Forum menu
In 2017 the Labour Party was fully committed to respecting the referendum result
Don't disagree, BUT, the conservatives made Brexit their total campaign, wholeheartedly embracing it in a bid to get the former UKIP voters on board, and it worked. Also they promised to heavily restrict immigration. You only have to look at the results. Kensington (absolutely the heart of Tory West London) went to Labour (remain vote) and Stoketon-Trent (former industrial town) went Conservative for the first time ever (heavy Leave). Labour became the home of the remain vote because in 2017 they had no-where else to go.
I can’t believe how blind some people are to things that don’t sit comfortably with what they believe.
Touche
lack of democracy in EU
So now you're saying democracy is left wing, whereas Stalinist Russia wasn't very democratic. Towards the end of the war Nazi Germany was the most multicultural place in the planet as troops of all nationalities (including Muslims) retreated into Germany.
More evidence to support my point. Stuff swaps left to right fluidly. They're meaningless terms.
This is being reported as a big shock, but where did people expect most of those 10k Brexit party votes to go? Wouldn’t the most basic analysis suggest an obvious Tory win?
If it'd been a close result, and Labour's share of the vote had held up (or increased, given 2019 was a low point) that might be a valid argument. What actually happened was that Labour's share fell by 9 points from the 2019 election, which as we all know was disastrous.
In 2017 the Labour Party was fully committed to respecting the referendum result, and then spent the next 2 years doing everything possible to stop Brexit.
Careful, you're straying onto nazi sympathiser/appeaser territory here. 😳
Personally, I’ve had more than enough of Keith’s flag shagging and policy vacuum, and I know plenty of others who feel the same.
I stayed at home this time. Or rather my postal vote is still in a pile of unopened junk mail. I know plenty of others who did the same.
This is being reported as a big shock, but where did people expect most of those 10k Brexit party votes to go? Wouldn’t the most basic analysis suggest an obvious Tory win?
So why did most of the UKIP votes in Hartlepool go to Labour in 2017?
What's that all about?
So why did most of the UKIP votes in Hartlepool go to Labour in 2017?
comfortable
What’s that all about?
Precisely. If you add the UKIP and Tory vote from 2015, it pointed to a comfortable Tory win in 2017.
I stayed at home this time. Or rather my postal vote is still in a pile of unopened junk mail. I know plenty of others who did the same.
I voted Green.
In which case the dramatic rise of Social media should have dramatically increased support for “non-tory” partys
Yes of course the tory party or it's supporters don't do social media do they? It's too modern. FFS the tories are way ahead of labour in the social media arena. The only time labour got anywhere near was when those evil communists Momentum were cranking out content on a daily basis.
Lol! So that went well... 😀
The Tories have no policies, no vision, have to be blackmailed into feeding hungry children, give money to their mates, lie and cheat, couldn’t give a toss about the folk in Hartlepool. That’s why people vote for them.
Truth is, that the middle class neoliberal elite that run Labour today, couldn't give a toss about the folk in Hartlepool either. The only difference is, that the tories do what they want and don't give a ****, whilst Labour politicians try to pretend they do care (bar a small handful, but it's very small). And the veil has slipped. People are now seeing the Labour elite for what they really are; wealthy, privileged and contemptuous of the working classes, the very people they are supposed to represent. Fact is most people are politically ignorant; this thread is evidence enough of that. So populism works far better than vague verbosity. The Labour elite are insulated and isolated from the majority of people, and their wishy washy liberalism just doesn't wash. Most people just want to feel safe and protected, and for all Boris' faults, he appeals because he is a bully, arrogant and politically bombproof. It's like how kids back the bully in the school playground, because they don't want to be bullied themselves. Whilst the focus is on someone else, it's not on you. But Labour haven't been led by such a figure since Blair, and that's really where the current problems began. Had Blair been committed to even vaguely left-wing principles, and not facilitated the political shift towards the right, Boris wouldn't be enjoying the success he is. Armrest's attempt at populism failed dismally; even his own MPs have said so:
So where does Starmer and Labour go from here? Hemorrhaging votes, supporters and members, it's looking very bleak. Be interesting* to read what the Armresters on here think.
