Forum menu
Given Starmer's apparent love for the England team and their woke instincts he should probably put Rashford and Southgate in his shadow cabinet. They'd be much more effective than the actual politicians, and Starmer himself.
Football might be the ground upon which Starmer can express national pride (as his advisors have been telling him to). The thing is he's a genuine football supporter, in that article it was pointed out that he attended both the quarter and semi finals at Wembley in 96 and follows Arsenal.
He's got nothing to lose by becoming the public cheerleader for the England team (as long as they get out of the group stage.....)
It's a pity the 18-24s can't be bothered to vote or the 18-24s in that poll don't made up a big enough number to make any difference at all as GRN got 2.7% vote share in 2019 didn't they.
All the over 50's who do bother to vote are the cause of the tory governments.
as GRN got 2.7% vote share in 2019 didn’t they.
Look at the swing since 2019. Its noticeable round here. Under corbyn labour did very well, since starmer and the move to the centre there has been a swing to the greens.
'Over 50s?', most of the gumby gammons on here are way younger than that. Get your stereotypes right! And Mancunians, you need to beware of uttering monstrous groans:
From the Calendar of Patent Rolls, Feb 18th 1265: "Pardon, at the instance of Thomas de Ferrariis, to William Pilche of Sonky, an idiot, for the death of Augustine le Fevere of Maunnecestre, as it appears by testimony of Robert de Stokeport, coroner in the county of Lancaster, and other trustworthy persons that the said William was passing along the high road by night when he was met by the said Augustine, in the disguise of a terrible monster uttering groans and refusing to speak though adjured in God's name, on account of which the said William rushed upon him as a monster and killed him."
‘Over 50s?’, most of the gumby gammons on here are way younger than that. Get your stereotypes right!
Apart from it is not a stereotype is it;
It’s a pity the 18-24s can’t be bothered to vote
Well labour need to give them something to vote for. Corbyn did that with the green new deal and free university education, and Starmer has been silent on these issues and instead talks about tax free savings accounts and flag waving. He couldn't be further from what the young are interested in if he tried.
Unfortunately support for the Greens often falls away as a general election approaches, and rises again when one is (seemingly) a long way away. Why do I say ‘unfortunately’, well, I’d love there to be loads of Green MPs, but as a FPTP national election approaches people remember that if they vote Green not Labour they don’t help return a Green MP, they help return a blue one. It’s messed up, but you have to play the system, or the Tories will out play you.
Age per se doesn't explain that distribution. Tory voters might live longer as well as be more likely to vote.
Tory voters might live longer as well as be more likely to vote.
You observations on the demographics seem likely to be true to me. It doesn’t change the problem for Labour though.
It’s a pity the 18-24s can’t be bothered to vote or the 18-24s in that poll don’t made up a big enough number
This.
Yes Labour need the younger voters, and absolutely should be representing them… but without getting the older voters on side they’re going to be an opposition party and a powerless campaign group for decades.
The Conservative government looks set on making it harder for young people to vote, and we have an ageing population. This problem will be worse in future, at least in UK wide elections.
Look at the swing since 2019. Its noticeable round here. Under corbyn labour did very well, since starmer and the move to the centre there has been a swing to the greens.
And
Why do I say ‘unfortunately’, well, I’d love there to be loads of Green MPs, but as a FPTP national election approaches people remember that if they vote Green not Labour they don’t help return a Green MP, they help return a blue one.
Comments like those cheese me off somewhat. Around me the Greens are doing well because they are working their arses off, Labour being super vague right now helps but it's a long way down the list of reasons the Greens are winning, stop demeaning their work.
Similarly yes FPTP is a pile of arse but it's not Labour's right to be the other main party. If you want a green MP, vote for one. The more votes they get, the more votes they'll attract, the more chance there is of actually getting what you want.
If you want a green MP, vote for one.
Er, yeah, right.
I used to vote Green quite often, and in the European Parliament elections it tended to get me a representative. I helped elect a Green councillor once as well. I only voted Green once in Westminster elections though, and it made as much difference as pissing on my ballet form and posting it in my compost heap. When it comes to electing our MPs, wasting our votes just leaves the Tories laughing their heads off at us.
