Forum menu
Part of Starmer's letter to the MPs.
"Instead of a Labour MP who can be a local champion delivering for Gorton and Denton alongside a Labour Government and a Labour mayor, the people of Gorton and Denton now have a representative who is more interested in dividing people than uniting them."
This man is now off his rocker.
He will further alienate his base. Zero humility and understanding of the situation.
He's unfit to lead.
I agree that this is not a protest vote. The Greens are on the rise, they're getting a lot more attention, more councillors and their membership is going through the roof. The green messaging is so much more positive than Labour, Tory and Reform, just look at the reactions from Starmer, Farage etc to this result, I think that is only going to endear the Greens to even more people.
It's not tactical voting at all.
I’d say it’s the opposite. People could vote with their conscience and not consider Green to be a wasted vote.
Part of Starmer's letter to the MPs.
"Instead of a Labour MP who can be a local champion delivering for Gorton and Denton alongside a Labour Government and a Labour mayor, the people of Gorton and Denton now have a representative who is more interested in dividing people than uniting them."
This man is now off his rocker.
He will further alienate his base. Zero humility and understanding of the situation.
He's 'doing a David Cameron'... running scared of Farrage.... and look how that ended up.
its a protest vote not a tactical vote
its a protest vote not a tactical vote
Partially, probably a factor - I think a lot of locals who might have voted Labour wanted Andy Burnham to be allowed to run.
What defines a protest vote? I think if the establishment assume that these are just votes lent to the greens they may be in for a bit of a rude awakening at the GE. Reform have shown that the same two parties aren't the only option anymore and people are opening up to voting for who they actually believe in now.
However I guess I am forgetting the circumstances in which this election came about. Pretty hard to vote for a party whose last MP was openly insulting their constituents.
What defines a protest vote? I think if the establishment assume that these are just votes lent to the greens they may be in for a bit of a rude awakening at the GE. Reform have shown that the same two parties aren't the only option anymore and people are opening up to voting for who they actually believe in now.
However I guess I am forgetting the circumstances in which this election came about. Pretty hard to vote for a party whose last MP was openly insulting their constituents.
in this instance it’s a low risk option. It makes no difference to the parliamentary arithmetic. Reform still can’t get MPs elected despite all the coverage they get.
its a protest vote not a tactical vote
I don't think it was. If there was a GE tomorrow I wouldn't vote Labour (or Conservative, or Reform).
Reform is fortunately poisoned by the exodus of thickos from the Tory party, the Tories are now just rudderless drifting around towards the far right, and Labour is where David Cameron was in 2012.
I've always thought protest votes in elections are ridiculous. That's how we got Brexit.
It's not a protest vote as such. There is no evidence it is. It's a vote for things people want, like or agree with. 'We want progressive MPs' is not a protest - it's a support for improving material conditions.
Is a Reform vote a protest vote against Tory/Labour or a shift in political demands?
Same thing.
Hannah Spencer's message resonates with regular people. National polling supports this largely for the greens.
However to that end you could always call any vote a protest vote against the other parties/ideologies.
If you believe it's temporary - then time will tell. But as conditions aren't met for people expect the green vote to get stronger.
For now Tory and Labour are disintegrating against Reform and Green. Thinks are changing.
As an aside has anyone noticed how Tice and Farage clearly can't cope with the limelight when they lose? Absolute moaning whinging Reformers on a losing streak, empty of solutions.
Pathetic.
Reform is fortunately poisoned by the exodus of thickos from the Tory party
Well exactly. I thought you lot would be thrilled by this! It's clearly going to diminish working class support for Reform (probably not enough across the country as a whole) but will play well with rich home counties landowner types and businessmen/women who mostly/always voted Tory.
The Mail has done some of the best journalism this country has ever seen - just look at the line they took (at some expense) over Stephen Lawrence murderers.
In which century, other than that particular aberration?
So with Starmer putting our feet in the door on this war. (FFS)
I'm fixing my mortgage rate at the very least. Usual crap will likely pour from BoE - as inflation probably climbs as consequence of oil prices - they will pretend they can control oil supply issues with interest rates.
Money already flowing back to the dollar as risk-off.
There is a lag and many overlapping issues here but that's my thoughts.
And all the other hell that comes with it.
(Unless this is a short sharp job. History tells us it won't be.)
Money could flow into bonds and a thousand other outcomes here too.
