnson a single voter.
Corruption is what will bring Johnson down, if anything does. I think he’ll ride over it just fine… but if Labour MPs weren’t challenging where the PM was getting his money, they’d be accused of “not opposing”, wouldn’t they?
Maybe. This could be the beginning of the end of something.
Still think the corruption debate here is narrow minded.
They didn't really challenge much when it actually counted. Seems to be John Lewis is part of the debate...
They got Al Capone on tax evasion. In this sort of case the ‘how’ does not matter.
How matters when you're one of the actual victims of Tory ideology.
Not curtains.
Still think the corruption debate here is narrow minded.
If you mean that the decorating stuff is "small fry" compared to the bigger corruptions at play, then I agree. But it's something where there are rules that can be shown to have been broken... and something where "we had to act fast, because, Covid" can't be used to defend ignoring experienced reputable companies in favour of new companies set up by donors and contacts of MPs. But, most importantly, Johnson can't just deflect it onto other ministers and civil servants... this one is all down to him and his decisions and actions.
He’s backed or backing Johnson into a corner on every issue, just like you’d expect a skilled advocate to do. It works for me, but I detest Johnson anyway. Whether it’ll work for the wider public, I dunno, I’m not confident.
Starmer wisely wants discussion to avoid brexit & vaccine rollout
Johnsons arrogance is his weakness
It's like the MPs expenses affair - that sort of small petty stuff against the large scale attributes of policy that kills thousands seems to resonate more with the electorate.
It's a very local thing for folk to not understand or care about the scale of political decisions rather than a few quid down the back of a settee.
Possibly the root to lots of societal issues.
He’s backed or backing Johnson into a corner on every issue, just like you’d expect a skilled advocate to do. It works for me, but I detest Johnson anyway. Whether it’ll work for the wider public, I dunno, I’m not confident.
Well my Tory MP has already managed to extract a piece where that didn't happen.
Editing is king.
If you mean that the decorating stuff is “small fry” compared to the bigger corruptions at play, then I agree. But it’s something where there are rules that can be shown to have been broken… and something where “we had to act fast, because, Covid” can’t be used to defend ignoring experienced reputable companies in favour of new companies set up by donors and contacts of MPs.
For sure the petty corruption doesn't play well with old-gen Tories. They remember John Major.
But I think the electorate will have forgotten by the time the elections come. Interesting timing though.
But I think the electorate will have forgotten by the time the elections come.
I agree. But it's not unreasonable to expect more chances like this in the coming years... and they could all build on each other to create a "feeling" about Johnson and his party, even when the details of this and other uncovered corruptions are forgotten by us all. Unlike some others, I think there is no chance of the decorating money, and the attempts to cover up or explain it away, being some kind of silver bullet that unseats Johnson from his long sought after throne... but it could be the start of some real damage. Frustratingly, the more important stuff done during the pandemic just won't be hitting home with Johnson's "fan base". I'm not saying it shouldn't be uncovered and pointed out by Labour, and others, but the "time of crisis" and "stop talking Britain down" defences are going nowhere.
How matters when you’re one of the actual victims of Tory ideology.
Not curtains.
Then you'll never get anywhere with crooks like the 'modern' conservative party. 🤷♂️
All this tit for tat over the flat refurb with what we have really going on around us is utterly repugnant.
Yup just makes Labour look petty and stupid frankly, when they made far less fuss about the far more serious corruption. I detest this government but I cringe whenever I hear a statement from Labour trying to criticise them.
🤷🏻♂️
So, which 2017 policies have been dumped?
Any of those which cross-reference with his leadership pledges. At first glance: a tax increase for top earners, a commitment to public ownership and abolition of tuition fees.
As Kelvin hasn't acknowledged my response, can anyone else shed some light on what Labour's policies actually are? In an interview with the Guardian last year, Starmer rowed back from his manifesto pledges ("the slate has been wiped pretty clean") so what else is there?