Well in that case, keep wishing for something, acting against it and grumbling.
We haven't had a Labour government in over 40 years (Blair doesn't count because he was a secret Tory spy or something), so how's those labour votes working out for you?
Well in that case, keep wishing for something, acting against it and grumbling.
Voting Green in a Tory/Labour marginal is just grumbling. Might make you feel good inside, but it has absolutely no effect on who is in parliament, and who gets to form a government. Despite our one and only Green MP excelling in her job beyond nearly everyone else in parliament. Vote in the system we have, not the one many of us wish we did have. People all across the country have seen her work, and want to elect more Green MPs to sit with her… but dispersed and spilt votes are what allows the Tories to have a big majority of seats on a minority of the votes.
Sorry, you're right, I'll get back to playing the game... The one where you've lost repeatedly and most recently got the biggest kicking of your life for it, perhaps it'll be 15th time lucky.
We haven’t had a Labour government in over 40 years
Well, I’ve had a LibDem and a Labour MP to speak for me in parliament in the past, and both did so very well. Sadly here we keep returning a Tory scumbag (I don’t think all Conservative politicians and voters are scumbags by the way, but this guy really is). When it comes to Westminster elections, your vote is part of battle to return a single MP, and all you can do is try and get a good one that changes the balance in parliament. Signifying your support for someone who absolutely will not be an MP in any circumstances might give you (me) a warm glow, but it gives all those Conservative MPs a warmer one.
Problem is, you vote Labour Adm Nelson and the Armrests take it as an endorsement.
perhaps it’ll be 15th time lucky
Still only one Green MP. Perhaps it’ll be 5th time lucky. I genuinely hope it is, but it won’t be in this seat. And it’ll be 2 or 3 MPs across England, absolute best case scenario.
So your tactical voting has more often than not returned someone who you don't want in parliament and you're saying I should follow your lead otherwise someone I don't want will be returned to parliament? Give me 5 minutes to just process that.
Just a heads up, I'm generally on side with you and Binners in these threads (that's put a target on my back hasn't it?) I just don't go along with all this tactical voting stuff. There is on occasion a need for it and it might work but I'm finding it harder and harder to go along with it.
And it’ll be 2 or 3 MPs across England, absolute best case scenario.
Well that's a shame but when people have the mentality of we wont vote for someone because they won't win, its hardly surprising.
more often than not returned someone who you don’t want
How many times has your vote returned someone to speak for you in the UK parliament?
Look, vote how you want. I only started voting Labour at the 2017 election. My original point was just that, when there is a general election, fewer people say they will vote Green purely because of the election system we use. Green support in the polls being higher when there is (apparently) no general election imminent isn’t that remarkable, even if it does restore your faith in the public a bit.
As a side comment “we” can be far too harsh on the UK voting public, they have do what they can with the voting system in front of them, and the candidates presented to them.
How many times has your vote returned someone to speak for you in parliament?
Look, vote how you want. I only started voting Labour at the 2017 election. My original point was just that, when there is a general election, fewer people say they will vote Green purely because of the election system we use.
The one time the person who I voted for got in, they didn't speak for me and that's why I no longer vote for them.
So far no one has got in who speaks for me but that's why I now vote for who I think deserves my vote, not for someone who doesn't deserve my vote the least.
FPTP is a total mess but I don't think it has quite as much influence on where the general public put their X as you think it does.
Or course it does. Plenty of general elections where a 3, 4, 5 party race narrows to, and results in, a pretty much straight choice between two candidates for most voters. You only have to look at the spread of votes whenever a different system is used.
I vote Green and yes they have gone up slightly where I live but quite a long way to go yet...
Can anyone honestly say they wouldn't want to punch him in the face?
It's unfortunate 32,000 don't want to.
The Guardian: The Guardian view on Go Big: Ed Miliband on transforming Britain.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/13/the-guardian-view-on-go-big-ed-miliband-on-transforming-britain
"The country we are living in owes as much to Mr Miliband’s leftwing economics as it does to Mr Johnson’s social conservatism."
So it turns out that the Guardian is quite comfortable with the "leftwing economics" being pursued by Boris Johnson.
