Viewing 40 posts - 15,761 through 15,800 (of 16,647 total)
  • Sir! Keir! Starmer!
  • kelvin
    Full Member

    Lol at this – near where I live Ollerton – is (Was?) already the earthquake capital of the UK

    Have we got to that point now…? Labour are opposing this lifting of the fracking ban, the new PM is proposing it, so we’ll defend it (or divert from it as in an issue) with little quips? Carry on…

    kelvin
    Full Member

    Miliband and Rees-Mogg in parliament today is probably worth watching if you think we don’t have a “real choice” when choosing between continuing with this string of Conservative governments, or kicking them out… ideally for a generation.

    rone
    Full Member

    Have we got to that point now…? Labour are opposing this lifting of the fracking ban, the new PM is proposing it, so we’ll defend it (or divert from it as in an issue) with little quips? Carry on…

    Just an anecdote, I think you’re reading too much into that.

    The serious case is people will vote with the wallets on energy in the current situation.

    Miliband and Rees-Mogg in parliament today is probably worth watching if you think we don’t have a “real choice” when choosing between continuing with this string of Conservative governments, or kicking them out… ideally for a generation.

    That’s not a choice for someone with bugger all money is it?

    Miliband had his shot with his soft-touch neoliberal offering.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    I was one of the fools who didn’t vote for “chaos with Ed Miliband”… that went well for us, didn’t it? That was an age ago though. If you can watch the exchange today between Rees-Mogg and Miliband, and think that Rees-Mogg is the one who’ll stand up for your interests, with any eye on your quality of life… well… 🤷🏻‍♂️

    trailmonkey
    Full Member

    That’s not a choice for someone with bugger all money is it?

    I think it’s a very obvious and clear choice.

    Vote for the party that is promising to legislate against people – like them – with little money, wishing to exercise their right to withhold their labour whilst simultaneously allowing huge pay increases and reducing taxes for the wealthy.

    Or don’t.

    I would rather Labour 2022 be like Labour 2017 but they aren’t. Let’s not pretend that they are just as bad as the Tories and that people have no choice between the two.

    dissonance
    Full Member

    Took almost 20 years last time and they lost against a very good opponent as Blair had exactly what was required at exactly the right time

    This buys into Blair the saviour myth. John Smith was doing a rather good job and the tories had completely imploded.

    squirrelking
    Free Member

    I see that Starmer wants to send out a clear message concerning what sort of party the Labour Party is – deeply patriotic.

    I’ll believe it when I see it. And not in a second hand repost from the Times in a rag with a very obvious axe to grind.

    Yeah don’t you just hate that. It’s almost have having neoliberal parties gives people no options.

    WTF are you talking about? You’re the one blowing smoke up her arse, I was just pointing out what an utter horror show she already is. But yes, I’m sure she’s just waiting for the right moment to tone it down, keep deluding yourself.

    I think it’s a very obvious and clear choice.

    Vote for the party that is promising to legislate against people – like them – with little money, wishing to exercise their right to withhold their labour whilst simultaneously allowing huge pay increases and reducing taxes for the wealthy.

    Or don’t.

    This.

    Took almost 20 years last time and they lost against a very good opponent as Blair had exactly what was required at exactly the right time

    This buys into Blair the saviour myth. John Smith was doing a rather good job and the tories had completely imploded.

    You conveniently forgot this bit:

    Starmer doesn’t have 10% of what Blair had (the selling power or the timing)

    The critical word being ‘timing’. That was entirely what won ‘Blair’ the election, the groundwork was already done.

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    I see that Starmer wants to send out a clear message concerning what sort of party the Labour Party is – deeply patriotic.

    I’ll believe it when I see it. And not in a second hand repost from the Times in a rag with a very obvious axe to grind.

    Why, because for you it is unthinkable that the Labour Party Conference would sing “God Save The King”?

    And you are accusing rone of deluding himself?!?

    Tell me about the very obvious axe that the BBC has to grind.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62960726.amp

    squirrelking
    Free Member

    Well I’d take them at their word before The National(ist) but not much more.

