Disgraceful. Again limited scrutiny given to this apparently due to a super injunction for whatever reason.
Last edited:
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Vile. This with the news about the kings ‘pay rise’ really wind me up.
That is true, but if it could be done through a secure phone app, it would probably increase participation, though pose its own fraud risks.
Saying that, democracy as a concept is fundamentally flawed and that's magnified even more in a country with a powerful rabidly political and morally bankrupt press.
Anything open to fraud or allegations poses a whole set of risks which can't be controlled.
I think in this country, its more the FPTP voting system which results in skewed elections v actual votes cast. That needs to be looked at along with an elected upper chamber rather than jobs handed down or given out.
So there's an uproar when a 25 year old wins an election to overturn a 20,000 Tory Majority, yet no one bats an eyelid when a 30 year old no one's heard of with no prior experience is made a life peer on the back of....?
Yeah on the back of what exactly. Rumours are a super injunction is preventing us knowing.
Hopefully when the reasons finally come out this puts an end to the Lords once and for all or at the very least forces a set of guidelines to stop this blatant quid pro co.
Ah more lectures from the wise about things everyone already accepts as fact anyway. No the left aren't naive or unaware of Labour needing to be a big tent, they just voted in numbers for Starmer to embody exactly that. It wasn't the centrists, they all pissed off and canceled their membership in a huff
Any criticism comes from the fact the 'left' did so based on Starmer's not very radical commitments. His first act has been to break the very promises that got him elected. What's the wisdom on how voters react to broken promises?
It's down to Labour to win the votes of everyone it needs. If it's strategy and messaging is only to appeal to the right wing press then it'll naturally end up a centre-right party. The Tories pulling Labour right whilst Labour say 'well at least we're not as right wing as that lot' is a bigger win for the Tories than Labour. They either get to govern or they dictate the terms by which Labour can govern.
It is possible to win on Labours terms as a big tent strategy with fiscal discipline. The only choice isn't being on the Tory/Daily mail leash.
Any criticism comes from the fact the 'left' did so based on Starmer's not very radical commitments. His first act has been to break the very promises that got him elected. What's the wisdom on how voters react to broken promises?
It's down to Labour to win the votes of everyone it needs. If it's strategy and messaging is only to appeal to the right wing press then it'll naturally end up a centre-right party. The Tories pulling Labour right whilst Labour say 'well at least we're not as right wing as that lot' is a bigger win for the Tories than Labour. They either get to govern or they dictate the terms by which Labour can govern.
It is possible to win on Labours terms as a big tent strategy with fiscal discipline. The only choice isn't being on the Tory/Daily mail leash.
Don't let the Tories see that idea, they'll award a multi-billion contract to one of their mates for a proof of concept
You might have it there right at the end .... on the back ....
Yes, but not in the beginning.
Corbyn's manifesto in the beginning brought hope, in particular in a few important areas that resonated with many people, Labour members or not. However, in my opinion there were two problems for Corbyn himself; the initial reaction and 'interest' shown over a broad spectrum of the public to his initial policy proposals went to his (or Labours) head but then he/ they went too far promising almost everything under the sun, including many things which did not carry universal belief and which many 'would be' Labour voters as well as many regular Labour voters got turned off. Secondly, Corbyn himself was a problem, in that so much of his political life in the Labour party itself was a example of constant rejection, across many years whatever the Labour leadership proposed, he found ways to oppose. He was also in many ways the very image of what I have referred to as being an international socialist first, a British socialist, not just second but way back down the scale.
Corbyn frightened away many because as @Buster15 points out he was completely out of his depth. As his dithering over Brexit exemplified.
What I would bring back into the fold, is not really a question for such as me, because after many years experience of being a Labour party member I eventually realised it would (probably) never be there again, like it was post WW2 and the opportunity to change the face of life for the ordinary man and woman, would never appear again, because the Party had lost touch with its roots. In fact in many ways it appeared to despise its own 'roots,' there was no longer aspiration in its message and also a lack of dedication to get into power, to face reality, to find ways to win. The Labour party had become completely absorbed in its own ideology and that 'image and posturing' was everything inside the party, but unfortunately not with the public.
I have to admit I have warmed to Starmer somewhat, although he has nothing of the personal magnetism of say a Tony Blair, he does appear to know what he's doing in plotting a route to not only winning, but carrying a large percentage of the public with him in the form of winning a healthy majority in Parliament. The major problems now facing the UK (as well as further afield) need to be addressed positively by Starmer; regeneration of the economy, more and better equipped housing (efficiency) for the future, taking back 'water management' into a form of public ownership which puts healthy regular supply , first, second and third in priorities; proper planning of migration that is purely based on the needs of this country; a realistic but purposely strategy for addressing climate change that balances future needs with present needs.
These are not easy things to deal with, but as Labour magnificently did after the WW2 with its Education and Health reforms, it needs to seek to improve life for the many not just the few..
Last edited:
I'd like to know that for a fact. I've seen no evidence there is an injunction, and you don't need a 'secret injunction' to explain why papers wouldn't want to publish evidence free guesses about her parentage. All this injunction speculation is just fuel for conspiracy theories.
Doesn't a super-injunction preclude the publishing of any evidence it itself exists? Bit of a catch-22
Used to be, but not the case any more. (Annoying chatty tone in this link but it references some actual data on this).
https://amp.theguardian.com/comment...adicalism-not-getting-more-rightwing-with-age
If theres no evidence, then you can't draw any conclusions.
That wasn't what I asked, but thanks for the heads up.
