Yeah I was prepared to be pragmatic and vote Labour to get the Tories out but feck that.
Changing the Tory badge to red isn’t a reason to vote.
Changing the Tory badge to red isn’t a reason to vote.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
The other day he said he wanted to leave NATO to protect the UK's borders. Probably should have stuck to cricket.
He's been reading into Galloway a bit more then.
Alright Natalie.
Eh? That's what he said. Amongst other moronic things.
Why are Labour accepting these cnuts?
It's an interesting question and one that I'll still be asking myself when I'm voting for Labour.
Why didn't Starmer just lead the Torys? All he's done is turn Labour into Torys of 5 years ago. What a bellend, can't stand the bloke.
Showing some moral backbone is off putting to voters. Or something.
The end result will be apathy, which will lead to more of the same. More privatisation, more running down of essential services, more kicking the can down the road when it comes to green issues, house building and infrastructure upgrades. More soundbites about magic money trees, people in dinghies and benefit scroungers. More cringeworthy interviews after yet more u-turns. More flag shagging, more cap doffing and more peerages for those that toe the line. More than ever before, we'll have more of the same. And we'll be grateful for it.
I’m not his biggest fan. I’ll often come across as a practical apologist.
But let’s be honest, Corbyn led with better policies for more people and got absolutely annihilated.
Starmer has inherited a seemingly unelectable party (media narrative, not mine. I campaigned for Corbyn) against an 80 seat majority government. He’s led that opposition party to constant wins, changed the entire view of both Labour and the Tories in a few short years.
I don’t really buy the narrative that the Tories imploded in isolation. I think his leadership and messaging is worth at least 50% of that overturning.
I don’t think he’s a galvanising force. I don’t think he’s a great orator. He often seems scared to speak his mind and gets preoccupied with electability. But also… he’s going to lead a Labour victory that was simply outside of anyone best case scenario after the last election.
It’s all a bit shit. But I don’t think we get to keep Corbyn policy for the last four years and end up where we are now. He’s definitely conceded waaaay too much ground, and may regret it. But I do really vibe with the ‘Decade of National Renewal’ stuff. I think massive strides will be made in so many areas of public life. I won’t be happy with all of it. But he’s going to make the country better.
This ‘He’s a red Tory’ is for the birds.
I’m all for the political window shifting back to the left over the next 10 years. But that isn’t what is happening. Starmer is SO defensive with his election strategy that he actively undermines this process - see every u-turn made since being appointed leader in the context of the incumbent government having historically low approval ratings. See all the appointments made to the Labour advisory team, as highlighted in this thread. Changed Labour isn’t to the left, it’s objectively to the right and aligns with the vision of those who run the show. This defection is truly mental for Labour, but sadly not surprising.
And I know this isn’t a football thread, but to keep the analogy going - Southgate has failed as a risk averse manager who has made terrible decisions at the most crucial moments. Starmer has the capital to take risks with progressive policies - Corbyn’s policies were by and large really popular (hence being copied by Johnson, when he felt he could).
But that’s all been forgotten/deliberately ignored in the long running strategy of “only the centre-right win elections”. They will definitely have a strategy on how to convince Frank Hester to donate to Labour.
Exactly. It just shows those values and principles are very much things of the past. I'd have told her to get fecked.
We mostly agree on principle. I still maintain that Starmers policies are to the left of Blair’s, but that’s not saying much. Rachael Reeves is to the right of Brown by a distance, and it’s that position that dictates the direction of the country more than the PM.
He’s a good man though. It’s that I cling to. He’ll do a good job. It’s our job as voters to ensure he moves closer to us. In my dream scenario, the Lib Dems chase some left wing votes, rather than become an additional alt-Tory party. Dreamland probably. I also thought that Clegg was going to rein in Cameron and look at how that little financial feckfest turned on me.
Again; Hope = Death.
Easy answer - cost/benefit calc was that it hurt the Tories more than Labour. Probably correct. But not without risk.
Starmer is firmly in the ‘Death by a thousand cuts’ doctrine. Seeing Rishi shit his pants today at PMQ’s today after the right-wing defector announce minutes before… sends a message to sitting Tories in the house, but upsets you and I.
It’s constant pressure and it’s worked for years now. I think it was a cut misjudged, but Sunak had a full on meltdown today. He looked like a schoolboy. Maybe that’s meaningful in future. I suspect not, but I’m not a political strategist.
Honestly, it isn't even the MPs that are the issue for me. It's the advisors, who will have significant say in the manifesto. And that'll be the final acid test to what this Labour party actually stands for, because they are heading for a significant majority which means they'll be able to vote through whatever is in their manifesto without much issue, as the Lords will back it due to the Salisbury Principle.