I've changed my mind. This thread is depressing. What it needs is some theme music, and I can't think of anything more appropriate than this... 😄
(apologies but I'm alway on the hunt for opportunities to post Conflict songs places)
That takes me back, old enough to have had a Conflict record on Vinyl.
Here you go. Very applicable to this place
😀
https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1387505102798344197?s=19
Corruption bounce.
(I know I know. Maybe something should filter through next time. Although let's not forget the Tories have been corrupt for years.)
It would be a mistake to assume that allegations of corruption will necessarily have a negative impact for Johnson.
In the late 1980s political control of Westminster Council was in the balance. The Tories had a majority of only 4 and with the falling popularity of Thatcher it looked highly possible that Labour would win control.
So the Tories embarked on a highly illegal and corrupt gerrymandering exercise - probably the most serious political corruption of modern times.
However by 1989 the District Auditor had been brought in and scale of the corruption had been publicly exposed.
The perceived wisdom at the time was that this now publicly exposed corruption scandal would, without doubt, tilt Westminster Council in Labour's favour.
What actually happened was that not only did the Tories hold on to Westminster in the 1990 council elections, but they won by a landslide, increasing their majority from 4 to 38.
It turned out that voters were really not bothered that the Tories in Westminster were seriously corrupt.
As much as you'd like him to stop attacking Johnson on corruption Rone its his only in at the moment and as vaccine rollout completes & we open up fully he will have an even bigger hill to climb- so exposing Johnsons corruption is about all he can do at the moment
Indeed the left of Labour are silent on what or who the alternatives are to Johnsons popularity
Good analysis here
He's not won back red wall voters that corbyn lost
But since Dec he has lost remain voters he had picked up
Indeed the left of Labour are silent on what or who the alternatives are to Johnsons popularity
Take a leaf out of Biden's book who is actively engaging Sanders.
Hence the stimulus and climate stuff.
Biden has done that post election victory. He was very much seen as middle of the road veering right during the nomination process, indeed that is what would have won over wavering Republicans... I know the left don't like it but Labour need to appear to be centrist then enact left leaning policies once they have secured power.
There's actually quite a lot of evidence that the electorate don't like "centrist" policies.
Did Gordon Brown fail to remain prime minister because he was seen as too far left? Did Ed Miliband lose in 2015 because he was arguing for radical left wing policies? Did Nick Clegg turn the LibDems into a political irrelevance because he didn't pursue centrist policies?
The Tory Party are not a centrist party, it doesn't seem to put voters off.
And as far as I'm aware every Labour government there has ever been elected has swung to the right once power has been secured. The Labour government that swings to the left after winning an election will be a long time coming.
Piss poor.
Of course it is, I get the impression that had this been Corbyn, you'd be slapping your thighs.
Of course it is, I get the impression that had this been Corbyn, you’d be slapping your thighs.
Not really.
I can't imagine Corbyn messing around for the sake of a ****y PR joke in the wake of a pandemic.
False equivalence.
Biden has done that post election victory. He was very much seen as middle of the road veering right during the nomination process,
If you haven't noticed Starmer is not gaining any traction to become electable.
The evidence for lack of appeal to centrist policies lies in grave with the Lib-dems and Change UK.
Front pages of all the papers pretty much in pro-government propaganda mode, no one cares Johnson is corrupt. 🙁
I had noticed that Starmer is struggling thanks.
But that is how Biden secured the Whitehouse.
Unfortunately it looks like Labour need to find a salesman to reinvigorate the party in the eyes of the electorate. I don't think Starmer is a bad leader in fact given the chance I think he'd be great.
Sadly political discourse appears to be ****ed in the UK and we had better hope the populist nonsense is seen through by the voters before we end up doing something even more stupid than the preceeding ten years...
Anyway that's enough politics from me, life's shit enough as it is to dwell on this at the moment.
But that is how Biden secured the Whitehouse
You keep saying that but where is the evidence that Biden secured the US presidency by winning over wavering republicans, as you put it, with "centrist" policies?
Using your logic Trump won the 2016 presidential election by offering centrist policies in contrast to Hilary Clinton's presumably radical policies.