I guess that gives us one reason less to vote Labour.
And one more reason why a socially conservative Labour voter should vote Tory.
What do you reckon binners......as a huge self- proclaimed fan of the Guardian are you also impressed with Boris Johnson's leftwing policies?
Is The Rose and Crown thing an in joke or something? Seen it mentioned but no idea what it is.
Don’t ask.
Is The Rose and Crown thing an in joke or something?
No it's no joke, it's binners local pub. Although currently he doesn't drink there. He got a bit upset with the regulars.
To summarise:
It’s my local pub. I used to drink in there. The regulars are UKIP voting (now Boris-voting) racists. I’d had enough of it one evening and informed them that I had grown weary of their racism. I may not have worded it as politely as that. I no longer drink there.
That’s it
For some reason, that I find unfathomable, our resident leftie contingent are absolutely obsessed with the place. It seems to have become a microcosm of society.
At some point I’m going to take Ernie for a pint there. It’ll be like a tour of a stately home or a famous battlefield. I may start doing coach trips
I may start doing coach trips
I'm in, where do I book? There had better be some Monty Python themed stuff going on in the coach otherwise I will be disappointed.
I promise you a veritable smorgasbord of tired cliches
Why are you still going on about the racist pub you used to drink in binners?
I'm not. Everyone else is. I find the constant fascination with and references back to it somewhat mystifying.
Would you like an update on the ongoing bowling green/beer garden situation?
FPTP is absolutely brilliant.
You simultaneously vote for an individual to represent you in parliament and whatever the party this individual represents says in it's manifesto and whatever the leader of the party this individual represents says after the election.
Even if all three directly contradict each other.
Not only that, if the party that wins and the main opposition party happen to agree on anything, the PM can turn around and say '80% of the country voted for this policy' as May said about triggering Article 50.
And now that Labour have decided to become anti-immigrant, after the next election when the Tory policy is to gather up immigrants, put them on rafts, and tow them into the middle of the English channel, BoJo can simply turn around and say, 'Well, this is what 80% of the population voted for.'
So sure, feel free to vote Labour. Just remember you are also voting to support Tory policies.
It's all pick and mix though... everyone voted at the last election for a party that was committed to a minimum foreign aid budget based on proportion of GDP. Everyone... Tory voters, Labour voters, SNP voters, LibDem voters, Green voters...actually, the only exception was the Brexit Party voters. Anyway, every single MP in parliament stood on that commitment, yet the government still dumped (ahem, suspended) it, because they think it's popular.
It makes no odds what the Labour manifesto policy was, government policy isn't based on that (or indeed the ruling party's own manifesto policies if they are inconvenient). General elections are about electing your MP. The party with the most MPs supporting their leader gets to form the government. While enough MPs keep supporting them, they can do what the hell they want, 'till we get to elect an MP again.
Ah good old 'pub racism'. It's that type that's really flourished with Boris at the helm.
It makes no odds what the Labour manifesto policy was, government policy isn’t based on that (or indeed the ruling party’s own manifesto policies if they are inconvenient).
No, but it gives them cover.
That's the problem with Labour making the decision to become an anti-immigrant party. It might make them more electable (although thankfully it doesn't seem to be paying off so far) but it also allows the Tories to say, '80% of the population voted for parties hostile to immigrants'.
You have to look closely at the manifesto you are actually voting for.
FPTP is absolutely brilliant.
Those things you identify are not the result of FPTP, but the result of representative democracy and a billionaire owned media establishment. Even under PR we'd have MPs and parties doing stuff that isn't in their manifestos and spinning issues to claim support for things which doesn't exist. If you want to get rid of this you need to fundamentally change the democrattic system to remove the power of MPs to do what they want once elected.
you need to fundamentally change the democratic system to remove the power of MPs to do what they want once elected.
That sounds like a spectacularly bad idea.
Those things you identify are not the result of FPTP, but the result of representative democracy and a billionaire owned media establishment.
The problem with FPTP is that it allows a party who a minority of the population voted for to do whatever the hell they want.
If the democratic system used were more representative then compromises would have to be made in every decision. It means it's more difficult to 'get things done' if there is a lack of consensus but that is a very very good thing.
