Westminster Politics

SilentWitness said:
Blaming people for not voting Labour because it will get the Tories out isn't the fault of the voter, it's the fault of Labour and the system really. Labour are crap and have disenfranchised so many people with their stances. They haven't proved to be anything than a less worse conservative really to many and I don't blame people for thinking that. If you're not part of certain communities (like the Muslim community) then maybe you just don't understand how badly Labour have damaged themselves in the past few months or how much some people in that community feel.
Click to expand...
Precisely this. I don't know why its so hard to fathom that a party isn't entitled by default to votes from certain demographics or voting groups. Yes the alternative is worse, but people are entitled to not wanting to throw their hat into a ticket that they feel doesn't resonate with them, or even one that's crossed certain lines they personally have drawn themselves. That's essentially the virtue behind democracy. If Starmer fails to land himself in no 10 at a time the Tories have given him an open goal, then frankly he has no one else but himself to blame.

Shaming and ridiculing those who seem apprehensive in backing him despite some very reasonable concerns is also foolishly counter-intuitive and will almost certainly only get them to double down on their stance instead of convincing them to get on board.
 
Kaos said:
I'm responding to your point suggesting that those on the left hound Starmer for not being to the left of Trotsky. We can debate what made Corbyn unelectable, but the polling data suggests it wasn't his proposed policies. In fact going out on a limb, I'd wager Starmer would enjoy the same lead in the polls had he largely gone with the same manifesto Labour offered in 2019, voters ultimately found issue with Corbyn himself, the alleged affinity with the IRA/Hamas as well as his personality, not helped of course by the absolute hatchet job the media did on him. In short, this notion that those of us as traditionally Labour or even moderate voters are concerned with Starmer's alignment shift in recent months/years hardly puts us in the unwashed, student commie category. Its a lazy and nonsensical categorisation that dismisses some genuine concerns people have.
Click to expand...
Ok so talk to me about this hatchet job that apparently scuppered Corbyn's bid to be PM?

Because why wouldn't the same media do the same to Starmer? You're not making much sense, you raise the media taking all of Corbyn's policies and smashing them up and pulling everything possible out to discredit him, in no part helped by JC earnestness and lack of political nouce.

Perhaps because they've learnt from their mistakes and understand context/needing to bridge the divide to the Tory voter and not to leave yourself open for easy digs, smears and derision.

The fact that no Tory voter was ever going to vote for Corbyn is what, in combination with other factors, made him unelectable.

You need these people, like it or not. You can't have a majority without them. He's not marketing or campaigning for you, he's signalling to Tory literally voters that he isn't going to create a Marxist state run by Hamas and tax everyone 99%. He needs their votes.

You and others have concerns about this precisely because you're acting like student union politics undergrads. You want to see yourself reflected back at you when you look at politicians, which I think is folly and just another type of identity politics.
 
Pexbo said:
Yeah but he’s right. The Overton window has shifted massively in the last 10 years and the Tories of 2010 are just a bunch of lefties advocating for luxury automated communism.
Click to expand...
Pray tell, what of those policies did they actually enact?

It's all so weird, it's like people just want to be promised something regardless of it ever coming true.

Manifesto pledges are the dumbest concept, can literally promise anything and people will clap and cheer.
 
You know I might be wrong, Keir Starmer might be worse than the Tories, more right wing than them and after he gets elected he undertakes a campaign of national destruction that makes the last 15 years look like a picnic.

Alas a man with working class parents, a toolmaker and a nurse, named after the founder of the labour party who has been a human rights lawyer and civil servant most of his life, now in his sixties leading the political party he's been a part of for five decades will be no different to a private school educated - I've never met a poor person - billionaire banker with zero experience in life other than making millions for hedge funds and rolling back taxes he personally profits from and gives government contracts to his billionaire father in law.

Yeah, these two profiles of politician are identical.
 
Murder on Zidane's Floor said:
Ok so talk to me about this hatchet job that apparently scuppered Corbyn's bid to be PM?

Because why wouldn't the same media do the same to Starmer? You're not making much sense, you raise the media taking all of Corbyn's policies and smashing them up and pulling everything possible out to discredit him, in no part helped by JC earnestness and lack of political nouce.

Perhaps because they've learnt from their mistakes and understand context/needing to bridge the divide to the Tory voter and not to leave yourself open for easy digs, smears and derision.

The fact that no Tory voter was ever going to vote for Corbyn is what, in combination with other factors, made him unelectable.