What appears to have happened in 2016 was that many Democrats simply found it impossible to vote for Hillary Clinton. Partly because of the way that Bernie Sanders was stitched up by the Democrat Party establishment. And partly because she was seen as exceptionally right-wing by many Democrats.
In contrast Trump energised Republican voters who were both happy and willing to vote for him.
What happened in 2020 wasn't that Biden won over Republican voters, Trump actually got an extra 11 million votes in 2020 compared to what he received in 2016, but because Democrat voters went out and voted Democrat.
Partly because they couldn't stomach another 4 years of Trump. And partly because Joe Biden wasn't Hilary Clinton.
Voter turnout in the 2020 presidential election was the highest in 120 years.
I can’t imagine Corbyn messing around for the sake of a **** PR joke
Q: Can you remember who drove through a fake wall in a digger during the election? I'll bet you do don't you?
Q: Is the man who dove through the fake wall in a digger A. The Prime Minister, or B. the Leader of the Opposition?
bonus Q: Is the politician who didn't drive through a wall on a digger; A. The Prime Minister, B. The leader of the opposition. or C. A complete and utter irrelevance?
You're right though, Johnson was willing to do irreverent and foolish things in order to get elected, and people like that, they like the idea that their leaders are prepared to make themselves look silly, it shows they're regular people, and Corbyn wasn't ever prepared to do anything like that, he would never have allowed himself to be made fun off. Starmer made a wee joke at Johnson's expense, that's it.
I can’t even follow Earnie’s tortured logical fallacies well enough to form a response.
Still don’t consider Starmer a centrist… but if that’s what Biden is/was, not so sure I’m against it. The Democrats are an uneasy coalition that held together long enough to win elections and get things done. I wouldn’t mind a bit of that here.
Wallpaper!
I’ll be surprised if that poll doesn’t turn out to be a blip. I think, as a cycling forum, we forget that Johnson jumping on the Super League stuff appeals to, and cuts through with, way more people than Johnson letting tens of thousands of people die, and saying in advance that was acceptable to him rather than be seen as the killjoy who called a lockdown when it was needed… or taking money with one hand for expensive pointless baubles, and handing out government contracts to those that bribed helped him with the other. Longer term though… all the lying and corruption might come to matter for more of the public, but not right now. And I doubt this year. Vaccines.
Pub?
I’ll be surprised if that poll doesn’t turn out to be a blip.
Sadly I agree, tho the ipsosmori poll a few days ago was similar
I think, as a cycling forum, we forget that Johnson jumping on the Super League stuff appeals to,
Which in itself could do with more investigation. Seems somewhat coincidental that the Man U chief met with Johnsons chief of staff the week before and that he fell on his sword after it all collapsed.
Sadly I agree, tho the ipsosmori poll a few days ago was similar
Survation is one pretty reliable pollster though, historically it has predicted election results better than most I believe. I think it is probably premature to assume that looking at wallpaper in John Lewis is the reason for the narrowing of the Tory lead - the survey was concluded on the day the story broke.
I can’t even follow Earnie’s tortured logical fallacies well enough to form a response.
Nice tactic. It absolves you from the need to explain your alternative point of veiw whilst making clear that you disagree.
Which of course is a tactic that Starmer would approve of.
Unfortunately it looks like Labour need to find a salesman to reinvigorate the party in the eyes of the electorate. I don’t think Starmer is a bad leader in fact given the chance I think he’d be great.
Which is what I have been saying of years
1. Do anything it takes to get into power (leader popularity/likability is a major factor)
2. Once in power do all the 'politics' stuff that those that voted for you are not actually interested in but that won't matter as they will still think the leader is great
That is why it is important for Starmer to pursue Johnson for his dodgy stuff as if Johnson ever had to resign the Tory party would start to struggle with point 1.
Just looking at those numbers above you could read that 6% has gone from LDM and Green to mostly tory.
So what has happened since the last poll to move 3% of Green votes to mostly Tory?
Not likely to happen is it, which shows how flawed this type of polling is. You would need to poll a lot of people and keep polling the same people to actually see what movement there is.
