The most astonishing feature of that poll imo is the surge of support for the Greens since the general election, which is actually more impressive than the surge of support for Reform.
According the latest YouGov poll Reform have almost doubled their support since the general election but the Greens have easily more than doubled theirs.
The Greens level pegging with the Tories and easily ahead of the LibDems isn't something that I expected to see any time soon. Well done Starmer!
Absolutely. And this government adopting a Reform attitude towards a target group is only going to further legitimise and swing support towards Reform, not away from it.
My reply was to soberity's post about us "being boned" (because a parliament where Reform get a large seat count and the most votes looks more and more like it is coming). As for your point Ernie, yes, Labour adopting Reform's frontline target group (among other issues) is absolutely also pushing many more people towards the Green Party. Assuming Labour continues with this direction of travel, I suspect by the time we get a vote, that will include me.
More evidence that chasing the anti-immigrant vote just drives people to either proper anti-immigrant parties or to parties who actively argue against launching brown people into the Sun.
Seems to me like there is a lesson there for the government. In fact, you'd think it's one they are already well aware of so why are they still desperately trying (and failing) to attract Reform voters while driving their own voters towards the Greens?
Is it fear of the effect of doing a u-turn, sunk cost fallacy, or just pure pride and the inability to admit you are wrong?
Is it fear of the effect of doing a u-turn,
In the case of Sir Keir Starmer it certainly isn't fear of doing a u-turn ! 😂
This is what Starmer said to Labour Party members 5 years ago when he stood to be Labour leader:
My promise to you is that I will maintain our radical values and work tirelessly to get Labour in to power – so that we can advance the interests of the people our party was created to serve.
Based on the moral case for socialism, here is where I stand.
......."An immigration system based on compassion and dignity"........
It turns out that his immigration system is based much more on what Reform voters want, which doesn't include a whole lot of compassion and dignity.
The most astonishing feature of that poll imo is the surge of support for the Greens since the general election, which is actually more impressive than the surge of support for Reform.
According the latest YouGov poll Reform have almost doubled their support since the general election but the Greens have easily more than doubled theirs.
The Greens level pegging with the Tories and easily ahead of the LibDems isn't something that I expected to see any time soon. Well done Starmer!
Anybody would think progressive policies are popular.
Seriously why is Starmer so bloody stupid?
He has the evidence of his Corbyn pledges he stole.
Anybody would think progressive policies are popular.
But not as popular as populist ring wing policies, apparently.
But not as popular as populist ring wing policies, apparently.
Not necessarily since farage is offering quite a few left wing policies.
Oddly Starmer doesnt seem to want to use them.
Anybody would think progressive policies are popular.
But not as popular as populist ring wing policies, apparently.
An interesting comment but one that does not necessarily stand up to scrutiny.
According to that YouGov poll the combined Green, LibDem, and SNP vote, totals 33% which suggests that there is a significant market for policies which are not right-wing populist.
And that total excludes Labour voters like Kelvin who are dissatisfied with Starmer embracing right-wing populist, when you add them to the picture you can't be that far off half of voters.
Rather than surrendering to the hard-right and publicly agreeing with them that refugees are a huge problem which are affecting the lives of ordinary Brits, thereby making Nigel Farage's job even easier, how about Sir Keir Starmer makes the moral and practical case for a radical alternative?
Or better still just resign?
I don't often comment on these threads but I'm just so ****ed off at the moment and need to rant.
I voted Labour last time round - mostly to get our odious Tory MP and chief whip out of our constituency - but also was willingly naive enough to hope that the Keir Starmer, who came to public attention as an effective shadow Brexit minister, would make for a boring but effective prime minister. I wanted boring government and I wanted some compassion, empathy and hope back from our national government.
Labour parachuted a young lad into our seat which was a shame when we had previously had good local candidates but a vote for any other party round here is a complete waste. It has been Tory/Labour dominated since forever.
He's actually turned out to be quite good; speaking well to get local issues raised and supported in the HoP.
But that's overshadowed by the shitstorm of a government. I actually cannot believe how awful they have been and how awful they appear to be planning to be. Just not a Labour government in anyway.
Meanwhile the Reform shouty voices on local social media get louder and bolder. It's sickening.
I have no idea what the Green's plans are for recruiting decent local candidates across the country; in a way they have the same problem as Reform - how do you vet and ensure all your candidates aren't batshit?
In the meantime we've got Senedd elections in May and I have the horrible feeling that we'll have an english national party in charge of Welsh budgets. I have no idea who I'll vote for then; Plaid, Green, ****ing Lib Dem if I have to. I don't think Welsh Labour have been as bad as the UK version but I have no belief that they aren't facing utter wipeout in May.
Let's just say I'm not expecting to be represented by anyone will views aligned to mine, at a local or national level, for a very long time.
Seriously why is Starmer so bloody stupid?
Pretty hilarious that after the cluster****s of last week that his first action is to pick a fight with his MPs on an issue they feel strongly about which will again demonstrate his isolation and weakness to the voters and country he governs. It's almost like they sit around in no. 10 and imagine strategies and policies guaranteed to make a shit situation even worse. I'm beginning to wonder if Starmer has a submissive-masochism fetish. Either that or he really is more politically imcompetent than Sunak and Truss before him.