    As I said, the report in The National was second hand and initially covered by The Times (paywalled so unable to look further). They’re not exactly shy when it comes to sensationalising anything that could be even remotely construed as British nationalism or anything associated with it.

    So I was sceptical, is that wrong?

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    Fair enough the comments re the National/Times.

    However for me it is, sadly, eminently believable the Labour Party under the current leadership might want to kick off Conference with a rousing rendition of God Save The King.

    Not that I believe there is anything fundamentally wrong about singing the rather bizarre British national anthem at Conference, what worries me is the motivation behind it – this imo false patriotism.

    If the Labour Party wants to be patriotic then they should offer a credible alternative to the present government which puts the British people first, and leave meaningless flag-waving to the Tories. Less saving the King and more saving the people.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    Haven’t we just had a thread which featured chat about all this King and Flag stuff? You should probably re-read what you were saying in there to others who had reservations about the singing of God Save the King, and sticking with the Monarchy in its current form going forward.

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    You should probably re-read what you were saying

    Why? I haven’t mentioned anything about the national anthem in any thread recently. And all my comments with regards to Mrs Windsor have been completely consistent.

    I have repeatedly pointed out that imo the monarchy has no role to play in an advanced democracy. I have also repeatedly said that imo abolition of the monarchy is currently a non-issue, there are far more pressing issues to deal with and abolition would be inconsequential to the lives of ordinary working people.

    I have also expressed the opinion that the views of the pro-royalist majority should be respected and not ridiculed. One STWer went as far as to describe people queuing to witness a historical event as “perverts”.

    I am not asking Labour Conference to discuss the abolition of the monarchy and include it in the next general election manifesto, nor am I suggesting that kicking off Conference by hypocritically forcing delegates to sing God Save The King is a good idea.

    Are those concepts too difficult for someone who sees everything only in terms of black and white to understand?

    It shouldn’t be for someone who starts a new thread with the following words:

    I’m a republican, but I rate her highly as a human, I wish her well and hope we have her as head of state for a bit longer still.

    So you are a “republican” but wanted her to remain head of state for a bit longer?

    I hope that Charlie Windsor’s recent elevation to position of new head of state makes up for your undoubted disappointment 🙂

    kelvin
    Full Member

    So, we keep the Monarchy, we just don’t let Labour join in with celebrating the new King… because…? They are asking the public to put them in office. Should they avoid being involved in any event where the anthem is sung if the voters put them in government?

    So you are a “republican” but wanted her to remain head of state for a bit longer?

    Absolutely. I’m against our current monarchy (in scope, power and wealth) being passed on via inheritance. But I wanted the Queen to live on longer and remain in her post for a while, she was doing a good job in some ways, especially later in her reign. Just like I’m in favour of a parliamentary democracy, yet would like the current government to be out asap. You can be for/against a system without being for/against whoever holds which post in that system.

    I hoped she’d pull through and live a bit longer. Heartless of me, I know. I didn’t wish ill health on her, or want her death hastened, just because I’m a Republican. I would have liked her to have been our last Monarch, but that was never going to be the case, was it.

    You told us time and time again why the Monarchy is here to stay in the other thread. The Labour leadership now seem accepting of that… why should they let the Conservatives frame them as not sharing in that consensus? Many voters suspect they don’t, a feeling that took hold under the previous leader, inaction down the Labour Party will let that feeling sink in further… politically dangerous when the country looks like it’s gone Monarchy mad.

    squirrelking
    Free Member

    So you are a “republican” but wanted her to remain head of state for a bit longer?

    Makes as much sense as a socialist bigging up a Tory PM TBH.

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    Makes as much sense as a socialist bigging up a Tory PM TBH.

    It’s silly playground bollocks like that which is why engaging with some people in attempt to have a serious discussion is pointless.

    Despite my reservations you started off quite sensible but sure enough when you ran out of sensible things to say you revert to puerile nonsense.

    Should they avoid being involved in any event where the anthem is sung if the voters put them in government?