Given the recent track record of polling, generally, it’s difficult to see why they still bother with it at all, other than as a very rough, sticking your finger in the air type of thing.
I’d certainly not put on any money on anything they ‘predict’.
Let’s be honest, nobody has really got a bloody clue what’s going to happen next week, other than Nichola Sturgeon being quite happy and Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan still being Mayors of Manchester and London respectively.everything else is anybodies guess
binners
Full MemberGiven the recent track record of polling, generally, it’s difficult to see why they still bother with it at all, other than as a very rough, sticking your finger in the air type of thing.
I’d certainly not put on any money on anything they ‘predict’.
And yet binners you are so quick to draw everyone's attention to polls which you feel show how popular Starmer is
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/sir-kier-starmer/page/86/#post-11721339
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/sir-kier-starmer/page/76/#post-11511716
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/sir-kier-starmer/page/76/#post-11510742
Plus of course regular your rant on here which includes the comment : "when grandad finally departed Labour were 26 points behind in the polls". The fact that the comment in no way reflects actual electoral reality doesn't seem to bother you, "all hail opinion polls" appears to be your philosophy.
So when did this sudden mistrust of opinion polls suddenly come about binners?
Sorry the links don't appear to have worked! Still I'm sure I don't have to push the point and will leave it at that.
Yes, polls are good if they show what you want them to show.
Is Lisa Nandy trying to sabotage her chances of succeeding Starmer when he loses the next election? Why make a big thing about nurses pay when your policy/opinion is no different to the tories? Utterly f***** useless.
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1388781437260861440?s=20
Ffs
I think blinkeredness affects those on all sides; Many Corbyn supporters still think he was the best person to lead the nation, and it's evident the Starmer supporters on here at least, simply cannot understand that Starmer will not, and cannot offer anything other than what his neoliberal principles dictate; ie, pretty much the status quo with nothing much changing. As for cries of 'get into power first'; that some people still believe Starmer would somehow radically become this Socialist Superstar, and revolutionise British society, shows how deluded people are when they nail their colours to a particular mast. Starmer will only do what the ruling elites allow him to. Having Starmer as PM would hardly be any different to having Boris in charge, let's face it. So I have to wonder if those backing Starmer, actually genuinely want to see change; my guess is that they are pretty comfortable with the status quo, and aren't really bothered about much beyond their own self interest. Certainly, the disparaging remarks about 'activists' showed just how little some people actually know about political activism, and what it really is. Activism is a growing and sadly necessary part of our society; from food banks and vaccine volunteers, to legal workers forming networks to challenge and prevent the vicious racist policies of Priti Patel's office. It's challenging big business when it wants to destroy the environment for profit. It's about tuning up in numbers, to prevent racist thugs from terrorising minority groups and communities. And maybe it's just about saving an allotment from corporate development. And to me, it would be about standing up to racist idiots in a pub, and getting them removed, and making that pub a place where everyone would be welcome, rather than just shouting abuse at them and flouncing out. Because a lack of effective action, changes nothing. And we're back to Starmer again...
Why make a big thing about nurses pay when your policy/opinion is no different to the tories?
But it is different. Even that clip reminds us of that. But Labour policy isn’t “we back the unions’ negotiating position”, and that is for a good and very obvious reason. If the government are given a “Labour just do what the unions say, because they are their paymasters” attack line, then they will wriggle out of accusations of acting in the interests of their donors. This has played out in exactly this way in the past. Marr’s questioning is an attempt to set that trap (a trap he tries to deploy at nearly every opportunity, so all Labour interviewees should be ready for it). While you and I fully back unionisation, and collective power of the work force, for a huge chunk of the electorate the unions are not trusted, and nor is any politician who will unequivocally support their positions (thanks Len, we should have been able to bury this nonsense decades ago, but hey).
But it is different.