*I say 'interesting'; I mean 'amusing'.
It was only 4 years ago that 52% of voters in Hartlepool voted for a “left leaning” party.
Yes. They once marginally voted for one left leaning party. No other parties of note and no other labour majority since Blair
So why did most of the UKIP votes in Hartlepool go to Labour in 2017?
What’s that all about?
I buy that.
But doesn't help in 2021 when Labour can't campaign for Brexit 'cos it's already happened.
Truth is, that the middle class neoliberal elite that run Labour today, couldn’t give a toss about the folk in Hartlepool either.
Nah mate, that's not true. Labour and Tory are different ideologies. Labour's principles are to stick up for the poor and disadvantaged; Tory principles are to let the rich screw the poor over. That's the bottom line. All this 'identity' stuff about where people are from is a smokescreen. You don't sign up to be a Labour politician if you don't care about working class people wherever they're from. Why would you?
Most people just want to feel safe and protected
Right, and Tories don't give a shit about protecting anyone - small government, austerity, remember? - and even if they did they're grossly incompetent. And somehow the people who are affected by it manage to miss this point.
I stayed at home this time. Or rather my postal vote is still in a pile of unopened junk mail. I know plenty of others who did the same.
Then sorry to say this, but if you don't at least participate in the (so-called) democratic process, then you can't expect your opinions to be acknowledged or respected. You could at least have just spoiled your ballot papers. I know, it's probably not really 'worth' the effort, but if you can't be bothered to vote, then why should anyone bother to listen to you?
So far, the Tories have gained 54 council seats and Labour has lost 56. All to do with Brexit and Corbyn, I'm sure.
Had Blair been committed to even vaguely left-wing principles, and not facilitated the political shift towards the right, Boris wouldn’t be enjoying the success he is.
If Blair had been left wing he wouldn't have been elected in the first place.
What’s that all about?
Because I think Brexit is having a wildly massive impact on how folk vote and what they they think the parties they're voting for actually stand for. It's why Staunchly leave Labour voters could vote for the same party that Remain voters voted for in 2017
Right, and Tories don’t give a shit about protecting anyone
But people believe they do. This is the thing; many people believe Boris will protect them from the marauding hordes of immigrants, coming here to take 'their' jobs, infect 'their' society and communities with alien ideologies, and murder them. That's why Blair took the UK into an illegal war.
You don’t sign up to be a Labour politician if you don’t care about working class people wherever they’re from. Why would you?
Money? Power? Influence? Hasn't done Blair etc, any harm.
Labour’s principles are to stick up for the poor and disadvantaged
They may well be. The elite who run the party aren't abiding by those principles though. This much is clear.
If Blair had been left wing he wouldn’t have been elected in the first place
He pretended to be 'left wing'. He went round calling himself a 'socialist'.
"I am a socialist not through reading a textbook that has caught my intellectual fancy, nor through unthinking tradition, but because I believe that, at its best, socialism corresponds most closely to an existence that is both rational and moral."
So...
Had Blair been committed to even vaguely left-wing principles, and not facilitated the political shift towards the right, Boris wouldn’t be enjoying the success he is.
True, because John Major would still be PM at the age of 78. 🙂
I'd be happy with that, I rated Major. (He could never prove his ability with a Majority of 19. Our last state educated PM.)
Just out of interest; what do people on here think 'left wing' really means?
Money? Power? Influence? Hasn’t done Blair etc, any harm.
So equally true also of your tweet from Lloyd Russel-Moyle then? If, like you say, he's in it for the money and power, he's clearly fooled you.
Kier needs to resign this is no place for an honest, principled human being.
Leave the Labour Party to return to the left...
Yes. They once marginally voted for one left leaning party. No other parties of note and no other labour majority since Blair
When more than half of voters in Hartlepool voted for Labour's radical 2017 manifesto they were only marginally voting for a left leaning party?
Every day is a school day on here.
Just out of interest; what do people on here think ‘left wing’ really means?
Depends. Since the memewarz it just became a generalised insult/redsunderthebed scare.
Marxist innit. Wants to gulag you and force you to use pronouns.
Source: Internet culture.
You don’t sign up to be a Labour politician if you don’t care about working class people wherever they’re from. Why would you?