That sounds like a spectacularly bad idea.
Having the ability to recall them say with a two thirds majority might not be such a bad thing.
That sounds like a spectacularly bad idea.
MPs have far too much power. Once elected they can effectively do what they like with almost no accountability. Many of them do second jobs and lobby ministers on behalf of corporate interests. I see very little downside to limiting and making the exercise of their power more transparent and accountable to their constituents. TBF I should have said 'reduce' their power not 'remove' but you get the point.
Having the ability to recall them say with a two thirds majority might not be such a bad thing.
I'd add having citizens assemblies setup to oversee their activities and potentially validation of their parliamentary votes if they differ from their stated manifesto commitments. We need a less representative and more delegatory system where MPs carry out the wishes of their constituents rather than deciding what is in their best interests. Things like the Iraq war would never have happened if something like this was in place.
For some reason, that I find unfathomable, our resident leftie contingent are absolutely obsessed with the place.
I was going to say that for some unfathomable reason you don't want to talk about Starmer on a thread about Starmer, despite your huge input binners.
Then I realised that I didn't have to go many fathoms deep to figure out why.
There really isn't much to talk about - he is utterly uninspiring, bereft of any personality, and devoid of any vision for Britain.
As someone who so enthusiastically backed Starmer he must quite frankly be a huge embarrassment to you binners.
Anyway in an attempt to vaguely back on topic what do think about the Guardian's claim that Boris Johnson is pursuing "leftwing" policies which he's pinched from Ed Miliband? Should Starmer be supporting these leftwing Tory policies?
Obviously it's true as it's in the Guardian. And it must come as a huge relief to you to hear that not everything about Boris Johnson is bad. I know that your opinion of him had previously been very low.
I see very little downside to limiting and making the exercise of their power more transparent and accountable to their constituents.
So if you remove the power of MPs to change their minds...What then happens then if a manifesto item/promise/hope proves to be too costly or won't solve the issue its trying to, or has unintended consequences, or is just bad law? They have to implement it?
What if a party promises to bring back capital punishment? (Priti Patel is very much pro, as are many of the current crop of Tories, and I've not doubt it would be popular if included in a manifesto)
Anyway in an attempt to vaguely back on topic what do think about the Guardian’s claim that Boris Johnson is pursuing “leftwing” policies which he’s pinched from Ed Miliband?
Doesn't this just mean that we've come full circle?
I seem to recall that at the time Ed Milliband's manifesto was criticised for being too timid and basically Just 'Tory-lite' (to use a term I know you all love).
So it can't come as any great shock to anyone that (some of...)Boris's agenda looks quite similar, can it?
It's not really the point though, is it? Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. The policies he nicked off Ed represent a small/tiny proportion of the overall direction of travel, and as with most Tory spending promises: I'll believe it when I see it
The main thrust of what the Tory's are presently doing, there is no way on earth Ed Milliband or anyone else who considers themselves even remotely progressive would have anything to do with, let alone propose. There's nothing remotely 'leftwing' or even 'centrist' about 90% of what they want to do.
With Brexit and the 'freedom from the EU' that it brings, they will pursue a right wing agenda presently seen in the culture wars they're starting all over the place
What then happens then if a manifesto item/promise/hope proves to be too costly or won’t solve the issue its trying to, or has unintended consequences, or is just bad law? They have to implement it?
Or they can go back and say it doesnt work and why. Or possibly just not put forward random crap in the first place without thinking it through?
Whilst I am not sure how to get it working I do think some basic requirement to go along with key manifesto items should be added.
What then happens then if a manifesto item/promise/hope proves to be too costly or won’t solve the issue its trying to, or has unintended consequences, or is just bad law?
That's where the citizens assemblies come in I mentioned above. If the MP wants to change their mind or is unsure of their constituency mandate for a particular decision then they should seek guidance and have that decision validated. I would allow MPs to ignore the CA, but on pain of being recalled if they do.
What if a party promises to bring back capital punishment?
This is where we need a constitution. Things like opposition to capital punishment should be enshrined in a fundamental statement of values which requires a super-majority or some other higher mechanism to change.
Or they can go back and say it doesnt work and why.