So with Starmer putting our feet in the door on this war. (FFS)
I'm fixing my mortgage rate at the very least. Usual crap will likely pour from BoE - as inflation probably climbs as consequence of oil prices - they will pretend they can control oil supply issues with interest rates.
Money already flowing back to the dollar as risk-off.
There is a lag and many overlapping issues here but that's my thoughts.
And all the other hell that comes with it.
(Unless this is a short sharp job. History tells us it won't be.)
Money could flow into bonds and a thousand other outcomes here too.
Time to buy shares in KBR & Rip-its.
So with Starmer putting our feet in the door on this war. (FFS)
“No more illegal wars.”
as i said on the Iran thread, once iran started attacking its neighbours it wasn't illegal to get involved (we have defence agreements with several gulf states si theres a level of obligation)
according to the governments legal advice we could in theory do a lot more, at the moment starmer is doing the bare minimum
https://bsky.app/profile/bricksilk.bsky.social/post/3mfzr3xzztk2p
Don't come in here being rational kimbers. There is no place for that
Unsurprisingly I tend to agree, There was a huge amount of "I'm normally solid Labour, but they need a kick up the backside" and "If it was Burnham I'd vote for you" type comments The media are losing their minds (obviously) and I've seen some proper nonsense on SM. I wouldn't bet on the Greens retaining it.
Just reposting this here as it seems to have something to say about whether the Green vote was partly a protest vote or not.
Granted it is anecdotal rather than categorical, but nickc said he was canvassing for the election, right? So it's firsthand anecdotal evidence at least.
From that "Government legal position" (position not advice)...
"The UK condemns in the strongest terms the Iranian regime’s reckless and ongoing indiscriminate attacks against countries in the region. Such actions demand a united response to restore peace and security and prevent further escalation of the conflict."
No mention of what has prompted the Iranian action (ie the strikes against it). It is not a considered legal view you're reading there, it's a justification that chooses to ignore the very reason the war has no legal basis. We may well be doing the "minimum", but by doing so we are saying the USA has our support for further action in a war they have chosen to carry out.
Right... closer to home...
From today, new asylum seekers will only get temporary refuge here, with regular reviews to try and get rid of them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp32ddzdjxko
From that "Government legal position" (position not advice)...
"The UK condemns in the strongest terms the Iranian regime’s reckless and ongoing indiscriminate attacks against countries in the region. Such actions demand a united response to restore peace and security and prevent further escalation of the conflict."
No mention of what has prompted the Iranian action (ie the strikes against it). It is not a considered legal view you're reading there, it's a justification that chooses to ignore the very reason the war has no legal basis. We may well be doing the "minimum", but by doing so we are saying the USA has our support for further action in a war they have chosen to carry out.
Legal advice is never clear cut. The initial US/Isreali attacks were illegal, but defending allied countries against indiscriminate retaliation would not be.
There's a big assumption that we trust the US to restrict use of UK bases to that specific scenario, which is why it was a stupid thing to offer. It may be possible to justify it legally, but morally the US can sod off as far as I'm concerned
From today, new asylum seekers will only get temporary refuge here
Fair enough. Once the whatever they had to leave the country for has gone away why wouldn't they want to return to the place that is their home?
there's also the worry that America amd Israel are using AI to select targets and who knows what else, fk knows what the legal implications of that is!
that f15
https://bsky.app/profile/youranoncentral.bsky.social/post/3mg2z53xvrk2u
Once the whatever they had to leave the country for has gone away why wouldn't they want to return to the place that is their home?
I don't know about you, but my home is where I live, not somewhere I left. And I don't trust this government, never mind the next one, to decide when things have "gone away" as a reason to start deporting people trying to build a new life here.
meanwhile, in the land of wtfism that is kemi badenoch
https://bsky.app/profile/peterwalker99.bsky.social/post/3mg2zjoqwyk2o
Fair enough. Once the whatever they had to leave the country for has gone away why wouldn't they want to return to the place that is their home?
What caused you to leave in the first place might go on for decades, what are you supposed to put your life on hold until you retire & then move back not knowing anyone?
In the new country you might start a new job, get a good career or business going. You might fall in love with someone.
Being a aslym seeker isn't like being in prison where you put your life on hold.
https://bsky.app/profile/leftiestats.bsky.social/post/3mg2zx4t7l22g
Polling next few weeks will be interesting.
From today, new asylum seekers will only get temporary refuge here
Fair enough. Once the whatever they had to leave the country for has gone away why wouldn't they want to return to the place that is their home?
