I agree.
"Spiritual leader" may be, but leader of a party (any sort of party) that had to do battle in the real world, no sorry, that was never on!
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
"Spiritual leader" may be, but leader of a party (any sort of party) that had to do battle in the real world, no sorry, that was never on!
As I said before it's nothing to do with the size of the majority. Look at the Tories - they cleaned up in 2019 and look where they will be in 2024.You take my breath away Paul you really do!!
I will accept that scenario might just play out if, with only a small win at the 2024 GE, Labour has to apply only emergency treatment and is unable to 'move the dial'. The public are fickle and may well return the running of the nation to "the natural party of power"
So what do we know so far.
Brexit - no, it's never going to work. Much worse to come in the coming years.
No money according to Labour for public services , NHS, can't do anything.
Climate, most of that seems to be abandoned apart from some windfarms that no-one's interested in investing in - now too expensive and not viable. There are still about 50 farms yet to be completed from tory plans.
Freeports - this is a disaster yet to happen that Starmer seems keen on - something for the British public to discover in due course.
Immigration - needed. Asylum seekers - still no legal routes according to Starmer, just him chasing round Europe looking for criminal gangs. Seriously. this is supposed to stop people wanting to come to the UK. It's only made to a major issue because of Sunak and Starmer and all the other idiotic politicians to be used as scapegoats.
That's just scratching the surface. There needs to be radical change and that's not happening with Starmer.
I've absolutely no idea what you're expecting to happen under your moving the dial.
Nothing to see here folks!
I find this shit particularly enraging, it's got far worse in recent years too.
To be fair, we've got a situation with climate change that is threatening to cause worldwide food shortages and our government are spending their time debating and legistalting about the signs on toilet doors.
Last edited:
The sort of legislation that improves the lives of millions not just a few, e.g NHS Act and Education Act after WW2, subsequently changed and vastly improved the lives of millions of ordinary people, giving them education opportunities and health care provision their parents and grandparents could only have dreamed of.
This has to happen again, this time it will probably be housing/land/building etc., enough homes, properly built and insulated available to suit the needs of the majority, including those who do not have homes now, this could well be the priority.
The rights of landholders will be reformed, to prevent obstruction and hoarding of land, of construction companies, of anybody or anything which may prevent, or has prevented in the past, a suitable fair and equitable national housing policy, being implemented.
Probably also taking energy and water industries back under some sort of government control, so that upgraded national supply networks can be established and brought in to meet the needs of the future specifically climate change etc. and also information technology it's uses and control properly established and regulated.
Hence I would suspect the dial needs to (start/to) move on;
a) re-establishing and upgrading of Health and Social care provision and end of life care (for all)
b) re- introduction of an Education reform program including the upgrade of both buildings and equipment and the establishment of relevant levels of attainment and provision from Early Years through Primary, Secondary and Tertiary (Further /Higher) to Lifetime learning/retraining.
c) Control of land/building planning/construction/ servicing to provide everyone with a home, backed by law.
d) Control of energy and water provision, including nation wide interchangeable network provision to plan and provide or the future, in particular the effects of climate changes.
Clearly such an agenda cannot be even started (overall) in one term, it will need at least two/three, but a start has to be made in term one and is possible if the political will (and 'clout' in parliament) is there. Therefore a massive majority is need to overcome the inertia and to start to move the dial.
Paul before you start on about the economy, yes attention will need to be given, to undoing as far as possible, damage done via Brexit, via Covid and by the increasing prospect of expansion of wars in Europe and the middle east. Almost a government of national unity might be needed and some of Starmer's latest comments/actions also could be viewed in that way... repent and come and join us!
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-children-b2542136.html?utm_source=reddit.com
This been posted. Grim stuff.
This been posted. Grim stuff.
Switching parties with the single goal of increasing the house price is maybe the most Westminster thing of all time.
He is a quintessential leader of ‘the Opposition’.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Horrific, that the Tories knew about this for four years, kept it from public, then released it after her defection to a Party that would have no way of knowing about it.
Yes it's all very well to hope for such things. But Starmer gives no sign of doing very much.
My main concern is that he is so naïve - there are plenty of people who don't like him for all sorts of reasons that he's voluntarily given them but that's another story.
It's not only Tories and Corbynites that don't rate him.
If he's genuinely intending to do what you hope I really don't see him personally lasting even one term. We shall see.
Yes, almost like it’s a risk taking on toxic Tory MPs. Not like she had a host of comments in support of her sex offender ex-husband that should be a red flag to begin with.
Still stand that this was a stupid, short-sighted, defection to accept.