Money? Power? Influence? Hasn’t done Blair etc, any harm.
+1. Blair destroyed any trust and it’s been shit since.
I suspect the kippers didn't switch to Tory in 2017 because they didn't like May. Personality seems to be everything. Unfortunately Bozo has personality which appeals widely. Maybot didn't really connect.
But I find it baffling that someone could vote farage one year and corbs the next 😂
I keep seeing people on facebook moaning about labour councils because they haven't done anything - so why are labour so silent about the lack of funding ? they keep getting shafted by westminster and say nothing about it. Labour need to campaign with ideas of their own.
Scotland is now the preserve of the SNP, wales is split between plaid and labour, the only way that we will have anything other than Tory to the end of time is to get rid of FPTP with a full coalition between lab, libdem, SNP, plaid, green. make this the big policy along with getting shot of the HoL and changing the way that councils are funded and organised, get rid of dodgy money practices at westminster.
Labour should have picked Lisa Nandy.
I haven’t got a clue how labour counter this now.
I only came here this morning to enjoy the delights of binners latest rants and find out from him which politician was currently "utterly clueless".
You can imagine my disappointment when I discover that binners apparently hasn't got a clue.
Then sorry to say this, but if you don’t at least participate in the (so-called) democratic process, then you can’t expect your opinions to be acknowledged or respected.
Yeah you can piss off with that paternalist patronising bollocks. The entire system is corrupt and stacked against the interests of working people. The problem isn't which party exercises politics, the problem is politics, and I'm having nothing to do with it. I'll start voting again when I'm confident that the politicians I'm voting for are interested in solving problems rather than just getting into power to massage their egos and provide themselves with a nice nest-egg.
'Your opinion is valueless unless you play our game'. Well f*** that!
Blair destroyed any trust and it’s been shit since.
"The only time we've been in power in the last 50 years we were shit: Vote for us."
I can't help wonder if there might be a more appealing message...
Labour should have picked Lisa Nandy.
Good idea. She could have wowed everyone with her 2% pay rise for nurses. Revolutionary stuff 🙂
I can’t help wonder if there might be a more appealing message…
Vote for us; we have to blackmailed into feeding hungry children?
I suspect the kippers didn’t switch to Tory in 2017 because they didn’t like May.
In contrast, as all the opinion polls showed, they were strangely attracted to Corbyn's magnetic personality.
Makes you wonder why Theresa May called an unnecessary general election.
Yeah you can piss off with that paternalist patronising bollocks. The entire system is corrupt and stacked against the interests of working people. The problem isn’t which party exercises politics, the problem is politics, and I’m having nothing to do with it.
Fair enough. You don't have to waste any more time in this thread then.
‘Your opinion is valueless unless you play our game’. Well f*** that!
I totally get that. I can't say I was particularly motivated to walk the 300m or so to the local polling station, just to scrawl a few 'X's' against the names of people representing parties/groups that might vaguely represent my own interests, but I did so anyway, because even though voting might not achieve much, apathy achieves nothing.
So where does Starmer and Labour go from here? Hemorrhaging votes, supporters and members, it’s looking very bleak. Be interesting* to read what the Armresters on here think.
Gut reaction he has to go. If he goes Tory will see it as a massive win and shout about how they got rid of another leader. If he goes who replaces him god knows if you ask Twitter its Andy Burnham. Labour will double down on Starmer say they improved since the last election and continue to play the long game. They need to seriously reinvent themselves.
The general public didn't want Corbyns far left ideas and it seems like they dont want Starmers middle of the road either. God knows what they do. Im feeling very down about the Labour party today.
Vote for us; we have to blackmailed into feeding hungry children?
"Vote for us: We don't trust poor people to pass cash benefits onto thier kids so we demand benefits to be paid in kind."
Personally, I think Labour were on the wrong side of that (as we saw from the quality of the food) one and I'm pretty sure in the last lock down they offered a cash option which is far cheaper to administer and gives parents the ability to choose appropriate food for their kids.
Well I say wrong. It played brilliantly in the media so Kier did the right thing in that sense.
If he goes who replaces him god knows if you ask Twitter its Andy Burnham.