No it's not. A 2% pay rise is no different to a 1% pay rise when that extra 1% is worth about a fiver a week. Unless you think people are idiots, and clearly LIsa Nandy does. And then she compounds that by saying not all nurses want a pay rise. And this is someone who seriously thought she was Prime Ministerial material?
for a huge chunk of the electorate the unions are not trusted
The Royal College of Nursing is unversally respected. Drawing comparisons between them and McClusky is ridiculous.
Their demand for 12% is not ‘universally’ popular, to put it mildly (but I support it), where as 1% is hated by nearly all. There is a difficult line to walk here, pushing for a minimum increase to try and get a government u-turn, while also saying that more is required, so that a u-turn isn’t the end of the matter and more can me pushed for, all without jumping straight to supporting the union’s 12%. Reminding people that pay is not the only issue is important as well.
where as 1% is hated by nearly all
So why doesn't Nandy (and other labour frontbenchers) say 6, or 8% if they don't want to agree with union leaders? Seems to me they want to be seen as being on the side of workers, but don't want to actually help them in any material way other than offering meaningless platitudes. All it says is 'vote for us, but don't worry we won't change anything'. If she's not prepared to actually help nurses then she should keep her mouth shut and stop using them as a campaigning tool.
Because they support the arm length function of the NHS Pay Review Body, and are attempting to show themselves as a potential government who would work with them to set NHS pay? I dunno. I do know that your attempts to paint “not enough” as “none”, and “not different enough” as “no difference” are very irritating… which I presume is your intention.
Kelvin labour lost the support of working class voters because those voters realised that while claiming to be on their side, the labour party had done very little to help them. Now Nandy is doing the exact same thing. 'I'm on your side, but I don't think you should get a pay rise of more than £10 a week'. She's an idiot, plain and simple, and if this is the best labour can do, they might as well pack up now.
Anyone with their own Hartlepool predictions?
For me it's too close to call and lots of conflicting reports and vibes.
Pushed - I'd say Tory. Depends on what stuff happens this week in the press.
Could easily flip.
the labour party had done very little to help them
Yes, I also keep hearing that while we have ongoing Conservative governments the Labour Party have delivered very little for people. In fact, blaming Labour for the state of the country under the last three Tory PMs seems to be a default response, something that is unfair on the last three Labour leaders in my opinion, but that’s where we are. The Tories mess things up and corruptly act in the interests of their donors, and much of the working class blame Miliband, or Corbyn, or Starmer for that… or say “Labour would be just as corrupt and useless”. The worse the actions of the Conservatives in government, the more the public seem willing for Labour to share the blame for that.
Anyone with their own Hartlepool predictions?
Only the same as you. Conflicting reporting from different areas. I suspect a Tory surge that either takes the seat, or comes close to it. Labour vote share might also increase slightly, but that wouldn’t mean that is necessarily enough to keep the seat. Both parties increasing their share, but the Tories increasing theirs by more… that’s my prediction. Whether that ultimately ends up in the seat flippin? I wouldn’t risk a bet either way.
Anyone with their own Hartlepool predictions?
Just a guess, but I think the last minute panic and focus on it means it's likely to go Tory.
I think it'll actually be a fairly solid Tory gain, but I'm hopeful that nationally the picture will be different and limited in damage.
Also think turnout will be low nationally, so make sure you encourage everyone you know to get out, as every vote will count more so than in a GE.
My guess is that Labour won't do as well in Hartlepool on May 6th as it did in the 2017 general election when, despite being one of the highest leave-voting constituencies in the UK, more than half the voters voted for a middle-class party of guardian-reading professionals who frankly despise them.
My other guess is that the Tories will be blamed for that.
In fact Kelvin has already suggested that you can't blame the Labour Party two posts up ^^
Survation showing a predicted 17pt lead in Hartlepool.
Even I'm having hard time with that lead.
Even Sir Starmer said people aren't interested in the details of wall-paper gate. No shit.
My guess is that Labour won’t do as well in Hartlepool on May 6th as it did in the 2017 general election
That is very likely.
people aren’t interested in the details of wall-paper gate
Best not bring up that the PM is on the take, rather than serving the country then, huh?