While it's obviously presumptuous to assert that she's his daughter there's equally little evidence that she earned her peerage through a lifetime of service to the realm. The guy's a well known nepotist so people are bound to speculate on the exact motive for his nepotism in this particular case.
To be fair it's probably more your bog standard corruption than anything like that. He's not exactly known for spending much time with his kids so it would be out of character for him to employ one.
UK set to become the developed country forking out the most of its budget -10.4%- on debt payments, overtaking Iceland.
UK to run up highest debt interest bill in developed world
https://www.ft.com/content/b25903fd-2ebe-4f65-aa20-c21d873946f3
UK to run up highest debt interest bill in developed world
https://www.ft.com/content/b25903fd-2ebe-4f65-aa20-c21d873946f3
Financial whizz Rishi Sunak
Her name isn't just owen, its double barrelled, she is not related to johnson's ex.
The simplest solutions are usually the correct ones. He gave the spokesperson chappy a place in the lords because he was the journalist that played along on the interview when johnson claimed he made buses out of wine boxes.
He gave her a lordship because he wants to have sex with her.
Sunak really is the nastiest of cnuts, more so than Boris. Quoting the Daily Mail and the Labour Party when it's nothing to do with the latter. They really do love appealing to the right wing mob.
Sounds like we need to cut taxes for the top earners in the country.
Alright Boris.
If you look at the figures the highest young vote was in 1974 and 1997 when Labour were elected. Your table above states from 1979 when things started to change for many reasons. As I said in the 60s and 70s. According to the attachments Labour should have done much better in 2019 if so many youngsters voted but Labour were completely annihilated.
As I said our history is rewritten.
From the same link I sent, in 1974 (the earliest date it goes back to) the youth vote was +14 for Labour in an election that was +4 for Labour, which means young people were 10 points more left. In 97, the overall vote was +13 and the youth vote was +22, young people were 11 points more left. ... in the last 2 elections, young voters have been 40 points more left.
The reason Labour lost in 2019 was older voters:
I'm not sure who is doing the rewriting!
From the same link I sent, in 1974 (the earliest date it goes back to) the youth vote was +14 for Labour in an election that was +4 for Labour, which means young people were 10 points more left. In 97, the overall vote was +13 and the youth vote was +22, young people were 11 points more left. ... in the last 2 elections, young voters have been 40 points more left.
The reason Labour lost in 2019 was older voters:
I'm not sure who is doing the rewriting!
All of us who lived through imagined it all? Yep, we've been through this argument before on other subjects. Pfff.
These are figures for people who actually voted. Ergo not many young people voted in 2019 ? On the first attachment the second lowest Labour vote in youngsters was 2010.
Statistics and statistics and then there's reality.
I'd also add that there's no comparison between the old and current versions of the party, the current party would likely be regarded as Tory by the 1970's party
Fecking sick of this Farage banking story giving him more publicity. Wish he would feck off the despicable Cnut.
The Establishment Parties, a subset of lawyers, criminal gangs - [WE'RE] all on the same side, propping up a system of exploitation that profits [MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES] illegally [BY USING WEDGE ISSUES LIKE MIGRATION TO DIVIDE AND RULE].
Fixed.
I've lived through quite a few elections in India and the US and I'd trust polls over the very skewed samples of people I personally knew.
What's being left out here is the unionization and the crush of it over the Thatcher years. That points to an actual left-wing which a party does not necessarily represent. Labour's internal struggles since the 70s have been precisely that. I'd say the UK was far more left wing in the 70s (or 60s/70s) but much more liberal (post-neo-liberal) today.
15 million trade unionists? Barely a million or so today? A couple million? That's an enormous left wing metric voting records will not give you.
6 million today. much higher than i would have assumed.
15 million trade unionists? Barely a million or so today? A couple million? That's an enormous left wing metric voting records will not give you.
6 million today. much higher than i would have assumed.
Last edited:
You've ignored my points and I'm not talking about the people I knew ; from 64 the country was pro-Labour, youngsters were looking to change the old fuddy duddy ways - swinging sixties, ban the bomb, strikes , free love, hippies, etc etc etc. Heath won in 1970 completely out of the blue probably because of seeming more pro-joining Europe which appealed to the young and Powell attracting the racist vote. By the end of the 70s everyone was sick of having no money and taxes were reduced. Nutjob Michael Foot became Labour leader and the Tories stayed in power till they messed up and Blair gained a whitewash.
Sick of being told what our lives were like. And I wasn't old enough to vote until Oct 74 when I voted Labour aged 18. You just lived it not read some distorted statistics.
Last edited:
She has his DNA inside her, one way or another or potentially accidentally both
I mean this more as a matter of fact than Labour criticism (separate argument) but stuff like this is the only place the Tories have to turn. With Labour occupying the Cameron/Blair policy space the Tories have to move right to win votes.
I expect them to ramp this up Trump style whilst promising tax cuts and a reduced state.
If I were the Tories i'd go big on net zero funding and personal energy security via renewables grants. Heck I'm a leftie but if they out did Labour on climate change funding they'd get my vote.
But it's fine for you to tell us what our lives are like now?
Seems to be a common theme with your posts
This doesn't make sense.
Since alot of the right wing are climate changer deniers, I can't see this happening. They've only culture wars and coming from people whose parents migrated to this country it's more despicable.
You're not happy people make claims about periods of your life using statistics but you were happy to make claims about young people today a few posts above.
You said young people were more left wing back in your day. How have you arrived at that conclusion? How do you know how left wing young people are today? I'd assume by making a judgement about them using.. statistics?