Keir Starmer Labour Leader

If Labour definitively confirm that they want to allow EU nationals permanently living in the UK to vote in general elections, before then extending that and allowing nationals of other (non-EU) countries to do so, then that's wonderful as far as I'm concerned.

Yes they'd be doing it as they think that it would directly benefit them, but regardless it's the right thing to do.

I take the view that any person that emmigrates to the UK, settles in the countries, works and pays taxes, should be allowed to vote, given that the actions of the elected government also impact their day to day lives, is charged with spending taxation that they contribute to etc.
 
Last edited:
Fluctuation0161 said:
Regardless of Corbyn, I think the 2017 election was more indicative of the public opinion on many socialist policies. E.g. nationalising rail, properly funding NHS, higher tax on the super rich to allow for much needed investment in public services etc.

Those policies also poll well. If Keir had stuck to his original leadership pledges and offered these policies with a more centrist, acceptable face and tone, then maybe the British public would've been inspired to vote Labour rather than some going to them as default because the Tories have become unelectable (for now).
Click to expand...
I know you say they poll well, but at the end of the day, they failed the only poll that ultimately matters. So I don't think Starmer was wrong in taking a sceptical look at these policies.
 
GuybrushThreepwood said:
If Labour definitively confirm that they want to allow EU nationals permanently living in the UK to vote in general elections, before then extending that and allowing nationals of other (non-EU) countries to do so, then that's wonderful as far as I'm concerned.

Yes they'd be doing it as they think that it would directly benefit them, but regardless it's the right thing to do.

I take the view that any person that emmigrates to the UK, settles in the countries, works and pays taxes, should be allowed to vote, given that the actions of the elected government also impact their day to day lives, is charged with spending taxation that the contribute to etc.
Click to expand...
It's a good policy and it incentivises parties to treat these people far better than they have been treated up to now.
 
nickm said:
It's a good policy and it incentivises parties to treat these people far better than they have been treated up to now.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I don't see how more people living, working and contributing in the country, regardless of where they were born and raised, being allowed to vote and take part in the democratic process is a bad thing (well I understand how it would be seen as a bad thing to right wing xenophobes). It would be a hugely positive step and a boost to British democracy (know I also really want a change to the voting system for GEs and House of Lords reform as well but I've discussed that plenty).

Labour want to encourage and allow more people to vote, while the Tories want to stifle and disenfranchise people (notably younger people) from voting.
 
De facto labour thread so I’ll shove it here

 
TheGame said:
I see everyone attacked Reeves for this but if you dig deeper you will see she is travelling business class and I can't see an issue with a Shadow Minister travelling like that. As ever on Twitter, people have shouted First Class and its gone around.
Click to expand...
She could set an example and fly economy? Labour are forever highlighting Tory decadence on public tab. Why not just learn to be a bit better at politics and stop leaving the hypocrisy net wide open?
 
Pexbo said:
@Sweet Square will love this one

Click to expand...


I'd love to know what he means because the last time the NHS got involved with a big technology project it cost about 20 billion before they realised it wasn't going to work. Sounds more like a throwaway comment to me though; he probably doesn't know himself what he means.
 
Pexbo said:
She could set an example and fly economy? Labour are forever highlighting Tory decadence on public tab. Why not just learn to be a bit better at politics and stop leaving the hypocrisy net wide open?
Click to expand...

I agree, she could have but the attack from the left wingers of the Labour Party and Corbynites is funny to see considering they were quiet when Sunak was flying helicopters over short distances.
 
Pexbo said:
She could set an example and fly economy? Labour are forever highlighting Tory decadence on public tab. Why not just learn to be a bit better at politics and stop leaving the hypocrisy net wide open?
Click to expand...
I don't know about this - surely we want our most senior politicians to fly business on transatlantic flights, and work en route? There's no way she would be able to work on a laptop or read sensitive documents in economy.

Feels like silly point scoring more than anything else.
 