Of course not, not yet, but I think there are signs he is getting into his stride and as the GE draws ever closer we shall see a more confident leader emerging. He will not make promises only suggestions, because crucially it all depends on his majority.
He has to 'hoover up' as many votes as he can, he knows he will lose some left wingers in Labour, but they always cut their noses off to spite their face, he will look to dislodge some Tories some of the ones heading for the Lib Dems, but who really don't want to waste their vote, maybe some of those reticent 'red wall' voters who are being tempted by Reform, in fact any and all who don't want the Tory's running the country anymore.
This next GE will be crucial for the next 20 to 25 years (IMO), because the world situations, let alone the UK's problems are getting worse. Wars and famine in the aftermath are only part of it, climate change is happening now and whilst there are still things that can be done to slow it down, it cannot be stopped. Stability is required in Governments to be able to plan cohesively over the next quarter century. You need big majorities for that and that's what Starmer's after when the dust settles the day after the GE.
Labour will win the election. But as I said, It's not only left-wing voters he's losing. There are many different factions he seems to have put their noses out of joint. And all because he always seems to come to the wrong conclusion/ decision either through his own naïvety or bad advice - from Brexit to middle east conflict to immigration to climate to nationalisation to saying he's not got any money to spend because of fiscal rules.
This is happening before he gets elected when he has somewhat of a free chance to say something positive and sensible. When in government the pressure will be considerably more intense.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Diane Abbott should use the same line.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Significantly lower morals than Glazer's Manchester United
But, and tbc I'm not saying this sarcastically, that recruit is worth some extra % in the polls because of the migrant stuff, so worth it for most people.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I'll get some popcorn whilst @Sweet Square uses this to makes an argument against Labour...
Racheal Reeves isn’t going to help people on benefits.
Last edited:
While I don't agree with accepting her into the Labour Party, it is somewhat pathetic that the media only report on this with the ferocity it deserves when she does switch from the Conservatives
The campaign will be brutal. Most of our election law dates from the 19th century. We have little to no rules about AI fakes, social media, and so on.
I think what might be even worse than the actual fake & AI stuff will be that people will gradually turn against factual reporting too, with 'don't believe in experts' and Trump's teflon 'fake news' stuff. Leading to everyone believing only what they want to believe, as now of course but on steroids. Quite frightening.
I think the public are fed up with politicians that say one thing that appears positive and sensible when canvassing votes, but then do another when in power, when faced with reality. Starmer is making suggestions now, he's not really promising anything, because he knows what lies ahead will be difficult even with a large majority, it will take around a decade at least to just overcome the inertia. To move the dial at all will require lots of things to happen the first of which is to get a large majority in the GE.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I agree with this view, but would add the comment and question what is 'factual reporting'? In today's 24/7 news-cycle the editors are the controllers of 'facts', of what is presented and they have a schedule and policy line to follow. I would prefer something like the old days when the news headlines only were reported... not edited
e.g.
(1) "The PM met with XYZ today, a statement will be issued later by No.10"
Not (2) "The PM met with XYZ today a statement will be issued later by No.10, but we now go over to our political reporter/editor to find out what( s/he thinks) was discussed and what (s/he thinks) was unlikely to have been discussed".
The statement (1) from No.10 might well be biased, but essentially it needs to be true. The reader can judge for themselves.
The statement (in 1) will or could be read later, but the editor will have added their perspective, so the reader/viewer is getting their take on things, and the truth may well be found to be twice removed
However, I suppose its basically the lazy way most of us want to receive our news?
Sunak is holding us hostage at this point.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I don't understand, why is it going to be a dangerous few years?
Because he's a piece of shit and his party is a criminal cartel of thickos and bigots who have decided to use fear as an electoral strategy.
Because he's a coward resorting to the last tactic of the con-man, tell everyone they're under threat and that he's the only one who can save them.
I got about half way through and gave up. The guy is as boring AF.
It's an actual joke how he can decide to call an election whenever he wants and can keep stringing the public along. Set a fixed term for parliament and keep the election the same time every 4 years.
While I agree we still wouldn't have an election until the term was up that way.
Yes that was due to it being dissolved before the 2019 election. I don’t think Labour will bring it back anyway but it would help if it was set again, even if it meant adding another year if it was done in a middle of a term. This whole process is just a piss take by Sunak.
I want proportional representation but that's not going to happen while one of the main 2 get a majority.
The "minister for common sense" is triggered by LGBT layards.
You can't make this shit up, who tf votes for these clowns?
You can't make this shit up, who tf votes for these clowns?
All you've got as proof is everything she's ever said and done whilst involved in politics. That doesn't mean anything.