Rosie Duffield is a nasty piece of work and one of the people Starmer is afraid of calling out.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
Rosie Duffield is a nasty piece of work and one of the people Starmer is afraid of calling out.
And now the tables are turning and people are being pre-emptively accused of keeping the Tories in because they can't stomach voting for Starmer's Labour. As you say, it's standard currency, it's also a massive waste of time and completely misunderstanding the issues.
Ignoring the FPTP debate, because it won't happen. As I said, they have themselves to blame if they lose because of it, that's not me being ornery, that's just me being matter of fact. Instead what we're seeing here is people pre-emptively blaming the people that don't want to vote for Starmer's Labour because they don't feel represented by them. If someone wants to call my not wanting to throw the trans community under the bus "theoretical game playing" I feel within my rights taking umbrage at that.
It's kind of true. The Labour party putting them in that position was pretty unforgivable. But who exactly to attribute blame to for the Corbyn debacle and distancing from Blair/Brown is arguable.
genuinely mystified by this. neither the party structure, nor the other MPs, nor the "friendly" parts of the media, ever tolerated him.
100%.
I wasn't hearing these calls for unity when Labour factions were sabotaging general elections.
He was the party leader. He was not removed. To the average voter, that's a vote of confidence from the party/activists/whatever as he was not removed when it was obvious a large amount of the electorate simply did not trust him. Average voter doesn't care about party minutae, they simply see the monolithic 'party' standing by him as leader after trashing Blair and Brown etc. (who themselves had helped build the narrative that our most successful party leaders were terrible war criminals, and were now standing by Corbyn)
a failed coup is not tolerance. maybe voters don't see it that way, but it is a fact that the party structure threw the kitchen sink at him.
Yep. All us lefties now have to be the bigger people to stop the Tories getting in again despite these same people actually letting the Tories in because they couldn't do the same. They did stop racism though apparently so they can always fall back on that.
I'm lucky/unlucky enough to live in an area where the tories will never get voted in, so luckily I won't need to vote for this prick.
No they stopped anti-Semitism. They're all for a bit of racism. And anti-Semitism. But only if it's the right kind.
Agree with you on a Labour led coalition looking likely to be better than a Labour majority at the minute.
With regards to a PR electoral system, that would be disastrous for Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland and I strongly oppose it. In the long term if anything it will just make this country even more London centric than it already is with little to no representation for less densely populated areas.
The current system really fails those of Scotland and NI especially because our main parties are neither Labour or Conservative and thus there is much less incentive to support these regions as there's no seats to lose.
Lib Dems regularly place 3rd on vote count so of course they want PR. Because it's what benefits them most.
Now with that said, the current system is shit. Personally I'd like a STV system which is used in Northern Ireland for local elections. You rank your candidates 1 to 9 in order of preference and your vote drops down the order while your candidates get knocked out on the count.
This system gives much better representation and gives people more incentive to vote smaller parties because they know if their chosen party doesn't win, their vote isn't wasted and will go to their second or 3rd preference instead.
Probably because the smell of cannabis causes little harm to anyone's life. Fumes from cars driving up and down a road will do much more damage.
When the rest of the world is legalising cannabis and using it medicinally, using the smell of cannabis as your example of crime isn't progressive in the slightest. It's something I expect from a tory.
With a codified constitution (or even through an Act of Parliament) we could ensure a PR system is fair. This could include provisions which require the consent of MPs of all four nations to pass certain types of legislation, or a supermajority if legislation infringes fundamental rights.
How true this is. It's a pattern that has been repeated several times in this thread and the ones before it. If the left loses it's because they were too extreme and failed to appeal to centrists, allowing the right to win. If the the center loses it's because the vindictive left refused to vote for them, allowing the right to win.
Aren't both the same in that it's two different views and neither will vote for each other above keeping the right out?
Unfortunately the conservatives win 3 times out of 5, and more than that recently. It won't change until the voting system changes and that'll only happen if forced via a minority government.
Unfortunately the conservatives win 3 times out of 5, and more than that recently. It won't change until the voting system changes and that'll only happen if forced via a minority government.
Life is a cabaret old chum.
You know what having looked at the number of seats currently in the UK and the amount of MPs other countries have, it does roughly tally up with the population. So we'd still get similar representation I guess.
So in a PR system how does it work with different constituencys? Do you simply vote for party and not individual? And then based on the overall votes, each party gets so many MPs they can then delegate.
Or do you vote for an individual to and say green won 15 seats, that would go to the 15 areas they got the highest vote share? And thus the MP for that area is elected.