Is that Manchester's own Andy 'Blame the brown people for spreading CV' Burnham? No thanks. Blairite, lost leadership elections twice; who wants a loser?
Corbyns far left
Oh dear.
Do we think Burnham will be announced a winner again today?
Gut reaction he has to go
And yet, London* is effectively a one party state these days and Stamer and Khan are hugely popular,
Edit: *apologies Typo.
Do we think Burnham will be announced a winner again today?
I'd say so.
Do we think Burnham will be announced a winner again today?
I'm sure of it. Does that make him a better candidate for the Labour leadership than he was last time?
And yet, London* is effectively a one party state these days and Stamer and Khan are hugely popular,
Edit: *apologies Typo.
Really good point. You walk towards one set of voters you're effectively walking away from another.
Nothing's easy.
Does that make him a better candidate for the Labour leadership than he was last time?
No. But I was just wondering what "who wants a loser?" really means. Does the Labour Party now have a system for picking "a winner" to lead them? Does it have a way of replacing "a loser" in a timely fashion, in a way that builds support for the replacement with the general public?
And yet, London* is effectively a one party state these days and Stamer and Khan are hugely popular
I can see the next general election showing a narrowing of the popular vote between Labour and the Conservatives, yet the Tory majority be increased. Increasing your support in areas you are already winning seats in, gains you nothing under FPTP. The tories will take more seats away from the big cities in the near future, while losing irrelevant (to them) voters where it doesn't matter when to comes to staying in power.
Burnham lost to Milliband, and then to Corbyn. Two time failure. Nobody likes failure. He wouldn't last 5 seconds as Labour leader, without the tories deriding him for being such a failure. Besides, he pandered to racism. **** him.
And yet, both those leaders (both whom I would have chosen ahead of Burnham) failed to become PM. Perhaps Labour chooses the wrong leaders under their current system? I'm not saying Burnham would make a good party leader, I don't think he would, but labelling him "a loser" for failing to win the leadership, well... losing that competition doesn't necessarily taint you with the voter. "Winning" the Labour leadership doesn't mean you can win anything with the wider voting public.
You can imagine my disappointment when I discover that binners apparently hasn’t got a clue.
Oh come on, that can hardly have come as a surprise to anyone.
I genuinely haven't a clue how labour counter this narrative. The Tory's, or more specifically the Vote Leave team have successfully forsaken traditional political loyalties, and instead divided people along cultural lines into two distinct camps. And unfortunately the labour party finds itself in a minority on this front, whereas the Tory's (in their present guise) are seen as very much being 'on their side'
Remember also that while doing so, this present Tory party has adopted some very un-Tory financial policies that would traditionally be labour territory. So they've mixed social conservatism with being fiscally very un-conservative. Its a million miles away from Cameron and Osbourne
Its clever and its working as they've stolen labours thunder in a lot of ways
Has anyone any realistic proposals for how Labour counters this? Its not some re-hashed form of Corbynism, that's for sure
Besides, he pandered to racism. **** him.
At least he understands that racist people a) are common in this country and b) don't like being called out for their racist views all the time. Donald Trump realised this, Boris does too.
Do we think Burnham will be announced a winner again today?
He'll absolutely walk it. He was popular anyway, but sticking up for the Manchester residents regarding furlough payments etc, which changed government policy, cemented that
Besides, he pandered to racism. **** him.
Thats one interpretation. Others are available.
Thats one interpretation
Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester in Lancashire, North England, also said that the spike in COVID-19 cases had been impacted by gatherings "in multi-generational households".
When the BBC interviewer asked if he was referring predominantly to the Asian population of Greater Manchester, Burnham said: "Yes, I do mean that."
I'm gonna call it what it is. Blaming a particular section of the population for something that negatively affects all of us. It's no different to what the far-right do.
So yeah; **** him. Nasty racist little shit.
You see that as racist? That certain communities feature far more multi-generational households isn't controversial, is it? That intergenerational households are a risk factor as regards Covid might be debatable, not sure it's born of racism though, is it?
You see that as racist?
Yes, because it is.
Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester in Lancashire, North England, also said that the spike in COVID-19 cases had been impacted by gatherings “in multi-generational households”.