You need these people, like it or not. You can't have a majority without them. He's not marketing or campaigning for you, he's signalling to Tory literally voters that he isn't going to create a Marxist state run by Hamas and tax everyone 99%. He needs their votes.

You and others have concerns about this precisely because you're acting like student union politics undergrads. You want to see yourself reflected back at you when you look at politicians, which I think is folly and just another type of identity politics.
Click to expand...
Again, you're creating some sort of dichotomy where we can either accept Labour for what they are now, or resign to 'protest politics', as if we were all nothing but a bunch of naive, Che Guevera t shirt wearing students. Like it or not some of the policy shifts Starmer has steered Labour towards is of concern to us. As someone who's painfully concerned about the environmental ramifications of climate change, I find it incredibly concerning for example that Labour have turned their back on their green pledges. I also find the Labour position on the Gaza war incredibly resentful and far too apologetic and accepting of genocide. These issues might not be the deal breaker for you since you seem adamant that some good tangible change will come out of his tenure as PM, but I'm afraid I'll have to disagree. If you don't resonate with these positions then that's fine, there's nothing else I can say to get you to empathise with them, likewise there'll be little to convince someone like me to vote for Starmer's Labour, regardless of the alternative.

And please, its very clear Corbyn received disproportionally hostile scrutiny from the media. I'd wager his overt principles on the Palestinian struggle clearly didn't help his cause.
 
The Labour Party is historically a left wing socialist party.
Murder on Zidane's Floor said:
Amen.

People forget that Tory voters are being courted by Labour. Alas modern day leftists really don't care, they just want their echo chamber to get what they all agree on. It's why they suck at elections.

It's about compromise and getting as many people moving in a similar direction.

If you want a party to only cater to your beliefs then you're effectively saying you don't believe in collaboration or indeed a liberal democracy.
Click to expand...
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 :lol:. 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.
 
Badunk said:
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 :lol:. 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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Badunk said:
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 :lol:. 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.
Click to expand...
There is no excitement about power or people like me.

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:
Dobba said:
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.
Click to expand...
Or because he's materially improved people's lives. If not, guess what, he gets booted out.
 
Murder on Zidane's Floor said:
There is no excitement about power or people like me.

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.
Click to expand...
Because the man who conned them to win the leadership of the leftist party crippled them as the first order of business.
 
Badunk said:
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 :lol:. 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.
Click to expand...
Oh and I'm actually pretty close to a socialist in my worldview :smirk:
 
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?
 
Kaos said:
I'm responding to your point suggesting that those on the left hound Starmer for not being to the left of Trotsky. We can debate what made Corbyn unelectable, but the polling data suggests it wasn't his proposed policies. In fact going out on a limb, I'd wager Starmer would enjoy the same lead in the polls had he largely gone with the same manifesto Labour offered in 2019, voters ultimately found issue with Corbyn himself, the alleged affinity with the IRA/Hamas as well as his personality, not helped of course by the absolute hatchet job the media did on him. In short, this notion that those of us as traditionally Labour or even moderate voters are concerned with Starmer's alignment shift in recent months/years hardly puts us in the unwashed, student commie category. Its a lazy and nonsensical categorisation that dismisses some genuine concerns people have.
Click to expand...

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:
Murder on Zidane's Floor said:
Or because he's materially improved people's lives. If not, guess what, he gets booted out.
Click to expand...
Yeah, right. He's offering to do nothing already.

Badunk said:
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?
Click to expand...
It won't, it'll turn out people in wheelchairs are getting paid too much again.
 
justsomebloke said:
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.

If I were British, I would probably still vote for him though. For want of an alternative.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Murder on Zidane's Floor said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Badunk said:
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 :lol:. 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.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
 
justsomebloke said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
pacifictheme said:
I am deeply worried that labour won't be on power yes because the thought of the Tory's being in power terrified me. Do I love labour right now? No. Are they the same as the Tory's? No.

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.
Click to expand...

Why would Labour do those things if the voters back them not doing so at an election?
 
Smores said:
Why would Labour do those things if the voters back them not doing so at an election?
Click to expand...
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?
 
IMG-9752.jpg
 
Smores said:
Why would Labour do those things if the voters back them not doing so at an election?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Pexbo said:
IMG-9752.jpg
Click to expand...

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.
 
Murder on Zidane's Floor said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
justsomebloke said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well it would be mainstream if 70% of people agreed with the policy?
 
Murder on Zidane's Floor said:
Ok walk me through what you'd do as labour leader.

Give me your best, best ideas and policies.
Click to expand...
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?
 
justsomebloke said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.