But not as popular as populist ring wing policies, apparently.
Not necessarily since farage is offering quite a few left wing policies.
Oddly Starmer doesnt seem to want to use them.
I mean...if you want to characterise Farage as a lefty go ahead. But apparently right wing populism has 27% (Reform) + 17% (Tory) of voters compared to 17% (Green) for progressive politics. If you count Labour (19%), which many of you do, them right wing populism has 63% of vote share - about 3.5 times more than progressive politics.
There's no sense in self-delusion and complaining progressive politics are more popular in the UK than right wing populism (at least this year...).
I mean...if you want to characterise Farage as a lefty go ahead. But apparently right wing populism has 27% (Reform) + 17% (Tory) of voters compared to 17% (Green) for progressive politics. If you count Labour (19%), which many of you do, them right wing populism has 63% of vote share - about 3.5 times more than progressive politics.
As I said on the Scottish thread, there are a lot of people who need to shit or get off the pot.
Many people are still saying they are going to vote Labour or Tory not so much out of agreement with their policies but more because they desperately cling to the idea that things are somehow going to go back to the way they were before.
And then you've got the joy of FPTP where people are going to vote for anyone who means the party they really hate doesn't get in.
You really are determined to misuse statistics today, for some reason.
I mean...if you want to characterise Farage as a lefty go ahead
I know this is a difficult concept but you could try reading what I wrote vs just making shit up. I grant you are good at the latter but it makes discussions pretty pointless.
I said that Reform is offering various left wing policies, or at least those which are seen as left wing nowadays, such as around nationalisation and even some of their social policies. Its frankly nuts to ignore that reform are doing this and reasonable to ask why Starmers labour only counter the right wing policies.
Now, of course, an obvious response is right wing populist parties have a long tradition of doing this and then not delivering. I could godwin the thread but lets just go with Johnson and levelling up.
In your opinion, is Reform's platform right wing populism or not?
I mean...if you want to characterise Farage as a lefty go ahead. But apparently right wing populism has 27% (Reform) + 17% (Tory) of voters compared to 17% (Green) for progressive politics. If you count Labour (19%), which many of you do, them right wing populism has 63% of vote share - about 3.5 times more than progressive politics.
You really are determined to misuse statistics today, for some reason.
I have not misused statistics at all. 🤷♂️
In your opinion, is Reform's platform right wing populism or not?
Sure.
The part I disagree with is your 'creative' use of statistics to come to the conclusion that right wing populism has 63% of the vote share.
Well, OK - turning to you - in your opinion, are the Conservative and Labour platforms right wing populism or not? Then just add up the percentages for the parties that are right wing populist, and there you have right wing populism's predicted vote share. 🤷♂️
For me, the Tories and Reform are currently right wing populists, and that's 44% (27%+17%) of the vote compared to 17% for the Greens on the progressive side.
I don't think that right wing populism is a fair characterisation of Labour's platform (not least because they're neither popular not pursuing any coherent ideology...it's kind of a no-wing unpopulism) but plenty of Big Hitters here are convinced that Starmer is practically Goebbels, so if you believe that then right wing populism has a 63% share.
I have no idea what the Green's plans are for recruiting decent local candidates across the country; in a way they have the same problem as Reform - how do you vet and ensure all your candidates aren't batshit?
It won't really be the same problem as Reform. People whose primary motivation for being involved in politics is a fear and hatred of people who are "different" are far more likely to be batshit than someone who concerned about the environment and a fair society.
Also the GP is a long established political party with members have typically been involved in politics for a very long time.
There are nearly a thousand Green councillors in the UK, how many have made the headlines as a result of being kicked out or resigning in disgrace compared to Reform?
I mean...if you want to characterise Farage as a lefty go ahead.
Raising the lower tax threshold to 20k is pretty progressive policy which no one else is proposing. Also removing the interest handout major banks receive on their reserves. Admittedly there's not a lot but they do have some - mostly economic - policies which are to the left of Labour.
Reform also said that tax cuts will be made possible by shrinking the state... who'll pay the real price of those cuts in services? I think we all know.
There's one thing for sure we are going though a sea change, and until we come out the other side I reckon it's fairly hard to predict stuff. Can just toss ideas around I guess.
I do think (including a US perspective here) we're teetering on the edge of some really stormy waters with the economy. Trump's Tariffs are draining the Americans of money. This will filter through to both the house hold and the macro economy. Couple that with extremely toppy equities / crypto (in fact crypto is more or less heading into a bear cycle.) Ai valuations - the mother of all bubbles could be brewing. (It could take a while to play out.)
How, and if the government of the day responds to that - will be completely different to how they're operating now.
Well, OK - turning to you - in your opinion, are the Conservative and Labour platforms right wing populism or not?
Yes they are.
@kelvin I'm not sure if you're still planning to vote Labour, but assuming you are, are you doing it because you support Labour's right wing populist platform?
@politecameraaction if kelvin says yes then I will concede your point. If he denies it will you admit you're talking nonsense?
Raising the lower tax threshold to 20k is pretty progressive policy which no one else is proposing.
Reform UK's policy to nationalise 50 per cent of key utility companies, such as energy and water giants, “to stop consumers being ripped off” is without doubt a left-wing policy and completely at odds with thatcherite free market neoliberalism.