GuybrushThreepwood said:
If Labour definitively confirm that they want to allow EU nationals permanently living in the UK to vote in general elections, before then extending that and allowing nationals of other (non-EU) countries to do so, then that's wonderful as far as I'm concerned.

Yes they'd be doing it as they think that it would directly benefit them, but regardless it's the right thing to do.

I take the view that any person that emmigrates to the UK, settles in the countries, works and pays taxes, should be allowed to vote, given that the actions of the elected government also impact their day to day lives, is charged with spending taxation that they contribute to etc.
Click to expand...
Would be an own goal for Labour.
 


A vote for Labour is literally a vote for the Tories
 
TheGame said:
I see everyone attacked Reeves for this but if you dig deeper you will see she is travelling business class and I can't see an issue with a Shadow Minister travelling like that. As ever on Twitter, people have shouted First Class and its gone around.
Click to expand...
This was in response to Sunak using a private helicopter to go to Southampton. How they can compare the two is mindboggling.
 
I have a real problem with Jamie Driscoll, the incumbent North of Tyne mayor, being blocked from standing again. It is clearly due to internal, petty factionalism.

It's due to the fact that he interviewed Ken Loach, expelled from the party, at a theatre in Newcastle a couple of months ago, to discuss films produced in the North East, and not about anti-semitism, Israel / Palestine etc. Clearing appearing on the same stage as someone does not mean that you share their views. It has clearly also been done in an undemocratic way, with no right to appeal.

Interestingly Alistair Campbell, so not exactly a Corbynite on the left of the party, strongly disagrees with the move, as does Andy Burnham who I'd say falls under the 'soft left' bracket. Driscoll appears to be a very well liked mayor, and has been effective at reaching out across the political spectrum to do what is best for the people he represents, including trying to work constructively with the Tory Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen.

Clearly it's important to view these matters on a case by case basis, and not through a 'left vs. centre' tribal basis. During the Corbyn years for example, I vehemently disagreed with the treatment of Luciana Berger and though that the attempted motion of no confidence in her was a disgraceful, while on the flipside I thought that the attempted motion of no confidence in Margaret Hodge (who smeared and slandered Corbyn and was clearly undermining the party even encouraging people to vote against it ahead of the Euro elections which was far worse than Campbell saying he voted for the Lib Dems after polling closed) was 100% justified.
 


FyK56HAXgAIvVfK

:lol:
 
Last edited:
GuybrushThreepwood said:
I have a real problem with Jamie Driscoll, the incumbent North of Tyne mayor, being blocked from standing again. It is clearly due to internal, petty factionalism.

It's due to the fact that he interviewed Ken Loach, expelled from the party, at a theatre in Newcastle a couple of months ago, to discuss films produced in the North East, and not about anti-semitism, Israel / Palestine etc. Clearing appearing on the same stage as someone does not mean that you share their views. It has clearly also been done in an undemocratic way, with no right to appeal.

Interestingly Alistair Campbell, so not exactly a Corbynite on the left of the party, strongly disagrees with the move, as does Andy Burnham who I'd say falls under the 'soft left' bracket. Driscoll appears to be a very well liked mayor, and has been effective at reaching out across the political spectrum to do what is best for the people he represents, including trying to work constructively with the Tory Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen.

Clearly it's important to view these matters on a case by case basis, and not through a 'left vs. centre' tribal basis. During the Corbyn years for example, I vehemently disagreed with the treatment of Luciana Berger and though that the attempted motion of no confidence in her was a disgraceful, while on the flipside I thought that the attempted motion of no confidence in Margaret Hodge (who smeared and slandered Corbyn and was clearly undermining the party even encouraging people to vote against it ahead of the Euro elections which was far worse than Campbell saying he voted for the Lib Dems after polling closed) was 100% justified.
Click to expand...
It doesn't sit right there is no appeal available. Also seems strange that he has not been given the opportunity to disassociate himself from Loach's views on the party. Maybe Driscoll's supporters could try and have the process debated at conference.
 
Wouldn't be surprised if Starmer comes out in support of Boris Johnson at this point and calls it a witch hunt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.