With her job, Mrs Binners has a lot of contact with one of the senior imams in Merseyside who was saying exactly the same, and was absolutely despairing about it. Is he a racist too then?
It's simply a fact. Even the most cursory glance at the only areas in greater Manchester that have STILL got ever-rising Covid cases and you'll see this clearly. And everyone does. Why on earth is it racist to point this out?
Prior to that he was called a racist (by you lot) for pointing out another fact that most of the refugees and asylum seekers are placed in the North compared to the south, placing a disproportionate burden on public services. Again: that's simply a fact. And everyone knows it. How is pointing this out racist?
When you scream RACIST! (which you yourself do at the drop of a hat) about things like this, this is exactly why a lot of voters roll their eyes at the left. Because what you and are doing is effectively placing any sensitive topics off limits, and its exactly this that allows the right to build the narrative that 'its political correctness gown maaaaad' and 'loony lefties'
Its totally self-defeating and counter-productive virtue-signalling, which achieves absolutely nothing, and in the case of rising Covid cases in specific areas has some very real-world implications which are not good, as its actively preventing public health issues being properly addressed.
But hey... as long as you get to parade your ever so 'right on' credentials, thats what's important here, right?
Well, the limited test and trace data we have shows that most transmission occurs within households. Census data will tell us if the multi-generational household thing is true, and true in Manchester.
When you scream RACIST! (which you yourself do at the drop of a hat) about this, this is exactly why a lot of voters roll their eyes at the left
This.
Bridges will have chased Binners and Kelvin into the arms of Boris by the end of the day. 😁
And placing sensitive topics off limits gives the opportunity for proper scumbags to take advantage of them, like what happened in Rotherham.
Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester in Lancashire, North England, also said that the spike in COVID-19 cases had been impacted by gatherings “in multi-generational households”. When the BBC interviewer asked if he was referring predominantly to the Asian population of Greater Manchester, Burnham said: “Yes, I do mean that.”
Yeah, it's a huge problem here at the practice that I work in (overwhelmingly an Asian area in Manchester) We had local Imams come to the practice so that they could get some pointers about how to talk at Mosque to local folk about it, and what they can do to protect themselves We're hamstrung by nationwide imperatives about what age groups we can vaccinate, so in these households when COVID gets a grip, it's really hard to get rid of it, and folk die.
Others are available.
Hate to say it but from where I'm standing Burnham is the only hope for Labour north of Birmingham. There is simply no one else with the profile, reputation and position to get people behind labour in the north. He needs to be back in parliament but I can't see that happening as he's said he's not interested.
Why does the party leader also have to lead the parliamentary party in Westminster? Just thinking out loud... but Starmer is (only?) good at the dispatch box... why not keep him there and have an "outside the Westminster talking shop" party leader over the course of the rest of this parliamentary term, building towards the next election. Don't say party rules, because the party rules aren't working.
Why does the party leader also have to lead the parliamentary party in Westminster?
Because the tories would say that labour don’t even trust their leader to be an MP and by extension PM.
Its not some re-hashed form of Corbynism, that’s for sure
That's because there's no such thing as Corbynism in reality.
It's Democratic Socialism, and that's the party.
This is a popularity contest with years of the working class fermenting to a Brexit explosion - amidst the debris of under-investment and neglect. Nothing more.
Labour need to have a popular leader who's a strong character, and is willing to tackle spending and investment head-on in these areas of neglect. Tackle the lies of the Tories when it comes to spending etc.
I'm suggesting Clive Lewis as the best compromise (despite remainer credentials.)
Although he didn't do so well last time but I think his grasp of economics seem strong and he's a good talker. And not a bloody Sir in a suit. On the back of that the electorate don't give a hoot about PMQS.
As an observation - I don't think people individually care about the NHS as much as we collectively think we do. Not sure how that is tackled but you've only got to see Julia Hartley Spewers feeds ... Talk to your neighbors.
Because the tories would say that labour don’t even trust their leader to be an MP and by extension PM.