Why aren't Labour promising to match even half of that Reform commitment? To make dissonance's point.
Why does Starmer's "Labour" Party only want to meet Nigel Farage halfway on the nasty anti-immigration anti-refugee racist policies?
I will let you draw your own conclusions but I would suggest that Starmer and his little clique are much more comfortable with adopting nasty anti-immigration anti-refugee racist policies than adopting what might be perceived as a radical left-wing alternative.
Ultimately Labour's huge swing to the right has bugger-all to do with stealing Reform UK's policies as they are extremely selective about which policies they actually "steal".
If he denies it will you admit you're talking nonsense?
Seems a pointless squabble to me. Some people will say they're going to vote Labour despite them making life harder for asylum seekers, some people will say that they're going to vote for them because of this harder line they're taking. I think it's clear to anyone reading my posts here what I think on that issue... but it's not clear to me yet how I'll vote when I next get a chance. It'll be interesting see how more Labour MPs respond... many have already publicly called out the government on this... how my MP responds in particular will influence whether he has any chance of getting my vote again (he tends to be slow and careful and measured with his responses). On the local front, our Labour councillors have already spoken out.
Why does Starmer's "Labour" Party only want to meet Nigel Farage halfway on the nasty anti-immigration anti-refugee racist policies?
Ultimately Labour's huge swing to the right has bugger-all to do with stealing Reform UK's policies as they are extremely selective about which policies they actually "steal".
This is because Reform's support is based around very few of their policies. The rest is just noise that mostly goes unnoticed, and changes at each general election (even more often than their party name).
Well, kelvin doesn't seem to want to play,
So let's ask Theresa May. She said that 80% of people who voted in the 2019 election backed parties who pledged to deliver Brexit. The implication being that 80% of the voters backed delivering Brexit.
So there you go, at least you have Theresa May endorsing your 'analysis'.
I will let you draw your own conclusions but I would suggest that Starmer and his little clique are much more comfortable with adopting nasty anti-immigration anti-refugee racist policies than adopting what might be perceived as a radical left-wing alternative.
The simple explanation is that being racist towards immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers costs very little, while implementing left leaning economic policies to benefit working people is enormously expensive. Labour (or rather Reeves) have been entirely captured by the financial establishment which dictates to them that they can't do anything which impacts the billions being skimmed by the city from economic activity in the real world and the functioning of the financial system.
Weird though how a Labour govt has no money but a reform/tory govt will be fine? It would be in Labour's medium-long term interests for Starmer and Reeves to face down this ludicrous narrative but as they've demonstrated they have neither the courage or the ideas to be able to do that, so instead they choose meek acceptance. It's no wonder they're haemorrhaging support on all sides.
The simple explanation is that being racist towards immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers costs very little, while implementing left leaning economic policies to benefit working people is enormously expensive.
I think you are being far too generous. The simple explanation imo, and the one which I think is the most likely, is that it is for exactly the same reasons as Tory politicians.
Tory politicians embrace racism towards immigrants and refugees and reject left-wing economic solutions because it reflects best their own personal preferences, it has bugger-all to do with how "expensive" policies might be (plenty of left-wing economic policies are self-financing, despite right-wing myths) And there is after all a whole orchard-full of magic money trees for right-wing policies.
Starmer and his clique are simply Tories who, with some justification, see the Labour Party as a better vehicle for their own career self-fulfilment than the Conservative Party which is chock-a-block with barristers and other professionals like themselves.
So why then does Nigel Farage combine nasty racist immigration policies with a few token left-wing economic policies in a way that Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch don't ?
Because Farage is smart enough to know that his nasty racist immigration policies have a limited appeal and that if he is to form a government he needs go beyond his core support base and attract those who aren't necessarily bigots with a few popular left-wing policies.
With regard to the recently announced plans to limit the price of ticket resales, I'm putting it in writing that I'm prepared to bet £20 to a STW charity of choice (Greggs?) that the legislation will not be in place 12 months from now.
The simple explanation is that being racist towards immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers costs very little, while implementing left leaning economic policies to benefit working people is enormously expensive.
The current asylum system is enormously expensive: it cost £5.4 billion in 2023/24 (which seems to be the last available year for which data is available). The cost of the asylum system grew about 250% in 2 years: it was £2.1 billion in 2021/22. And two years before that it was just £733 million. It's a ****ton of money - close to the entire energy and net zero budget - and pretending it's some statistical irrelevance is nuts.
A massive chunk of that is shovelled into the pockets of private landlords that provide variable-at-best accommodation; another massive chunk is for outsourcing ****s like Serco and Sopra-Steria. The cost of the asylum system is deducted from the UK government's 0.7% of GNP foreign development and aid commitment (which is a scandal in itself), so people are dying as a result.
If you really wanted to benefit working people in the UK, wouldn't you think it would make sense to sort out the totally dysfunctional, out of control, massively expensive, slow asylum system to free up some time and money for more useful things than putting money in the pockets of landlords and outsourcers?
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migration-to-the-uk-asylum/
In your opinion, is Reform's platform right wing populism or not?
Sure.
The part I disagree with is your 'creative' use of statistics to come to the conclusion that right wing populism has 63% of the vote share.
