They're going to hold him to account by guaranteeing him their votes again five years later, this time to 'keep the Tories out'. He'll probably get the police involved he'll be that petrified.The Labour Party is historically a left wing socialist party.
See, this is the thing. Posters like you and Pseudo aren't socialists and neither are the people who have taken over the Labour Party. You want power, not fairness. You're excited because people like you are close to power and you hope it will benefit people like you, but you're also scared because you think people like me won't make it a certainty. That's why you get angry and resort to exaggerating. Calling posters who are turned off by Starmer and Co the same as shy tories, or tory enablers, or fantasists who are only interested in a perfect political party, is so disingenuous that it feels like projection. You're the shy tories. You're the ones who don't want to admit to liking right wing policies. But Starmer is allowing you to say it loud and proud.
You think that there's no other way. The Labour Party was founded because people disagreed with your premise. You think you can hold Starmer to account when he's in power. How, when you won't hold him to account when he isn't in power? Why would he listen to you when he holds all the cards? Both of you talking so much nonsense. One of you is regurgitating "my father was a toolmaker, my mother was a nurse" and the other is up for rounding people up and sticking them in one big town to be ruled over by a tory MP. Starmer is no friend of the working man. He is an establishment stooge and won't make our lives any better. Some of us have seen it for a while. All of us will see it in due course.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
https://www.ft.com/content/c2d56d45-c061-4d5a-bf4f-1eddd1fa7d25
this is why it’s pointless Starmer showing Labours hand too early
this is why it’s pointless Starmer showing Labours hand too early
There is no excitement about power or people like me.The Labour Party is historically a left wing socialist party.
See, this is the thing. Posters like you and Pseudo aren't socialists and neither are the people who have taken over the Labour Party. You want power, not fairness. You're excited because people like you are close to power and you hope it will benefit people like you, but you're also scared because you think people like me won't make it a certainty. That's why you get angry and resort to exaggerating. Calling posters who are turned off by Starmer and Co the same as shy tories, or tory enablers, or fantasists who are only interested in a perfect political party, is so disingenuous that it feels like projection. You're the shy tories. You're the ones who don't want to admit to liking right wing policies. But Starmer is allowing you to say it loud and proud.
You think that there's no other way. The Labour Party was founded because people disagreed with your premise. You think you can hold Starmer to account when he's in power. How, when you won't hold him to account when he isn't in power? Why would he listen to you when he holds all the cards? Both of you talking so much nonsense. One of you is regurgitating "my father was a toolmaker, my mother was a nurse" and the other is up for rounding people up and sticking them in one big town to be ruled over by a tory MP
You want fairness without any work, sacrifice or achievement then bemoan when it doesn't happen so you can stay lamenting "unfairness"
How, when you won't hold him to account when he isn't in power? - precisely because he has no accountability, he cannot affect any change.
That statement highlights why I have my view tbh, you want to hold the bloke without any power to account rather than the people who are in power.
You think those that understand that without power you cannot affect any material change, or crave power for powers sake are the ones who don't understand accountability.
I truly find it grim how many people want things to change but have no gumption or guts to change them.
Oh and to think I've paid literally any attention to any "policies" being discussed before a GE is ridiculous. Why would you? Again, people want something to read that makes them feel all warm and fuzzy and "represented'.
People would rather sit around and discuss fairness while vandals ruin the country.
There's no fight on the left.
Last edited:
Or because he's materially improved people's lives. If not, guess what, he gets booted out.
I'm halfway through Kleptopia, it's great
Because the man who conned them to win the leadership of the leftist party crippled them as the first order of business.
Oh and I'm actually pretty close to a socialist in my worldviewThe Labour Party is historically a left wing socialist party.
See, this is the thing. Posters like you and Pseudo aren't socialists and neither are the people who have taken over the Labour Party. You want power, not fairness. You're excited because people like you are close to power and you hope it will benefit people like you, but you're also scared because you think people like me won't make it a certainty. That's why you get angry and resort to exaggerating. Calling posters who are turned off by Starmer and Co the same as shy tories, or tory enablers, or fantasists who are only interested in a perfect political party, is so disingenuous that it feels like projection. You're the shy tories. You're the ones who don't want to admit to liking right wing policies. But Starmer is allowing you to say it loud and proud.
You think that there's no other way. The Labour Party was founded because people disagreed with your premise. You think you can hold Starmer to account when he's in power. How, when you won't hold him to account when he isn't in power? Why would he listen to you when he holds all the cards? Both of you talking so much nonsense. One of you is regurgitating "my father was a toolmaker, my mother was a nurse" and the other is up for rounding people up and sticking them in one big town to be ruled over by a tory MP
And please explain why fairness involves sacrifice for the working man. I don't get that. Surely fairness involves those with the most sacrificing so that those with the least get some?