    I don’t think the national anthem has been sung at a Labour Party Conference in living memory. There is no need for it. Labour can and has won elections without singing God Save The Queen/King at party Conference

    Furthermore it is crass hypocrisy imo as I doubt that the majority of delegates are actually royalists. Even if they reflect the wider population and only 25% are republicans what do you expect them to do? Sit down or walk out? That will look good in front of the TV cameras. Maybe sing along?

    The idea is daft and not least because it will do nothing for party unity and will in fact highlight how divided the party is.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    I don’t think the national anthem has been sung at a Labour Party Conference in living memory.

    We haven’t had a new Monarch in living memory.

    Anyway, you quoted this question, but didn’t answer it: Should they avoid being involved in any event where the anthem is sung if the voters put them in government?

    Even if they reflect the wider population and only 25% are republicans what do you expect them to do? Sit down or walk out?

    What do you want us Republicans to do when we hear the anthem anywhere? At any event? They should do that.

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    Yeah because singing God Save The Queen/King at Party Conference for the first time in living memory is just like that.

    Not singing “God Save The King” is not an option for the Labour Party Conference this weekend.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    Why shouldn’t Labour sing it? Should they welcome the new King at all? Or just leave it to look like only the Conservatives support his accession? How will that go down, after weeks of pro-monarchy fever, with the wider public?

    The timing of this conference is what you are missing. At one point people were calling for the conference season to be cancelled. If Labour’s conference is to go ahead, it will have to refer to the death of the Queen, and the accession of the King. Singing the national anthem, a few weeks after those events, will seem like an entirely natural and unremarkable way to do that to most people.

    Republican members can sit it out, or cross their arms, and quietly complain inside their heads, like many of us have been expected and told to do for weeks now.

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    Okay I get that you think the Labour Party Conference “celebrating” and “welcoming” the new King is a great idea.

    I don’t. I think it is unnecessary, pointless, and divisive. God Save The Queen wasn’t sung last year, or the year before. I see it as fake patriotism.

    Let’s leave it at that.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    You see the singing of the National Anthem, on the change of Monarch, as fake patriotism? What do you think of all MPs, of all parties, making a fresh pledge to the new King in parliament? I think it’s all role playing nonsense, personally. But Labour can’t risk avoiding it and leaving it all to the Conservative party if they want to win back those Red Wall Brexit voters, can they?

    kimbers
    Full Member

    Now we’re talking

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    Let us hope that ^^ becomes a firm commitment rather than Labour just considering.

    This was one of Starmer’s pledge when he stood for the Labour leadership:

    Push power, wealth and opportunity away from Whitehall. A federal system to devolve powers – including through regional investment banks and control over regional industrial strategy. Abolish the House of Lords – replace it with an elected chamber of regions and nations.

    A sensible proposal which has the potential to enhance and improve the lives of ordinary people by providing a more responsive and representative legislature.

    It also has the added benefit of, imo, being relatively easy to sell to the electorate. I am not aware of any great national attachment among voters for arcane roles of Lords and Baronesses.

    squirrelking
    Free Member

    It’s silly playground bollocks like that which is why engaging with some people in attempt to have a serious discussion is pointless.

    That’s fair, I’ll take that.

    But from my side I’ve asked several times why (for want of a better term) the red contingent seem so hell bent on supporting Truss and had nothing but radio silence back. It’s really, genuinely perplexing that the biggest socialists here seem to be the biggest cheerleaders for the Tory PM. I honestly don’t get it at all.

    If it’s all about giving chances that makes even less sense, Starmer never got half the love you seem to be sending her way.

    ransos
    Free Member

    The critical word being ‘timing’. That was entirely what won ‘Blair’ the election, the groundwork was already done.

    A win, sure. But Blair made it a landslide, which is ultimately why he was able to sneak a third term.

    ctk
    Full Member

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    seem so hell bent on supporting Truss

    I really don’t understand why you equate not seeing every Tory prime minister as a cretinous moronic useless half-wit with supporting them and being their “cheerleader”. Just because someone has a very different political position to yours doesn’t automatically make them idiots.

    Tory leaders are actually highly successful at achieving their goals, ie, securing power and serving the interests of the wealthy elite.