Well, OK - turning to you - in your opinion, are the Conservative and Labour platforms right wing populism or not?
Yes they are.
...
@politecameraaction if kelvin says yes then I will concede your point. If he denies it will you admit you're talking nonsense?
1) do you even know what you're arguing about at this point?!? If you believe that Reform (27%), Conservatives (17%) and Labour (19%) are all right wing populists, then how do you figure that right wing populism has 63% of predicted vote share?
2) I have no idea who Kelvin is, what his politics are or what it has to do with polling or the fact that right wing populism is demonstrably more popular than "progressive" politics in the UK right now.
do you even know what you're arguing about at this point?!?
Yes, I'm arguing with a forum member who went on the Scottish thread and, while not making an invalid point, used supporting data that was comically inappropriate, who then came over here and tried to use 'maffs' to prove that populist rhetoric enjoys 63% of the vote share.
Misuse of statistics is a particular bugbear of mine, especially when it comes to politics where the practice is particularly widespread. So I pointed it out and you went off on a merry path to try to justify it.
Please learn some statistics and learn why what you've been posting is wrong. Or just paste this:
right wing populism has 27% (Reform) + 17% (Tory) of voters compared to 17% (Green) for progressive politics. If you count Labour (19%), which many of you do, them right wing populism has 63% of vote share - about 3.5 times more than progressive politics.
into chatgpt and ask, 'Please tell me what is wrong with this statement from a statistics point of view'.
OK, bud. It seems like you're having a rough night. Hope it improves for you. 👍
The current asylum system is enormously expensive: it cost £5.4billionin 2023/24 (which seems to be the last available year for which data is available)
Government never needs to free up money - ever.
It just has to want or not want to do something.
How did you decide that was expensive?
Btw that's 0.38% of current UK spending.
(I'm not saying all your other points might be relevant but this one is nonsense.)
All arguments expressed like this simply feed into the worst possible narratives that there ain't enough money to help people.
"Why don't we help our own first eh?"
(P.s.it's 2.8bn as of 2024.)
I have no idea who Kelvin is, what his politics are
You are about the only person here who doesn't. I haven't argued much with Kelvin for quite a while, there's too much to agree with
OK, bud. It seems like you're having a rough night.
Condescending, provocative... fits what we know about you. 😛
The current asylum system is enormously expensive: it cost £5.4billionin 2023/24 (which seems to be the last available year for which data is available)
Government never needs to free up money - ever...How did you decide that was expensive? ... "Why don't we help our own first eh?"
I mean, yeah, if you believe that the government has infinite money, then nothing is ever expensive, that's true.
I think most people would think £5.4 billion is a lot of money, especially when the main beneficiaries are private landlords (juicing the UK property market further) and some of the most inept, grasping outsourcing companies around. It's certainly not asylum seekers living on 9 quid a day. But maybe normal people think this is a great use of public money and much better than, idk, child and adolescent mental health services or better buses or social housing.
Personally - and this is an unpopular view - I think it's ****ing absurd that the asylum system is paid for out of the ODA commitment and I'd like to see it stripped out entirely, and full ODA funding restored. So you can put me down as "why don't we help other people instead of landlords and G4S types, eh?".
"There is no disguising my embarrassment."
Well everyone gets caught short like that at some point in their life.
What I don't suppose that the shameless friend of paedophiles and top "Labour" politicians is in the least bit embarrassed about is the revelation that he had just come out of the home of a former Tory Chancellor whose austerity policies resulted in 300,000 excess deaths.
THAT is what I find most shocking about the story,. Although perhaps I shouldn't be bearing in mind how the current centrist clique in government have been so relaxed about continuing George Osborne's two child benefit cap, a policy known to increase child poverty.
And it was Zahra Sultana voting against George Osborne's two child benefit cap that was the excuse for her having the Labour whip removed.
There is no disguising my contempt.
https://www.gla.ac.uk/news/archiveofnews/2022/october/headline_885099_en.html
And it was Zahra Sultana voting against George Osborne's two child benefit cap that was the excuse for her having the Labour whip removed.
She choose to start another party, rather than stay in Labour and fight. Unlike others. Nothing wrong with that, but she made a choice, she isn't some kind of political martyr.
She choose to start another party,
That was after she was kicked out of the Parliamentary Labour Party for voting against a nasty Tory policy which is known to increase child poverty. She wasn't elected to vote in support of Tory policies.
And yes, she has come to the conclusion that the "Labour" Party is lost, just like millions of other people.
It's now the party of shameless individuals like paedophile-friendly Peter Mandelson
There's a good summary of the Starmer cluster**** in the grauniad today. I particlularly like this quote from a 'senior labour figure'...
“Keir is highly unusual as a prime minister in giving the impression that whatever he personally thinks is none of your business.”
I guess this is what happens when we elect boring technocrats into high political office.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/19/keir-starmer-labour-leadership
That picture of John McDonell just reminds me of what the Labour party should have been.
It’s just a shame he was wise enough to not put himself through the pain of being leader. He’d have made a great PM.
He’s not the only Labour MP speaking out from inside the party. There are more Labour MPs speaking out where the government are getting policy wrong than there are Reform MPs (or Green Party MPs as it happens). Don’t forget that back bench MPs have stopped and amended policies already only 18 months in.