Who cares? From outside parliament, a leader could berate them all, and really paint themselves as an agent of change, who'll go in there after the next election to make the London based political system face outwards, towards the whole of the UK. Federal system, more regionalism, the whole shebang. People are voting in new Tory MPs for... "change" for gods sake, while berating Starmer for being too establishment, despite being powerless and in opposition. None of the current Labour MPs has any chance of being PM before the next election, the leader only needs to be an MP after a Labour government is elected.
Just hand waving and talking out loud... not suggesting it's the approach to take.
who’ll go in there after the next election to make the London based political system face outwards
So you think a labour leader should focus on campaigning against labour's one true stronghold? I think there is definitely an argument for a 'leader in the north', and also northern focused policies. The obvious answer to that is devolution for the north, with a northern assembly which could be led by Burnham. I would go for that.
So you think a labour leader should focus on campaigning against labour’s one true stronghold?
Did I say that?
London already has regional autonomy well beyond that of any other English region... perhaps preposing more of that, for the rest of country, from a starting position of being outside Westminster, isn't such a crazy idea.
EDIT: You've edited your post to say something different, that I broadly agree with. Connecting that change to getting a Labour government elected to create that change (and other probably more pressing ones) is a tough one though. Without getting power in Westminster, there's is a limit to any real devolution that will happen.
isn’t such a crazy idea.
It's an entirely sensible, but also quitie revolutionary idea. Essentially get rid of the UK parliament and replace it with devolved regional parliaments with massively expanded powers to raise taxes, set budgets and borrow. Oversee it with a Uk-wide senate made up of directly elected non-party affiliated representatives. It would be a new federal UK of regional states.
I genuinely haven’t a clue how labour counter this narrative.
Well actually challenging it would be a starting point as opposed to the current approach which is to go for a watered down version which implicitly accepts the tories claims.
An obvious starting point would be to challenge the flag waving as a substitute for actual patriotism. Ask what is patriotic about dressing your mistress in a Union Jack whilst funnelling cash to her.
Ask why they want schools to fly a flag but wont pay for the kids to be properly fed.
An obvious starting point would be to challenge the flag waving as a substitute for actual patriotism.
I couldn't agree more, but how? Once again we're back into the uncomfortable reality that a large number of people in our new post-Brexit world are absolutely lapping this flag-waving shit up. Sending the Royal Navy out to scare off French fisherman? Brilliant! More of that please!
I'm absolutely baffled by it, but then I'm increasingly baffled by pretty much everything thats happened in this country over the last 5 years
Even the Blairites are giving up on Starmer. This from Andrew Adonis:
The root cause of Labour’s malaise nationwide is the absence of a Labour leader trusted to deliver a better economic future meeting popular aspirations, an especially critical concern in northern towns that have fared so badly in recent years in terms of jobs, public services, education and prospects for young people. Average wages in Hartlepool are lower in real terms than in 2010, yet the Tories have just won an election there! As an experienced Labour councillor put it to me after canvassing in the town: “We had no leader or message apart from our candidate, a great local GP – which just drew attention to the vaccine, which is Boris’s equivalent of Thatcher’s Falklands triumph.”
I supported Keir to replace Jeremy. There was no one else credible and retrieving the leadership from the hands of the Marxist far-left was the first step towards electability. I hoped that Keir, an effective ex-public prosecutor, might have sufficient leadership capacity and modernising social democratic vision to reshape Labour. Unfortunately, he turns out to be a transitional figure – a nice man and a good human rights lawyer, but without political skills or antennae at the highest level.
The question now is what Keir transitions to and when; and whether Labour needs to lose another general election, to Boris or Rishi Sunak, before choosing a leader who can win. If this happens only after an unprecedented fifth defeat in a row, there may not be much of a Labour party left, and some other political vehicle — maybe a populist one — could seize the anti-Conservative cause in England.
I’m suggesting Clive Lewis as the best compromise
Good call.
Multiple occupancy, corner shops and sweat shops are all manifestations of where some groups are structured in the class system. Multiple occupancy raises issues of health, low pay, high rents and house prices. Focusing on issues of concern shouldn't be dismissed as racist, it's about poverty, inequality and maybe even winning votes.
We need to remember all this troping and name-calling is about shutting down discussion and debate.