What sacrifice for what working man?
Polling suggested a stunningly high support for some of Corbyn's most radical policies (such as renationalizing public utilities and even banks). It was serious polling too, not just the occasional black swan. It's a bit of a mystery to me how the perceived middle ground in UK politics have nevertheless shifted in the opposite direction, so that when the Labour Party is out to angle for disaffected centre voters (which obviously is what they're doing) they take up policies that would have been considered to be wildly Tory a decade ago. It speaks to how the Tories, who have of course moved to the right, are still defining the political landscape in the UK.
While not particularly left-leaning myself, I think Labor is making a very grave error by seemingly setting policy on the basis of being a certain remove from Suella Braverman and another, somewhat smaller remove from Rishi Sunak. Mostly because that just keeps reducing politics to a game of perception and plausibility, and ignores that in the end it is actually about solving difficult and real problems. If you want to do that you have to think seriously about them, and not worry primarily about what you end up looking like. I mean, continue austerity? That is not actually a moderate, or sane, policy. The UK public sector is extensively dysfunctional because of a decade and a half of grave and chronic underfunding, everyone knows this. Cutting it further clearly has no potential to create any efficiencies, it will only make it worse. So Starmer's line on that issue doesn't just indicate he won't solve that problem, but actually something worse, namely that he's not seriously trying to.
The political center of gravity all across the West is sliding in the direction of the radical right, who are taking ownership of and exploiting the disaffection created by the policies of the hitherto dominant liberal-conservative right. Ultimately the left has to come up with a better answer than this unless they want to cede that space to the likes of Donald Trump, Suella Braverman and the AfD.
If I were British, I would probably still vote for him though. For want of an alternative.
Last edited:
Yeah, right. He's offering to do nothing already.
It won't, it'll turn out people in wheelchairs are getting paid too much again.
Again, just crazy tbh.
Does this grand plan to transform people's lives go to a different school, so we won't have heard of it?
A) these are not radical policies - by literal definition that they're well supported via polling. You're contradicting yourself inside of a sentence.
B) they were so popular in fact that he got a majority, except he didn't.
C) you're right, it's about solving real issues and difficult decisions, them telling everyone they will check the finances before spunking 100bns up the wall is now not regarded as prudence but of sacrificing the working man.
Ok walk me through what you'd do as labour leader.
Give me your best, best ideas and policies.
Don't be absurd. Just because a policy has a lot of support obviously doesn't mean it can't be radical.
For your last two points I'm afraid you'll have to be a bit more precise if you want me to respond to them.
I am deeply worried that labour won't be in power yes because the thought of the Tory's being in power terrifies me. Do I love labour right now? No. Are they the same as the Tory's? No.The Labour Party is historically a left wing socialist party.
See, this is the thing. Posters like you and Pseudo aren't socialists and neither are the people who have taken over the Labour Party. You want power, not fairness. You're excited because people like you are close to power and you hope it will benefit people like you, but you're also scared because you think people like me won't make it a certainty. That's why you get angry and resort to exaggerating. Calling posters who are turned off by Starmer and Co the same as shy tories, or tory enablers, or fantasists who are only interested in a perfect political party, is so disingenuous that it feels like projection. You're the shy tories. You're the ones who don't want to admit to liking right wing policies. But Starmer is allowing you to say it loud and proud.
You think that there's no other way. The Labour Party was founded because people disagreed with your premise. You think you can hold Starmer to account when he's in power. How, when you won't hold him to account when he isn't in power? Why would he listen to you when he holds all the cards? Both of you talking so much nonsense. One of you is regurgitating "my father was a toolmaker, my mother was a nurse" and the other is up for rounding people up and sticking them in one big town to be ruled over by a tory MP
My hope is that labour will reveal policies that benefit everyone, especially workers and the vulnerable, and I hope they have strong green policies and re-nationalise at least water and rail services. As well as improving funding for the NHS and education.
And I am willing to take a chance on them doing some of those things. Yes. But one thing is for sure, if the Tory's get in again you will get the last few years on steroids. Even the current labour party are a million times better than that.
I am not willing to risk these Tory's getting in again because my principles may be uncomfortable. Hopefully enough other people are not either.
Nationalising railways isn't radical. Peter Hitchens was writing about this in the Daily Mail in 2012. Like, it's popular because the service has been shit. It's clear and obvious people hate paying more to some offshore corporation, for a worse service that they rely on.