    In the case of Truss I have consistently expressed the opinion that she would/will be a ‘worse’ PM than Johnson, but better imo than Sunak – who I consider to be more Thatcherite. I might be wrong, we’ll see, but that doesn’t make me a cheerleader for Truss.

    As far as Starmer is concerned he certainly did get a chance. Although unlike say Daz who did support him in his leadership I didn’t** I was, and still am, hugely supportive of his 10 pledges.

    If he wants to commit himself to those 10 pledges which he made during his leadership bid then he can count on my full support – in fact I would even volunteer to do election work for Labour. Starmer has been given a chance, he has been Labour leader for well over 2 years now. I want something different to the Tories, I’m not alone in that.

    Edit: ** I didn’t support Starmer in his leadership bid because despite making the right noises I considered him to be a careerist and didn’t trust him.

    ctk
    Full Member

    Al-Jazeera doc worth watching imo

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    I wasn’t able to watch it at 9 o’clock. Seeing the clip below I don’t think that I am particularly disappointed about that. The whole sorry saga sounds hugely depressing. I guess the most useful thing that you can take away from it is how utterly futile it is to see the Labour Party as a vehicle for real change.

    Despite having the huge overwhelming support of party members the Labour Party establishment was determined to destroy Corbyn because he dared to offer a mildly left-wing social democratic alternative to the Tories’s right-wing thatcherism.

    You would have thought that receiving over 60% of the leadership vote would have protected him from hostile internal attacks, but that would underestimate the power of the Labour establishment and their determination. Although imo Corbyn is very far from blameless – he failed to be decisive and ruthless.

    There are lessons to be learnt. As I have said previously…..imo if you think the problem is the Labour Party leader then you don’t understand the problem.

    Replacing Starmer won’t change the Labour Party. He isn’t the problem.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    The Labour Party aren’t the problem, a Tory party wedded to fossil fuels are.

    A bit of Miliband and a bit of Streeting for you (with bonus Moran for those in seats where the LibDems can challenge Tory MPs)…

    ernielynch
    Free Member

    The ban on fracking was introduced by a Tory government. The reason the ban is now being lifted is because there has been a change in the leadership of the Tory Party – something which you welcomed.

    Tory governments do not automatically equate with fracking, it is dependent on the leadership.

    Liz Truss’s premiership, short as it has been, is so far confirming my worse fears – that the Tories replacing Johnson would represent a serious setback. When Johnson was forced to resign, unlike those who were celebrating, I considered it a disaster as the alternative was bound to be worse.

    I want an opposition which is significantly and fundamentally different to the Tories. You seem to believe that if the Labour Party takes a stance which is different to one wing of the Tory Party that is good enough.

    I want to see in government a party which will implement policies that the Tories would never implement. Your example of a fracking ban as a policy which only a Labour government would introduce smacks of desperation.

    Especially as it is perfectly feasible that Truss could be forced into a U-turn over fracking as she was over her commitment of no “handouts” as a solution to energy price crises (how many billions is her handout worth?)

    And not least because of mounting opposition within her own party:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/fracking-ban-lifted-liz-truss-b2172783.html

    Liz Truss was met with a fierce political backlash from Conservative MPs after lifting the fracking ban, sparking anger from Tories worried that opposition parties will use the issue to win support in key battleground seats.

    Fracking is not a clear dividing line between the Tories and Labour. It simply puts Labour at the same level as some more enlightened Tories. And the ban on fracking was after all official Tory policy.

    If you feel that Labour only needs to behave like enlightened Tories then perhaps the easiest solution would be for Labour to pack up and join the Tories.

    At least then they would be on the winning side when it came to elections, and apparently winning elections is the only thing that matters.

    rone
    Full Member

    “Tories are having a bounce in the polls and dolling out some money to partialy address the current desperate situation.”

    Centrists – “Yeah but did you see Miliband against JRM on the subject of fracking? Labour are amazing.”

    Everyone; the current issue is lack of money with consumers and what the establishment are doing with that. (Stupidly raising rates !)