Unfortunately, he turns out to be a transitional figure – a nice man and a good human rights lawyer, but without political skills or antennae at the highest level.
Sounds fair. Transition to who?
I’m suggesting Clive Lewis as the best compromise
I really like Clive Lewis, but he uses language that speaks to Labour's existing base, I don't think he'd be able to grow the party's appeal. He'd fair even worse tham Starmer at doing this (even though I much prefer his politics to Starmer's). First step before choosing a leader is to accept that they need to be a leader for the wider country, not just for those already supporting or voting for Labour... Lewis isn't that leader.
An obvious starting point would be to challenge the flag waving as a substitute for actual patriotism.
Why bother? It's a thing politicians throughout the world have to do. It's like kissing babies or pretending to like football or pop music. Much easier to do it than to think up reasons why you don't want to.
It's a distinct possibility that the full economic impact of all this hasn't yet hit (despite the BoE claims) and many more people are going to find themselves demoted and dislocated. How they perceive their situation and what political leadership is on offer is key to what happens next.
I don't think old Armrest or Adm Nelson will have much to offer.
I'm absolutely baffled by it, but then I’m increasingly baffled by pretty much everything thats happened in this country over the last 5 years
You weren't at all until the Hartlepool by-election was called binners.
The previous 5 years to that, according to you, everything relating to UK politics couldn't be more obvious. Anyone who couldn't see that was a useless idiot, apparently.
What happened?
People not sticking to the script that you set out for them?
[img] 
[/img]
Bridges will have chased Binners and Kelvin into the arms of Boris by the end of the day.
They really don't need chasing. Going by their views expressed on here, they're already most of the way there anyway.
Prior to that he was called a racist (by you lot) for pointing out another fact that most of the refugees and asylum seekers are placed in the North compared to the south, placing a disproportionate burden on public services. Again: that’s simply a fact. And everyone knows it. How is pointing this out racist?
It's racist because it's not only wrong, but why is he making an issue of a very tiny number of people anyway? Does he not care about them? Clearly not. Have you any idea of the actual numbers of asylum seekers and refugees in the UK as a percentage of the population? It's really, really tiny. Many such people get little or no financial support from the government/local authorities, and are reliant on charities. Regardless, the actual cost to the UK is so insignificant, compared to something like MPs expenses, or providing security to people like ex PMs and the aristocracy. So why is Burnham, supposedly a 'man of the people', even talking about this non-issue? And why have you decided to mention it?
When you scream RACIST! (which you yourself do at the drop of a hat) about things like this, this is exactly why a lot of voters roll their eyes at the left. Because what you and are doing is effectively placing any sensitive topics off limits, and its exactly this that allows the right to build the narrative that ‘its political correctness gown maaaaad’ and ‘loony lefties’
When you try to use imagined racism in people you don't like, yet ignore the actual racism in people you do, you merely exacerbate the already growing problem. And you become an apologist for racism. When you pander to racists, you're no better than them. Pure and simple. The only people using the 'narrative' of which you speak, are the right and far right. By pandering to such sentiments, people like Burnham just become part of the ever-increasing problem. But hey; you've already decided to ignore Blair's genocidal xenophobia, so ignoring other racists because they appeal to your own ideals, must come quite easily to you. Boris will welcome you with open arms.
Good response. So intelligent, thoughtful and insightful.
Ah I see binners, your crystal ball failed you. Well ok that is a very fair excuse.
Although you never told us that you were basing your political strategy on a crystal ball.
You should have told us!
When you dismissed anyone in the Labour Party who didn't agree with your interpretation of the political situation as a "utterly clueless idiot" you should have said, "look you utterly clueless idiot, I have got a crystal ball here and up until now it has never failed me".
Any ideas what you will try next..,. tealeaves maybe?
The voters that brexit has already screwed over are figuring it out
It'll take a while for the red wall voters to feel the impact
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1390623341250240512?s=19
Going by their views expressed on here, they’re already most of the way there anyway.
Er... we've both expressed our support for, and voted this week for, this party you might have heard of.. The Labour Party... and both made our views about Johnson and his team abundantly clear in this thread and many others.
You're not ideologically pure enough! So take your vote and **** off!
Just like the majority of the electorate have done already