The current system certainly needs reform anyway. I think more representation across the political spectrum can only be a good thing and lead to a bit more stability and sensibility too.
We should think more radical.
I'd get rid of the House of Lords and split the vote into two. You get one vote for your preferred party at a national level and the vote percentages determine the makeup of a new national chamber. This chamber then elects the PM from it's ranks (probably the leader of the biggest party) and they form the government.
Second vote is for your local MP who represents you in the local chamber. Remove any party affiliation from the voting card and just have the name to encourage people to vote for a person representing them rather than a party. Encourage independence for local MPs so they can focus on representing their constituents over a national party.
Give both chambers the ability to propose legislation and if the originating chamber backs it then goes to the other chamber for approval.
We get the government we vote for and the local representation we need without having to conflate the two.
You could even split the elections and have one general election for the national chamber and have a separate elections for local MPs to avoid local and national issues getting muddled up.
You'd probably need to give a certain level of supremacy to the national chamber if there was deadlock as they should be more representative of the nation as a whole. But there could be specifit remits each chamber has that gives one supremacy over the other on certain issues.
Just one flawed idea but we need to start thinking about changing a system that isn't fit for purpose if we want a functioning democracy. Hanging onto a system designed hundreds of years ago isn't going to facilitate real change.
How come? I've had at least three leaflets through my door telling me at great length what I have to do and how to prove my identity, it seems to boil down to any formal document that bears your photograph!
Surely anybody who wants to vote, will find out what they need to do to be able to vote, if they cannot be ar**ed, well then they don't get to vote.
The speech below - as usual everything being taken out of context. He's absolutely right in my opinion to highlight the importance of anti-social crime and it's impact on peoples day to day lives. The cannabis example is from one of his constituents and I'm surprised you can't see how that would be ruining their lives if it's not being dealt with by the police.
Shame he didn't add littering to the list - I'd advocate for enforced community service for anyone caught littering.
Why are you surprised that i can't see how it's "ruining people's lives"?
My uncle has severe arthritis and it's doing the opposite, he's more mobile and pain free than he's ever been since consuming cannabis. It's certainly not ruining his live, it's enabling it more than any other pharmaceutical drugs made in a lab have over the last decade.
Thankfully the rest of the world is waking up though and legalising or decriminalising it. Just a shame that the lives of millions of people in USA, Canada, Thailand, South Africa, Mexico, Uruguay, Netherlands, Portugal, Malta, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Egpyt, Israel, Italy, Spain and soon to be Germany are all suddenly having their lives ruined by the smell of cannabis.
At least we can still drink alcohol though and act drunk and disorderly. The lesser of two evils.
If you feel that people should be getting criminal records for using a naturally medicinal substance which allievates alot of health issues then maybe you need to reconsider where you stand politically. Our current stance on drugs is very right wing and you appear to support it. It's working really well...
I just hope that poor family never have to live next door to a kid with severe epilepsy. I'd hate for their lives to be ruined by a young neighbour taking one of the few medicines which actually treat the illness.
I don't doubt the medicinal properties of cannabis. Doesn't mean a family who doesn't use it wants to have their children exposed to it on a daily basis. It's anti-social for sure if it's impacting on another person, regardless of the benefits to the user.
Alcohol is certainly miles worse though I'd agree with that.
Loads of different ways to be honest: https://fairvote.org/archives/types_of_voting_systems/#pr_systems
There is no reason why the UK cannot go for a bespoke model - the link above takes you through loads of PR and semi-PR options. Some may be more attractive for the UK than others.
My council hasn't written to me or emailed me at all. This is all driven by the individual councils, not all of whom have the same number of resources. Not everyone has registered to vote via an email address they check regularly. If you were in an inner city council block a few leaflets would get lost amongst the takeaway offers.
Councils also warned HMG that this May would be too soon to implement the new voting system. HMG ignored the concerns.
I've not received anything. A lot of people around my area I've spoken to didn't know about it either until I brought it up. My neighbour didn't belive me until she looked it up.
Also...
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/voter-id-key-facts-and-figures/
House of Commons Libary said:
But it's within the law to get medicinal cannabis in the UK. And the people who I know with prescriptions from the government get it posted to them in herb form, not edible. So whether you bake this, vape it, bong it or smoke it; it's going to create a scent.
So Kier using cannabis as an example of anti social behaviour is just pathetic and the sort of backwards shit I expect to hear from a tory pm while their husband makes millions from growing the product and exporting it to the USA.
The UK government has been fighting drugs for decades and losing, prosecuting more people for smoking cannabis isn't going to help this couple or solve a single thing.