It’s just a shame he was wise enough to not put himself through the pain of being leader. He’d have made a great PM.
John McDonnell? He has tried to stand for Labour Party leader twice but failed to get enough nominations from other MPs to be on the ballot.
Apparently before the 2015 leadership election a small group of left-wing MPs got together, as they have always before leadership elections, to decide whose turn it was next, apparently Corbyn said "I guess it's my turn this time".
Obviously no one, including Corbyn himself, expected him to win. Which is why staunch centrists like Margaret Beckett were happy at the time to sign Corbyn's nomination papers, and make the election process look democratic, confident that he would stand no chance.
What they hadn't factored in was huge desire among the Labour Party membership for a change of direction and a radical alternative to neoliberalisn. It was indeed a reflection of how disconnected the New Labour control freaks were with their own members.
For the record I am not a huge John McDonnell fan. I used to be and I have heard him speak locally on multiple of occasions going back many years, but whilst I very strongly agree with his political positions I think his political analysis is sometimes poor, and imo he is reluctant to accept much left-wing self-criticism.
Besides what is he doing now? Just sitting on the Backbenches doing bugger-all too scared of having the Labour whip removed.
I meant post 2017. I'm still listening to him... just because you aren't doesn't mean he's saying and doing nothing.
I think most people would think £5.4 billion is a lot of money
That’s because it is. It all comes from us and I don’t see what’s wrong with the government doing all it can to not waste it. It’s not like the economy is a great place and we have a net surplus on government spending so can throw around a bit of largess
I don’t see what’s wrong with the government doing all it can to not waste it
Agreed. That could mean replacing the poor contracts the last government entered into with private landlords. It can mean speeding up the asylum system and helping successful applicants get employment sooner (and turning away failed applicants quicker). It can also mean sorting out our employment market more generally so fewer workers of all origins aren't having their incomes subsidised by the state. It doesn't have to mean making people live for 20 years with the fear of deportation hanging over their heads, and hanging over the heads of any children they might have in that time.
That’s because it is. It all comes from us and I don’t see what’s wrong with the government doing all it can to not waste it.
Selective quoting. Why @pca said was:
I think most people would think £5.4 billion is a lot of money, especially when the main beneficiaries are private landlords (juicing the UK property market further) and some of the most inept, grasping outsourcing companies around. It's certainly not asylum seekers living on 9 quid a day. But maybe normal people think this is a great use of public money and much better than, idk, child and adolescent mental health services or better buses or social housing.
There's a good summary of the Starmer cluster**** in the grauniad today. I particlularly like this quote from a 'senior labour figure'...
“Keir is highly unusual as a prime minister in giving the impression that whatever he personally thinks is none of your business.”
I guess this is what happens when we elect boring technocrats into high political office.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/19/keir-starmer-labour-leadership
The vultures are certainly circling as Crace has a similar article out today. I'm just really disappointed with Starmer and his mob. I voted for them without any real warmth but they seem absolutely incapable of hitting any notes. It shouldn't be that hard to produce something that makes people feel a bit happier but it's been non stop doom and gloom which plays straight in to Fartage's hands.
We need someone who can speak as well as McDonnell, regardless of what they are saying (to a point). He was a good friend to Fire Fighters after we'd fallen out with Labour and I've heard him speak plenty of times. He has the ability to lift the room and give people hope and that's exactly what we need atm. He certainly wouldn't put himself forward so who's out there?
Starmer and his clique are simply Tories who, with some justification, see the Labour Party as a better vehicle for their own career self-fulfilment than the Conservative Party which is chock-a-block with barristers and other professionals like themselves.
According to Wikipedia Keir Starmer joined the Labour Party Young Socialists when he was 16, so in 1978 or 1979, so either he has been playing a very, very long game, or rather than this all being some sort of cunning careerist plan something has shifted his opinions so he's become this fearful, timid leader who's bought into believing the narrative of austerity and the need to dance to the tune of the political right.
Given that the other major Labour government in my lifetime also was more right wing than a lot of Labour's traditional supporters would have liked it to be, it feels like the issue deserves more thought than writing it off as the fault of Tory sleeper agents.
I meant post 2017. I'm still listening to him... just because you aren't doesn't mean he's saying and doing nothing.
I am surprised that you are listening to him, he definitely represents the hard-left of the Labour Party, which is why politically there isn't much that I disagree with him on. Just to emphasize I did say:
whilst I very strongly agree with his political positions I think his political analysis is sometimes poor
To give an example many years ago when Tony Blair was PM I heard him speak at a small local meeting about the Left making a leadership bid for the party. What struck me more than anything else was his claim that should a socialist become Labour leader the Parliamentary Labour Party would fall into line and enthusiastically support them because, in McDonnell's precise words they were mostly, quote, "ideological air-heads".
I remember at the time being a little bit taken back but thinking "I guess it is probably true because he must know what is Labour parliamentary colleagues are like". Could McDonnell have been more wrong about anything?
And straight after the 2019 general election, again at a small local meeting, I heard McDonell claim that it was all the fault of social media, Facebook, or some other bollocks, for the disastrous election result, nothing to do with him or the Labour leadership of course. An impressive lack of self-awareness.