In some cases the "risk" they are leaving will be very easy to define as having "gone" but in most cases its probably not - e.g. lots of Syrian refugees came here in the early 2000's. The Assad regime has now gone, but does that make Syria safe for those people to return? If not safe yet, will it be better in 30 monhts time? Having lived here for >20 yrs, settled in a community, perhaps had children, gained employment - possibly in a field that doesn't exist in Syria, potentially stopped using your original language regularly, formed relationships with people from outside Syria, maybe bought a house - would you want to go back? Do we want refugees to integrate in their communities or just live in temporary limbo waiting for someone in the Home Office to decide your fate every 30 months?
Where do you draw the line? Anyone born here would not be a refugee, but what it they are only 10 yrs old - but both their parents are? What if they arrived here as a baby, only speak English and "to all intents" are indistinguishable from the next door neighbour who was born here? What if they came here at 60 and are now in their 80's?
Equally, why would we want someone who is settled here, making a contribution to society to leave? As an employer hiring people who only have X months until their next review might be difficult, making it more likely that refugees with temporary status actually get stuck on benefits!
Badenoch unintentionally helping Starmer today
https://bsky.app/profile/paulbrand.bsky.social/post/3mg3mnjlfqk2y
Northern Ireland is a good example of whether a country is “safe” or not. After the Good Friday Agreement some perhaps have that perception, if you keep up with the current situation and realise that huge walls are still thought necessary to separate sections of the population it’s clearly not safe for everyone.
Yep, some countries are shitter places to live in than others. If you fancy moving to another country then do so if they let you. I fancied New Zealand a while ago, nope. I also fancied California, nope.
If a country is good enough to help you out when the country you live in gets really shit then that is good but it should only be while the country is in that state. If everyone is aware of that then no problem.
Is it just because they are from far away? Would you have forcibly deported Europeans, who fled here during the build up to the Second World War, straight after Hitler was defeated? Or at some point later? And what about their children?
Comparing your desire to move to LA, or Wellington, with people fleeing war and persecution is a bit sick, if you ask me.
Apparently according to the left Starmer is in the grip of his Zionist Jewish paymasters and according to the right he's pandering to treacherous fifth columnist British Muslims.
Apparently according to the left Starmer is in the grip of his Zionist Jewish paymasters and according to the right he's pandering to treacherous fifth columnist British Muslims.
Lol... Starmer is politically on the same page as France and Germany in the context of Iran.
UK news is staying a bit quiet about that, but if you read some more broad European news they are all basically having these debates... This isn't Starmer going it alone and buddying up with Trump.
Greece has also ramped things up a bit... Not supprised given the attack on Cyprus...
... And an attack on Greece is an attack on the EU, so...
There's a lot of intertwined politics going on and it would be short sighted to simply point at Starmer.
I'm not saying I like it, I'm just saying what I see.
Right... closer to home...
From today, new asylum seekers will only get temporary refuge here, with regular reviews to try and get rid of them.
Imagine bumping into that on a dark night, you’d freak out
From today, new asylum seekers will only get temporary refuge here
Fair enough. Once the whatever they had to leave the country for has gone away why wouldn't they want to return to the place that is their home?
If anyone tries to take me back to Essex, they'd need to be packing the shit Murdock used to put BA to sleep with. No ****ing way I'm going back voluntarily.
how old would you have to be when you arrived before you might think such a policy was unreasonable? Eg if you arrived as a baby and are now graduated university and got a job should you be sent back?Yep, some countries are shitter places to live in than others. If you fancy moving to another country then do so if they let you. I fancied New Zealand a while ago, nope. I also fancied California, nope.
If a country is good enough to help you out when the country you live in gets really shit then that is good but it should only be while the country is in that state. If everyone is aware of that then no problem.
or how if you are born here do your parents get sent back as soon as you turn 18? (Or are we putting you in care and sending them back sooner?)
or if you are now in your late 70s but your close relatives are all here with British Citizenship (you won’t qualify as your earnings are too low) and you’ve no home to return to in a country with no welfare state…
how old would you have to be when you arrived before you might think such a policy was unreasonable? Eg if you arrived as a baby and are now graduated university and got a job should you be sent back?Yep, some countries are shitter places to live in than others. If you fancy moving to another country then do so if they let you. I fancied New Zealand a while ago, nope. I also fancied California, nope.