Well, they won't be able to under dazh's idea, as he's saying change democracy to make them unable to do what they want when they get elected. So, you either want to current situation to continue, (ie they can change their minds) or you agree that dazh's idea is a bad one
Or possibly just not put forward random crap in the first place without thinking it through?
Do you think that the Tories haven't road tested how voters think about the death penalty? because it plays well with their supporters.
So, you either want to current situation to continue, (ie they can change their minds) or you agree that dazh’s idea is a bad one
It's hardly an either/or binary scenario is it? There are loads of ways of making MPs more accountable and transparent other than giving them total power or removing it completely. Do you disagree that voters should be given more (a lot more IMO) power over decisions made in their name?
There’s nothing remotely ‘leftwing’ or even ‘centrist’ about 90% of what they want to do.
Whatever happened to 'ignore what they say and look at what they do'? By any measure Boris's government has been the most leftwing/socialist since 1945. Granted covid has been a major factor in that but not all of it. I agree the 'levelling up' agenda is smoke and mirrors, but ultimately more investment and activity is going into areas which voted tory than was previously done by the pre-Boris tories or labour.
Do you disagree that voters should be given more (a lot more IMO) power over decisions made in their name?
That's a bit of an abstract question which could be phrased as "do you favour direct over representative democracy?" Or "would you prefer MPs to be delegates rather than representatives?" I'd say probably not, unless you've a good idea to show how this works in practice. But then I like government to be boring and not driven by populism.
The policies he nicked off Ed represent a small/tiny proportion of the overall direction of travel
Not according to the Guardian's editorial. They reckon, quote :
"The country we are living in owes as much to Mr Miliband’s leftwing economics as it does to Mr Johnson’s social conservatism."
So according to the Guardian we owe much to Mr Miliband's leftwing economics.
That sounds pretty big to me, unless you think economics is a very small part of "the overall travel of direction"?
Have you read that particular Guardian editorial binners? I assumed you had as I know that you like the Guardian to map out your political views for you.
In case you missed it here it is again as it's a fairly important subject - you need to know whether or not to support Tory economic policy, specially as in some cases, such as corporation tax, it can be to the left of Keir Starmer.
Do you disagree that voters should be given more (a lot more IMO) power over decisions made in their name?
Yes they probably should. I don't think currently we have a country that could either wants that or could achieve it in any meaningful way.
Yeah, come on Binners... get justifying everything written in the Guardian and Observer papers, because you're the editor... or something... 🤷🏻
Do you disagree that voters should be given more (a lot more IMO) power over decisions made in their name?
Absolutely. Including the chance to change their minds. Manifestos can not be immutable. Currently politicians need to be able to adapt to events, experience, knowledge and the resolving of clashes between policies and having to work with the rest of the world, not just the voters here. Should shifts in policies be put back to the voters? Maybe. Should the voters be able to put a stop to, or revise, policies they previously voted for based on... events, experience, clashes between policies and having to work with the rest of the world? Sounds good.
I’d say probably not, unless you’ve a good idea to show how this works in practice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Administration_of_North_and_East_Syria
..and before someone replies 'so you want us to be like Syria', no I don't. The example of Rojava shows that it is possible to operate a democratic, delegatory decision making process at large scales whilst avoiding populism or the 'tyranny of the majority'.
No Kelvin not everything, just this editorial on quite an important issue.
Not because binners is the editor but because he is an outspoken supporter of the Guardian's political stance.
In fact the Guardian is so important to binners that he used to sit and read it in a pub full of UKIP supporters. He doesn't do that anymore though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Administration_of_North_and_East_Syria
/blockquote>Agreed we could hear more about Kurdistan as a positive middle east story, on the Iraqi side of the border too. Though Erdoğan's Turkey is a threat. I worked in Turkey for a short time and had friends who got involved in documenting what was going on in the south east, continuing in London with more welfare and immigration/asylum work. Whatever, there's a culture that's quite different to perceptions of that part of the world. Not convinced about the applicability of that model of government here though, where we're actually allowed to have a government.
Not convinced about the applicability of that model of government here though, where we’re actually allowed to have a government.
As above I offered that example only to support the concept of how more delegatory decision making can work and be benefical to democracy, not as a 'we should have a revolution too' example.