It used to be said that people moved right as they got older, and it seems that is still the case, but the difference now is that they can pretend otherwise to ease their conscience by denying the massive shift that has occurred in the overton window.
There are several things listed on wikipedia about SKS, especially about the "human rights" cases and causes he once fought that are clearly contrary to his current authoritarian use of power and legislation he has tried to push through parliament.
What he did when he was 16 is of no consequence to the person he has shown to be over the past 5 years.
According to Wikipedia Keir Starmer joined the Labour Party Young Socialists when he was 16, so in 1978 or 1979, so either he has been playing a very, very long game, or rather than this all being some sort of cunning careerist plan something has shifted his opinions.....
Almost certainly a combination of both I would have thought. You do realise that he was named after a founding member of the Labour Party don't you? Joining the Conservative Party when your name is Keir doesn't sound like the most obvious thing to do.
Yeah I fully accept that Starmer's politics have changed since he first joined the Labour Party, as far as I concerned he is now pretty much indistinguishable to a Tory politician, I doubt he was like that when he was 16.
So why has he remained in the Labour Party? After all to give another example Liz Truss was just like Keir Starmer brought up in a left-wing household and at a young age joined the LibDems as an anti-monarchy lefty.
When Truss's politics evolved, as did Starmer's, she did the obvious thing and joined the Tories. So why didn't Starmer? I will refer to my earlier answer :
Starmer and his clique are simply Tories who, with some justification, see the Labour Party as a better vehicle for their own career self-fulfilment than the Conservative Party which is chock-a-block with barristers and other professionals like themselves.
Starmer is the very definition of a political opportunist. Five years ago he was making "the moral case for socialism", today he is defending hard-right anti-immigrant and anti-refugee policies.
Guessing it would find it a step too far to join the tory party as presumably he spent most of his life hating them.
There are several things listed on wikipedia about SKS, especially about the "human rights" cases and causes he once fought
If you are a very bright and hard-working barrister and you *only* cared about getting your snout in the trough, then you'd specialise in tax or planning (where you can squeeze tons of cash from big corporate clients). You wouldn't go into human rights law if you didn't have some kind of interest for it because it's not where the money is.
But beyond that, I think Starmer would be technocratic and professional in the way he treated his work at rhe bar and in the CPS: he's a hired gun that's expected to represent his client as best he can within the bounds of the law, and the system doesn't work if everyone doesn't have their own advocate, but that doesn't necessarily mean he agrees with all his clients or that laws that came up in the cases should stay the same or be changed.
Edit: meaning he shouldn't take the credit for working for clients that did good things or the blame for clients that did bad things, and working in that area doesn't necessarily make you a saint or a demon...despite what the Daily Mail says.
Starmer is the very definition of a political opportunist. Five years ago he was making "the moral case for socialism", today he is defending hard-right anti-immigrant and anti-refugee policies.
It's what happens when a socialist enters the real world. Just a shame so many of them never make it.
It's what happens when a socialist enters the real world. Just a shame so many of them never make it.
You think that Sir Keir Starmer was a socialist 5 years ago? 🤣😂
It doesn't have to mean making people live for 20 years with the fear of deportation hanging over their heads, and hanging over the heads of any children they might have in that time.
You've been quite passionate about saying that all refugees should be given indefinite leave to remain because they may have built a life here and it would be inhumane to send them back to their home countries. Just out of interest, do you feel the same way about other visa holders?
For example, imagine two neighbours: one is Olha, a Ukrainian with a 5 year Skilled Worker visa. The other is Oleksandr, a Ukrainian who has been given refugee status. Is it inhumane to tell Oleksandr he may need to leave the UK if it safe to return to Ukraine (in a hypothetical future) but not inhumane to tell Olha she may need to leave the UK at the conclusion of her visa? Or do you think all visa holders should be entitled to indefinite leave to remain...? Or something else...?
Do I feel that someone who comes for work, study or for relationship or family reasons should be able to find it easier (and cheaper) to stay for good than under the current visa rules? Absolutely.
Do I feel that it is more important that we help refugees to live their new lives here, and stay for good? Yes.
People who have been forced out of their homes should be helped to settle here long term if that's what they feel they need to do. Return should be an option not something forced on them. I think we should be more welcoming to people who come here for work, love or to widen their lives as well, but they have chosen to spend time outside their previous country, rather than be forced out because they fear for their lives. So yes, I do think different rules for those who gain asylum here is fair. Their circumstances are quite different to other migrants. That doesn't mean that I think recent tightening of rules for visa holders are fair (I don't think they are).
Is it inhumane to tell Oleksandr he may need to leave the UK if it safe to return to Ukraine (in a hypothetical future) but not inhumane to tell Olha she may need to leave the UK at the conclusion of her visa? Or do you think all visa holders should be entitled to indefinite leave to remain...? Or something else...?
I think the normal timeline is you can apply for ILR after 5y and I see no strong reasons why it should be different for the two people.
FWIW the time line in the notoriously racist and insular Japan is that you had to wait 10y to apply for permanent residence though you could apply for citizenship (which obviously also gives you the right of permanent residence) after only 5 years. Citizenship there does normally require you to give up your original nationality and there are also tests of integration though nothing as formal and officious as in the UK - just a face to face interview, which will be in Japanese language. Whereas permanent residence is basically a box-ticking automatic process (that I went through without much in the way of language skills or demonstration of integration).