If a country is good enough to help you out when the country you live in gets really shit then that is good but it should only be while the country is in that state. If everyone is aware of that then no problem.
or how if you are born here do your parents get sent back as soon as you turn 18? (Or are we putting you in care and sending them back sooner?)
or if you are now in your late 70s but your close relatives are all here with British Citizenship (you won’t qualify as your earnings are too low) and you’ve no home to return to in a country with no welfare state…
This guy knows whats going on:
Whilst the extreme left are busy spitting poison at more modereats, and vice-versa, the far right will win.
We need to find a common ground, and that common ground is wealth tax.
Weath tax is a scarey thought for many until you drill into the details, it would only be a big tax on people worth over say £10 million.
It's not going after the middle class who got lucky and somehow have managed to afford a 5 bed house, with a huge mortgage and also have a reasonable private pension... that's not rich, that's just getting by.
It's going after the people who are so wealthy all they have left to do with all thier money is is buy more and more assets, the 'rich' or the 'super rich' if you like, driving the price of those assets up for those below them and locking them out.
If we want to beat the extreme right, we have to come together on a common cause...that common cause is weath tax, cost of living, heath care, social care etc. a lot of that ties into re-joining the EU, but that's not a silver bullet, we need sensible home grown MP's and local councils working together as a team.
If we are divided, we will lose.
and that common ground is wealth tax.
How are you going to measure it and value it? If it's not income, how will you collect it? Who will do that work? The HMRC isn't set up to do it, and hasn't got the staff, so how much will it cost to recruit and pay them? What happens if valuations of wealth are challenged? The courts are literally years behind, so how long will you allow very rich people to tie up evaluations in legal proceedings, and how much will that cost the treasury?
I think "wealth tax" works in the same way for the left as "send them back" does for the right. Find an out-group and heap all your troubles onto them.
A wealth tax if viewed as a redistribution mechanism i.e remove the power from people that buy and hoard too much stuff - taking resources from the rest of us - to allow more supply to the state and the rest of us makes some sense.
But it doesn't make sense as 'pay for' process at all. It doesn't need to exist as a pay-for. That starts with government. Gary Stephens totally misunderstands this part.
The idea does unite many liberals and progressives though so it works politically there even if technically complex.
I'd be happy with one but it won't go far enough. And frankly the rich have had it good for too long to correct it like this.
All that said we need absolutely radical ideas to change from what we've got to make society better.
We can't stick to what we've got - the fabricated ideas that the state can't fix society needs overturning. Labour are a living breathing example of trying to tweak the edges with pretend private investment - rather than the power of the public purse.
Spring statement today - I expect they will be selling the absolutely farcicle "governments can't control energy prices but we can sometimes" line as a massive illogical benefit. Such an odd way to run a country. Same with interest rates.
On the one hand they say markets do this - on the other hand the government can sometimes give you a discount. It's the worst of both worlds.
Most of the metrics Reeves will cite were better before they came to power unfortunately.
Nothing new. If anything I've gambled my mortgage fix on possible on less future interest rate cuts.
Depends how this war spirals out of control.
and that common ground is wealth tax.
How are you going to measure it and value it? If it's not income, how will you collect it? Who will do that work? The HMRC isn't set up to do it, and hasn't got the staff, so how much will it cost to recruit and pay them? What happens if valuations of wealth are challenged? The courts are literally years behind, so how long will you allow very rich people to tie up evaluations in legal proceedings, and how much will that cost the treasury?
I think "wealth tax" works in the same way for the left as "send them back" does for the right. Find an out-group and heap all your troubles onto them.
A blanket steel ceiling. No one indivdual has any business being a billionaire whilst others starve and the environment goes to shit.
Where the line is drawn is up for debate I guess, but it can quite easily be a high enough bar for people to be allowed to be relatively wealthy and lead nice lives.
I don't see there's any alternatives.. Even if you are super rich there's only so many sports cars or boats property you can buy... And you can't eat money.
When there's no one growing crops anymore. So what are you going to eat in your high castle?
What will you grand children eat? what kind of world do you want for them?
The horrible truth is there's plenty of money to fix everything, but most of it is frozen in the top 1%.
Lets tax those mothertuckers, it's not like they can't afford it... and it is they who are creating the problem we have as a species.
Not the labour voter, not the green voter, hell, not even the conservative voter.. teh super rich elite are robbing us, and all life on this planet of a future.
And for what? numbers on a page.