The Swiss example is useful as well. But does need an understanding that constant revision of policies, and voting on them again and again, is required, and not 'undemocratic'.
Can you imagine what this country would be like with regular public referenda?
The death penalty, public floggings, workhouses and the reintroduction of bonded slavery
The death penalty, public floggings, workhouses and the reintroduction of bonded slavery
You really shouldn't judge everyone by the standards of the Rose and Crown regulars. I fear that experience has clouded your opinion somewhat 🙂
Really? Don't look at polling on the death penalty then...
Batley and Spen anyone?
Make or break for Starmzy?
I think it could be.
(Although I do appreciate leaders don't give in as quick as David Cameron thinks they should.)
Support from the Muslim community falling off a cliff.
If Starmer's whole mission was to destroy the Labour party and what it stands for - he's damn good at it.
What's the question? They have a great candidate. It absolutely could still be loss. Starmer absolutely partly to blame for that. No, a loss won't mean he stands down, or is pushed aside, immediately after.
No, a loss won’t mean he stands down, or is pushed aside, immediately after
You're probably right.
But this is likely to be front and centre news and hard to dodge.
A bit of Starmer bashing will be a good distraction for all the news outlets, and us.
rone
Free MemberMake or break for Starmzy?
Already happened tbh. Either way this won't make much difference.
Really? Don’t look at polling on the death penalty then…
I am truly amazed that support for the death penalty in terrorism and child murder cases is so low, the country has gone soft!
And opposition to the death penalty in all murder cases is opposed by a very large margin :
Only a third of people support its reintroduction in all murder cases??Wow, I had no idea that public opinion on the issue had progressed so much.
That's how you would reintroduce the death penalty, if we had direct democracy here. Propose it for the most heinous emotive crimes. It would be introduced then, as Binners pointed out. It's not just the regulars in the pub you're obsessing about that would vote for it, half the country voters already would... and after a period of well directed campaigning, you'd get a fair few more to. 52% on the day of the vote... easily.
It'll be interesting to see if when Boris cancels his self-proclaimed 'Freedom Day' (FFS?!) being cancelled by at least a month the population are ready to apportion it to government incompetence yet?
Do you even think he'll do a press conference? He usually sends a minion like Little Matty when theres bad news to be had
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1404381126454546432?s=20
Even if they do, they'll still support Johnson and back him. They don't mind incompetence, as long as it's his easy going positive messaging amiable "on their side" incompetence. Any negative effects on their lives will be met with... "imagine how much worse it would be if Labour were in government... that Starmer wants us to close the schools and survive on a diet of quinoa".
Do you even think he’ll do a press conference? He usually sends a minion like Little Matty when theres bad news to be had
He is doing the press conference at 6pm but sending Matty to the commons to explain it there later.
Support from the Muslim community falling off a cliff.
Maybe there is actually a cost to full-on support of Israel.
That’s how you would reintroduce the death penalty, if we had direct democracy here. Propose it for the most heinous emotive crimes. It would be introduced then, as Binners pointed out.
Actually in my experience when you engage in debate with people they generally become much more liberal and lefty than you might imagine.
So binners should go back to the Rose and Crown and use his eloquent skills in political debate (failing that draw pictures for them)
The death penalty is a good example of this. Often the "string em up" comments are a knee-jerk reaction and when people give the topic more thought they generally take a more sensible stance.
I assume that the very low level of support for the reintroduction of the death penalty these days is due to many years of people hearing the arguments against it.
I don't support direct democracy btw.
Actually in my experience when you engage in debate with people they generally become much more liberal and lefty than you might imagine.
Then how do you explain Brexit, in all it's 'send them back' glory?
More feebleness on LBC:
Ernie... you're mixing up what people will say to you during a reasoned conversation, and how they would vote given a chance. Don't worry, you're in good company there, we all do it. It's one of the reasons voting patterns often seem so far from daily lived experiences.
DrJ... how do you want Starmer to answer questions like that on Brexit? In a way that means you and I can agree with him (I find it hard not just to say "truthfully") or in a way that tries to avoid being continually seen as "on the side of the EU" rather than "standing up for Britain"?