Return should be an option not something forced on them.
Hold on - but earlier you said it was inhumane because they might have built a life here. So might the other visa holder have done. Now you're shifting the emphasis to th reason why they came initially, not what has happened in the interim while they were here.
Why is it inhumane for the accepting community to say "we are willing and compelled to give you safety and protection while you are in danger, but you should expect and plan to return to your home country once you are no longer in danger"? What is the effect on the home country when people flee en masse and never return?
To reiterate: until we know the number of people that are presently affected, we have no idea how big a question this is. We could be talking about a handful of people or a gigantic number of people at the moment.
The "other visa holder" isn't here for the same reason. I'll repeat this just one more time, you can continue to pretend not to understand me if you wish...
People who flee a country, having their whole lives turned upside down, are forced to move away and live elsewhere... shouldn't then spend 20 years of their new lives living in fear that they will be forced to move on a second time.
People who flee a country, having their whole lives turned upside down, are forced to move away and live elsewhere... shouldn't then spend 20 years of their new lives living in fear that they will be forced to move on a second time.
Absolutely agree with this of course.
I would also say that anyone who obtains a legal residency visa through normal processes, and lives in a new country for 20 years, shouldn't then get kicked out without having the right to apply for permanent residency. Unless perhaps they have behaved in some heinous manner. Regardless of whether they came as an economic migrant or family member. After all, by this point they have already done far more to demonstrate a meaningful contribution to society than any natives have been required to.
Here is a good example of how not to deal with the threat that Reform UK poses to the Labour Party today.
Most voters will, quite rightly, not be concerned with what Nigel Farage was saying 45 years ago, or what his politics were when he was a teenager.
In the same way that they are unlikely to be bothered that as a teenager Sir Keir Starmer was possibly a socialist, it has absolutely no relevance to the present-day and present-day politics.
The only people likely to be bothered that Nigel Farage might have been a raving nazi at the age of 14 are never going to vote for him or his party anyway so it is a totally pointless and futile exercise.
A much better tactic for Starmer to deal with the current threat that Farage is posing Labour is to focus on what Farage is actually saying today.
But here lies the problem for Starmer and McSweeney, there is not a significant difference between what Farage is saying today and what Starmer is now also saying.
Attacking Farage for what he is alleged to have said aged 14 by someone else who was also a similar age at the time is likely to backfire imo because it strongly suggests that Starmer has nothing constructive to aim at Farage, I can see it actually boosting Farage's support.
The tactic seems to have come from the same source who thought that it would boost Starmer if Wes Streeting was publicly warned with regards to leadership ambitions and briefed against. That tactic spectacularly backfired and actually made Starmer much weaker. I suspect that Morgan McSweeney is behind both stupid tactics.
Labour MP suggests he would give up seat for Andy Burnham Commons return - Yahoo News UK https://share.google/qYisu02Ixqcpb4VHM
The MP said he had spoken to Mr Burnham as he complained about the Labour Government’s “quandary”.
Attacking Farage for what he is alleged to have said aged 14 by someone else who was also a similar age at the time is likely to backfire
It's not just someone else aged 14 though, it's people of a variety of ages who were in the same classes and organisations, teachers... . I could still quote the racist, bullying nasty from my school year of 14 and so could most of the face book group of the year group, from which he's banned. The most comical was an attempt to bully us into buying a T rex single so it would beat Slade to number one - the actual quote isn't safe for STW.
However I suspect the revelations wil further increase Farigiz popularity with his core voters.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2025v7qleo
"The debate centred on discussions around the use of single-sex toilets in the city and language used in maternity units".
This is the problem with the Green Party, it gets bogged down over things like single sex toilets and other issues which aren't very high on voters priority lists.
I am staggered that a bunch of women rights protestors apparently made Green Party councillors :
"Feel under attack for their very existence or for the existence of their colleagues".
What do they mean by "their very existence", they thought that they might die?
They really need to get a grip ffs
Or when the Green party resembles STW with Hannah's editorial at one extreme and people who defend women's right not to have to race against or share a toilet with a biological male at the other end.
It's highly emotive, you can come out with racist shite and still be a hero to millions and given an easy ride with the media as Faridge proves. However J K Rowling is treated like she has the plague for defending women's rights.
The BBC report is crap because it gives no detail about what was actually said. It just implies what was said.
Not being racist is pretty simple, not being anti-trans is more difficult. I know I've been put in the anti-trans category on this forum because I agree with the position of the majority of sporting federations who don't allow trans to compete against women. When giving rights to one group removes rights from another limits have to be set.
No point walking out or resigning though, she should have fought till she was kicked out and recorded the lot so the press could properly report it.
I'd like to be in a Green party where both Hannah and J K Rowling would be accepted as members and be prepared to talk about the Green issues that are properly Green.
Oh FFS, here we go.
I have to say, I'm impressed with the rightwing scum that have managed to turn this into possibly the greatest wedge issue in the ****ing 'culture war'. People don't even realise they have been duped into spending all their energy arguing about this instead of focusing on the billionaires who have stolen everyone's money.
So yeah, let's spend the next 4 pages talking about 'women's rights'. It's exactly what they want us doing, afterall.