    A few weeks ago the debate was about sliding into a terrible winter with no heat or food. The Tories have offered up some crumbs and the party of the people have offered up even less crumbs. Tories offering up crumbs will work with the electorate.

    Currently Labour will not got my vote until they flip the Tories with what they will do in terms of macro-economic policy. (Not difficult.)

    Why on earth do centrists fail to come up with anything substantial to support the economy? (I sort of know the answer.)

    I will enjoy the mess that is Trussonomics today. But at least they got some cash out there – let’s find out their plan.

    I’m eyeing in on Q/E.and whether it gets reversed or there is another batch.

    And a possible VAT reduction.

    Either way RR will simply want to balance to books as a response.

    rone
    Full Member

    Makes as much sense as a socialist bigging up a Tory PM TBH.

    I agree Starmer seems to have made a career of this behaviour.

    rone
    Full Member

    I would rather Labour 2022 be like Labour 2017 but they aren’t. Let’s not pretend that they are just as bad as the Tories and that people have no choice between the two.

    Ironically we need that more than ever and anything less is pissing in the wind – that is if you want to fix things.

    kerley
    Free Member

    This buys into Blair the saviour myth. John Smith was doing a rather good job and the tories had completely imploded.

    Apart from it doesn’t – I was there (man). Yes Smith had done some work but it was Blair who got the excitement going which the voters got behind, combined with the timing. Again, Starmer doesn’t have either of those things, at all.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    Fracking is not a clear dividing line between the Tories and Labour.

    Being wedded to fossil fuels is a clear dividing line between the Conservative government(s) and the rest of us, including Labour. It’s one of the reasons we are so exposed to the current fuel crisis. That a few back bench MPs fear their voters reactions because fracking effects their seat is neither hear nor there. Those backbench MPs haven’t been pushing for the removal of the ban on onshore renewables, have they? They haven’t been pushing for anything like the transformation towards a green economy that Labour MPs have, have they? Clinging to gas and oil isn’t just about anyway.

    Centrists – “Yeah but did you see Miliband against JRM on the subject of fracking? Labour are amazing.”

    Am I centrist, because in our stupid FPTP system I want a Labour government not a Tory one? Right oh… anyway, on household bills (you are right to say that is what matters most in the short term) Labour long ago announced a plan, when the Tories leaders were saying they’d do nothing. Now they’ve been shifted (they had to follow) the long term approach to energy is being fought over in front of is. For the Tories their answer is more and more fossil fuels. The real price of that for our children is too high. They must be stopped.

    johnx2
    Free Member

    genuinely perplexing that the biggest socialists here

    If you mean the “labour, tory, they’re all neoliberals and all the same” group of posters they’re really not the biggest socialists.

    A bit of talk among a few people on here is no big deal, but scaled up it’s about discounting and splitting the labour party and continuing to keep the tories in power indefinitely, which I don’t think makes you any kind of socialist other than in hobby terms.

    rone
    Full Member

    If you mean the “labour, tory, they’re all neoliberals and all the same” group of posters they’re really not the biggest socialists.

    Ignorance is rife amongst us about the lack of difference between economics of the main parties.

    rone
    Full Member

    Am I centrist, because in our stupid FPTP system I want a Labour government not a Tory one?

    Don’t know about you – but I notice the lack of solutions coming from Centrists commentators about how Labour should fix stuff.

    johnx2
    Free Member

    Ignorance is rife amongst us about the lack of difference between economics of the main parties.

    That may be so, but wasn’t my point.

    rone
    Full Member

    A bit of talk among a few people on here is no big deal, but scaled up it’s about discounting and splitting the labour party and continuing to keep the tories in power indefinitely, which I don’t think makes you any kind of socialist other than in hobby terms.

    The Labour party was split by the right of the party way before this observation took place.

Viewing 40 posts - 15,761 through 15,800 (of 16,647 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Thanks for popping by - why not stay a while?IT'S FREE

Sign up as a Singletrack Member and you can leave comments on stories, use the classified ads, and post in our forums, do quizzes and more.

Join us, join in, it’s free, and fun.