It's not UBI or creating a UK Esta and 90 day rule etc.
To call it "radical" is patently absurd.
Why would Labour do those things if the voters back them not doing so at an election?
Yes, give away all your ideas to this class of criminals so they can implement watered down, barely functioning attempts at it and take away all your ideas for governing, so they can stay on power.
That's like saying why do they bother campaigning at all, doesn't make any sense to me.
So you think because they aren't promising the earth or presenting certain policies now, that they'll spend 5 years doing absolutely nothing except a continuation of the current status quo?
I guess we will have to wait and see their manifesto.
But like I said, that's my hope, the main aim is getting the current Tory party out, because they are destroying the country.
Ok. So, if 70% of the electorate supported imprisoning and deporting all Muslims, that wouldn't be a radical policy?
And what's the big deal anyway? It's not like "radical" means the same thing as "mad" or "irresponsible", or even necessarily "unpopular". Obviously, a policy of widespread nationalization of everything from water supplies to banks is a radical policy, in a country where to my knowledge no government has nationalised anything since the 1970s and where there has on the contrary been extensive privatisation, and where no other political party shared that orientation. Whatever the support is for those policies in public opinion. Which in itself means neither that they are good or bad policies.
Consult a dictionary mate. "Radical" is not a synonym of either "unpopular" or "not sensible". And railways wasn't the only thing I referred to.
Well it would be mainstream if 70% of people agreed with the policy?
End homelessness day 1, using the exact same method we got everyone off the streets during the pandemic. But then those are lesser people so you can see why Starmer isn't interested.
End arms sales to Saudi Arabia until they completely overhaul their human rights laws and Israel until they launch Netanyahu and any of his apologists into the sun. But then Starmer wouldn't get to send MPs out on all expenses paid beanos so you can see why he isn't interested.
Should I move onto day 2?
Radical
adjective
1.
(especially of change or action) relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough.
"a radical overhaul of the existing regulatory framework"
Similar:
thoroughgoing
thorough
complete
total
entire
absolute
utter
comprehensive
exhaustive
root-and-branch
sweeping
far-reaching
wide-ranging
extensive
profound
drastic
severe
serious
major
desperate
stringent
violent
forceful
rigorous
draconian
Opposite:
superficial
2.
advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social change; representing or supporting an extreme or progressive section of a political party.
Similar:
revolutionary
progressive
reforming
reformist
progressivist
revisionist
leftist
left-wing
socialist
anti-capitalist
extremist
fanatical
militant
diehard
woke
right-on
View 6 derogatory words
Opposite:
conservative
reactionary
moderate
noun
1.
a person who advocates thorough or complete political or social change, or a member of a political party or section of a party pursuing such aims.
No, it would be radical. Because it would be a fundamental and extreme deviation from both international norms and current domestic practice and norms. If 95% supported it, it would still be radical. Sometimes, a lot of people support radical policies.
That’s what the meme is about…
Do you see the words "unpopular" or "misguided" anywhere on that list?
Yes, thank you, I realise that. But your meme is bullshit.
Anyway, do you really think this is the aspect of this that is most worth discussing? The semantics of "radical"?
I mean, it’s a meme backing up your argument but you do you.
Wow, these are incredibly niche. Ok let's play along if I was the Tories with a complicit right wing media:
So how are you going to pay for this homelessness furlough scheme? By raising taxes. Same old Labour, always throwing other people's money at the problem rather than approaching the root causes of homelessness. But then again, this is a party that doesn't care for honest, hard working people, this is the party who wants to raise taxes on working people, to fund schemes that won't work.
We must protect our allies in the region and we are working closely with the relevant governments to guide them in line with international law. But it seems the focus isn't on helping the British people, it seems the focus is on weakening our partners in the region and playing petty international politics, trying to police the world than providing for the British people.
I appreciate your sentiment. They are two admirable goals. But if your those are the two core policies on your manifesto and that you'd discuss, are to do with arms sales and homeless people, then you're in serious trouble.
An example?
Sorry, isn't my contention that Corbyn's policies were not radical? As in nationalisation of rail were popular?
Am I getting confused? I don't think a majority opinion can really be radical.
Am I getting confused? I don't think a majority opinion can really be radical.
Oh. Well. In that case. I'm sorry, it can be hard to tell irony from straightfaced argument around here!
And mine is that this part of Corbyns policies were both radical and popular. Because yes, a majority opinion can most certainly be radical.
Well that's where we differ. I think something ceases to be radical once it's popular.