And at a time when the NHS is performing the worst it has in history. Trying to paint people as criminals who use cannabis to self medicate is just straight from the tory culture war book.
With the above said I still think it's important to try and be respectful of neighbours and most cannabis users will make an effort to change their usage if it was impacting neighbours. But that's only achieved through respectful dialogue. Not calling police and MPs, and painting people who may be using it for medicinal purposes as criminals.
Last edited:
Some fairly recent polls have shown that the majority of British people support legalising or decriminalising cannabis, so Starmer is literally pandering to a minority of people (mostly probably old, let's face it) with this nonsense.
I would suggest to that family that they either shut the window or politely ask the neighbour to move about 10 yards away when smoking
I would suggest to that family that they either shut the window or politely ask the neighbour to move about 10 yards away when smoking
But, your actions could have an effect as well. It's not just about the vote.
Imagine if the tories win the next election again, will the new Labour candidate be more conservative than Starmer? I would guess so. So, then obviously you shall not vote for Labour again. And that is fine.
Not a chance. The left wing labour membership (i.e. most of the labour membership) took Starmer on his word and compromised to elect him as leader to bring the party together (i.e. appease the right wing cos-play centrists). That good faith has been returned with a complete backtrack on his pledges and a purge of anyone dissenting. The membership aren't going to vote again for someone who just spat in their face whilst telling them to smile for the camera.
Yes, littering and cannabis. They are the big problems!
My point is that people who want to vote will take the trouble to find out what is needed from them. Some people may be disadvantaged by not having the necessary formal ID requirements, but again its up to them to find out and complain.
The list of viable ID I've seen contains all the usual passport, DVLA , etc. but also has Blue Badges, Bus Passes, and all sorts of alternatives. I think its all down to do you want to vote and will you take the trouble to make sure you can?
Who knows the public might begin to value the right to vote, if they have to make an effort?
Last edited:
He has to do something transformative regarding the British economy. He's straddling a line. If he goes left, he cannot win. Perceived left. And if he wins, he needs to win a majority. A big one.
Culture war issues are the ones which will be disregarded quickest. Trans, or whatever. If it's a 50-50, he;ll give benefit of the doubt to the right.
Social mobility is the issue which any government that takes over in the next elction need to tackle. Housing, healthcare, education. The same as it was in the 90s really. Just different with respect to housing because of generational ownership gaps.
I'm not sure there's going to be a huge difference between Tory or Labour, which is what people are complaining about. I'm not sure that matters, this time, if the core principles are addressed. General economic footing of the primary political parties in the West is rather mono. Not a bad thing if they're looking in the right direction. Just remains to be seen what his actual plan is. Specifics not soundbites.
Culture war issues are the ones which will be disregarded quickest. Trans, or whatever. If it's a 50-50, he;ll give benefit of the doubt to the right.
Social mobility is the issue which any government that takes over in the next elction need to tackle. Housing, healthcare, education. The same as it was in the 90s really. Just different with respect to housing because of generational ownership gaps.
I'm not sure there's going to be a huge difference between Tory or Labour, which is what people are complaining about. I'm not sure that matters, this time, if the core principles are addressed. General economic footing of the primary political parties in the West is rather mono. Not a bad thing if they're looking in the right direction. Just remains to be seen what his actual plan is. Specifics not soundbites.
Have you traditionally gone online before each and every single election to find out if you suddenly need voter id to do so, having not needed it in previous elections?
And have you considered that all of those other forms of id you've listed....tend to be those that are held by older people more likely to vote a certain way?
Also if you are a victim of crime, the police (are supposed to) write to you letting you know your rights and the progress of the case.
Doctors surgeries are meant to contact people who are eligible for treatments (cervical smear screening for one).
If you get a parking ticket or speeding ticket the ticket is meant to contain all the information you need if you want to appeal it.
We are given loads of prompts in other areas of our lives.
It seems bizarre to state that for the most important part of a democracy - the actual voting - voters should have to work this out for themselves.
That's absolutely fine with me to be honest. If they calculate that winning the next election is about how many Conservative votes they can gain, good luck to them.
The problem is there's a general feeling that if they win it'll be because they went for those conservative votes, and if they lose it'll be because the "left" took their votes elsewhere. They and their current cheerleaders can't have it both ways, which we know they'll try to.
Literally got more redder, fatter and more right wing as leader.
Amazing scenes.
Amazing scenes.
Gaining weight matters.
Drinking microwaved buckets of haagen dazs because it polls well in the north east.