Massive apologies to all the trans/non-binary forum members. I'm not trying to minimise what you are going through, but I know that every time we start arguing about this it sucks all the oxygen away from every other area of debate and while that's happening the rich are able to consolidate their position further which means they are then better able to fund outlets and botfarms to continue keeping the fight on territory they are most comfortable. I am 100% an ally but every time we fight on this front it results in a stalemate and the billionaires continue getting more powerful.
Cue 4 pages of pointless arguments.
This is the problem with the Green Party, it gets bogged down over things like single sex toilets and other issues which aren't very high on voters priority lists
I have heard ZP literally pushing back on this when he was on Piers Morgan show.
He literally said what you are saying.
It will filter down I'm pretty sure.
I have some sympathy across the board because the media have made this the talking point. Needs rewiring.
Not a day goes by that Nick Ferrari doesn't talk about a trans-person going into a children's toilet...
In fact he's literally talking about it now.
This is the problem with the Green Party, it gets bogged down over things like single sex toilets and other issues which aren't very high on voters priority lists
I have heard ZP literally pushing back on this when he was on Piers Morgan show.
He literally said what you are saying.
It will filter down I'm pretty sure.
I have some sympathy across the board because the media have made this the talking point. Needs rewiring.
Not a day goes by that Nick Ferrari doesn't talk about a trans-person going into a children's toilet...
In fact he's literally talking about it now.
Also Zack Polanski had George Monbiot on his podcast. Nothing but discussion about the climate and inequality.
Can I suggest the regular media outlets drawing you attention to these things (just like Farage was platformed) rather than relatively little output about trans issues directly coming from the greens?
You can't blame the greens if Nick Ferrari and the BBC want to heighten these things.
The big media outlets set the narrative. They no longer just report the news.
https://twitter.com/ZackPolanski/status/1991189800372634103?t=RcpFEuhHW15MGYsuZ85pXQ&s=19
I'd like to be in a Green party where both Hannah and J K Rowling would be accepted as members and be prepared to talk about the Green issues that are properly Green.
If the green party has any sense they'll ditch the trans-rights nonsense and focus solely on economic issues and climate change. I think that that's what ZP is doing if rone is right so lets hope that continues. No one is interested in whether women can have penises or not.
I'm impressed with the rightwing scum that have managed to turn this into possibly the greatest wedge issue
What a strange way of seeing things. All the right has ever wanted is for people born with a penis to use the men's loo (as they always have done).
What a strange way of seeing things. All the right has ever wanted is for people born with a penis to use the men's loo (as they always have done).
Nice try. Not falling for it.
Hopefully no one else will but let's see.
All the right has ever actually wanted to do is distract people with any wedge issue they can find to keep people from realising who the real enemy is. The real enemies are the people who are currently inconceivably wealthy and can now afford to pay to drive the narratives they want.
You're either a bot, a Russian in the pay of the Kremlin, or a useful idiot.
If I had to guess I'd say useful idiot but who the hell knows these days.
Back on topic. I see Andy Burnham is all over the news again, this time giving his opinion on Mahmood's deranged asylum reforms and more importantly bigging up his growth plan in Manchester while strongly hinting that it could be applied to the whole UK. And binners thinks he isn't interested in the top job?
No one is interested in whether women can have penises or not.
Well they wouldn't be if it wasn't stirred up so much by those that have issues (Rowling, Linehan, right wing media etc,.). I do wonder why it is such a big issue for them and if they are really concerned about female safety there are WAY bigger issues to support/highlight/spend time trying to make better.
As for Burnham, I would be happy for him to replace Starmer and become PM. That shows how bad Starmer is as I never rated Burnham when he was going for Labour leadership years ago. The tricky bit is that the Labour process (80 MPs, openly stating) is difficult assuming Starmer does suddenly get some self awareness and resign.
And binners thinks he isn't interested in the top job?
I still don’t think he’s remotely interested. Once again the Westminster-obsessed media is wetting itself with excitement as he has ‘not ruled out’ his leadership ambitions.
Well I’ve not ruled out changing my name to Loretta and living out the rest of my days wearing a lovely selection of floral Laura Ashley dresses.
the Westminster-obsessed media
I wouldn't characterize Clive Lewis as being part of the "Westminster-obsessed media" but okay we will see if your claim that that Andy Burnham isn't "remotely interested" in becoming Labour leader, like your claim that Reform UK will likely implode before the GE, stands the test of time.
Why do you think that the media should show less interest in what happens in Westminster btw?
Personally I think what happens in Westminster is massively important. Not because it's about ten miles from me but because what happens there affects the whole of the UK, and often in a very profound way.
What I’m talking about by Westminster-obsessed is journalist absolutely creaming themselves about the (possible?) internal machinations of political parties, which the vast majority of the population couldn’t give a flying **** about.
The sequence of events required for Andy Burnham to become Labour leader/PM is frankly so ridiculously convoluted, implausible and unlikely to happen, I think we can safely discount the possibility.
Something of which I’m sure he’s well aware. I’m sure he’s having a great time fueling the speculation though.
All good fun! And he’s getting a massive amount of coverage for his latest plans for economic growth in Greater Manchester.
Do you think he’d be getting that coverage without the leadership speculation?
Of course he wouldn’t! He’s just playing the game and playing it pretty well