So if they go really defensive in the manifesto and don't commit to anything, then you can bet that the next Labour government will be a continuation of the current shit show - only they'll be more competent! I back Yvette Cooper to see through a much better technical bill on deporting immigrants to Rwanda than any of the last five Tory home secretaries, Labour would really make that policy work. Yay!
Like you I obviously hope to see a progressive manifesto, but literally nothing that Starmer has done since coming into the leadership suggests it will be. And yes, Rachel Reeves is a fecking nightmare - again, she'll actually see through Free Ports becoming a thing instead of the useless incumbents.
This is sensible. I doubt many in this thread would have had today as their final straw.
Is stopping small boat crossings a controversial policy? The Rwanda policy is dogshit and the fact there are no legal routes for many is terrible but those two tweets don't say anything wrong. Criminal gangs smuggling people across the channel do need to be prevented.
It's giving "stick to football" vibes.
The way they are going about it is, I would say. The reason the criminal gangs are able to extort these people is the Conservative government closed all means of seeking asylum here from outside of our borders, therefore in order to seek asylum in the UK asylum seekers must risk their lives crossing the channel.
The small boats could be prevented by having a more humane approach to asylum seekers, but that's not what these people really care about; it's not about protecting the lives of people who are risking everything to find a better life for themselves and their families, it's about stopping foreigners coming in.
Yes I know the Rashford reference. Come to think of it, Starmer should probably stick to cricket, whether he's any good at it or not.
So is Starmer going to open up legal routes?
Last edited:
Aye. They should really be confident enough to go with a LvG level horny manifesto as they’re guaranteed a win. Just accept a smaller majority in Order to enact meaningful change in the first term.
But… it’s the left. They’ll look at the last election, worry about optics, play a straight bat manifesto and struggle to move us forward in 4-5 years.
‘A decade of national renewal’ needs to be MASSIVELY front loaded. Policy and plans in term 1, delivery of that plan 4-10 years down the track.
Starting with a milquetoast manifesto would be pathetically limp dicked.
Yep, the method they are going about stopping the crossings is entirely inhumane. We should have a much more humane approach to asylum seekers than the current government. That being said, there is nothing wrong with a policy of stopping those crossings. You just need a workable alternative and a sensible co-operative agreement with other nations rather than posturing.
I'm backing the three-legged donkey with the red rosette.
I don't know in detail tbh, but I know he has said about a quota based system and greater co-operation with France etc.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/14/what-are-labours-new-migration-plans
"What is Labour proposing?
While ruling out reversing Brexit, the party’s plans are focused on greater cooperation with the EU, a deal that has proved elusive for Rishi Sunak’s government.
Starmer indicated he could do a deal with Brussels involving the UK taking a quota of asylum seekers who arrive in the bloc in exchange for being able to return people who cross the Channel.
Labour also plans to pay for more asylum caseworkers to help clear the backlog of more than 175,000 asylum seekers awaiting an initial decision on their application."
I just can't see any benefit of welcoming in a toxic Tory such as herself into the party, not when she's not going to be contesting her seat in the next election anyway. Are they hoping it forces Sunak's hand slightly more towards finally calling a GE? Or is Starmer that much of a cnut that he genuinely enjoys having weapons like her on board?
She's horrible but my guess would be that they have calculated the 'rats deserting a sinking ship' narrative will do more harm to the Conservatives than the 'but she is terrible' narrative will do to Labour. It might work out or it might not. They probably knew she wouldn't leave the Conservatives if it was simply to be an independent. To me her not standing at the next election is a positive rather than negative from a Labour pov.
I saw that before. The only way is to open up legal routes which would deal with cases much more quickly. There are far more asylum seekers in France than the UK. These people want to get to the UK. It's not a question of doing a deal with France or quotas or sending them back to France.
It's to stop victimising and demonising them - which Starmer has fallen for hook line and sinker and deal with them properly.
Starmer also thinks he's going to amend the trade deal with the EU, he also thinks he can pick and choose a few other things he might like. He thinks a vet deal will solve problems. He is so clueless it's scary.
Maybe I’m just optimistic but she surely repels more than she attracts?
I thought the electorate wanted rid of the people largely in charge of the past 14 years or whatever it is.
Has he said much in terms of demonising them?
The Tories have, including his new recruit. They have been referred by both Tories and Labour to as illegal immigrants. They are not. Has he once proposed to the Tories open legal routes? Is it a major priority for the UK? No, only to clear the backlog.
Ok, I think it's a push to hold him responsible for what the Tories have said. I guess we will see if he is as ineffective as you expect soon enough.
I've seen what he's done for over seven years because of Brexit with him being the shadow secretary. Not at any one moment since then is there one thing he has done has given me any hope.
To the Britons of this forum. Do you have the sensation that labour is becoming the Tory Party from 2010 and the Tory is becoming the UKIP? If so (because is what I had been reading lately here), who will fill the vacuum of Labour on the center left?