|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Feb 3, 2021 23:03:53 GMT
This Union Jack tub-thumping is going to get very tedious, very quickly. He is in a difficult position currently. With all we have going on it is akin to a 'war time' opposition leader and along with the rest of us has to hope we ultimately win. I'm not sure who dislikes him more, the headbangers on the right or the conned disciples on the left. The acid test will be how he performs in the General Election, he will have plenty of ammunition to campaign with but thanks to the previous incumbent a monumental swing is needed to achieve power. Coalition will be his only chance. I don't think the Union Jack will be a big thing to be honest. There'll be a few more flags and probably a bit more talk of patriotism and all that guff. By the time the next election rolls it will be irrelevant. I know polls are not completely reliable, but he had pretty much closed the gap - although the Tories are enjoying a bit of a boost at the moment (I suspect due to the success of the vaccine rollout). Long way to go to the next election though. I think he's done remarkably well with the polling. Can't begrudge the Conservative bounce based on the vaccine rollout it has been exceptional.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Feb 3, 2021 23:15:16 GMT
Credit to Starmer... he understands when you are in a hole, stop digging.
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Feb 3, 2021 23:31:42 GMT
Typical lawyers response; not actually admitting they were wrong, but admitting they interpreted something wrongly. Would have had more respect if he had just come out and been honest, but as a lawyer and a politician there’s very little chance of that happening.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Feb 4, 2021 7:08:52 GMT
Typical lawyers response; not actually admitting they were wrong, but admitting they interpreted something wrongly. Would have had more respect if he had just come out and been honest, but as a lawyer and a politician there’s very little chance of that happening. "Keir admits he was wrong and made a mistake" He couldn't put it much clearer than that could he?
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Feb 4, 2021 8:08:57 GMT
Credit to Starmer... he understands when you are in a hole, stop digging. I reckon 99% of politicians could be described as weather vanes to some degree. The exceptions are those who are strictly ideological - the “not for turning” types to coin a phrase from one of that group. Starmer’s problem is his baggage, meaning the stuff he is turning from, makes for easy pickings for Johnson. His challenge is to avoid falling into traps that allows Johnson to fire off his cheap shots. That’s what happened yesterday. And it will happen again. I’m sure he will learn how to better avoid or escape from these traps over time. Like, for example, ignoring Johnson’s first cheap shot and focussing on his line of attack. As well as picking those line of attacks more carefully.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Feb 4, 2021 8:24:22 GMT
I reckon 99% of politicians could be described as weather vanes to some degree. The exceptions are those who are strictly ideological - the “not for turning” types to coin a phrase from one of that group. Starmer’s problem is his baggage, meaning the stuff he is turning from, makes for easy pickings for Johnson. His challenge is to avoid falling into traps that allows Johnson to fire off his cheap shots. That’s what happened yesterday. And it will happen again. I’m sure he will learn how to better avoid or escape from these traps over time. Like, for example, ignoring Johnson’s first cheap shot and focussing on his line of attack. As well as picking those line of attacks more carefully. Of course Johnson's line that this would have left the vaccination effort in the starting blocks was utter cobblers but the damage was done. Even worse on the perfectly adequate and pointed subsequent question on the scandal of cladding and Grenfel, the fact that Johnson answered it by wittering on about the vaccination truly was a measure of the despicable man.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Feb 4, 2021 8:33:23 GMT
I reckon 99% of politicians could be described as weather vanes to some degree. The exceptions are those who are strictly ideological - the “not for turning” types to coin a phrase from one of that group. Starmer’s problem is his baggage, meaning the stuff he is turning from, makes for easy pickings for Johnson. His challenge is to avoid falling into traps that allows Johnson to fire off his cheap shots. That’s what happened yesterday. And it will happen again. I’m sure he will learn how to better avoid or escape from these traps over time. Like, for example, ignoring Johnson’s first cheap shot and focussing on his line of attack. As well as picking those line of attacks more carefully. Of course Johnson's line that this would have left the vaccination effort in the starting blocks was utter cobblers but the damage was done. Even worse on the perfectly adequate and pointed subsequent question on the scandal of cladding and Grenfel, the fact that Johnson answered it by wittering on about the vaccination truly was a measure of the despicable man. Johnson’s inability to answer a question on cladding is because he doesn’t have a good answer to give. He therefore adopted the classical political defence - deflect. It’s where Starmer should focus his attack. Sadly, for him, he messed up yesterday and let Johnson off the hook. And he knows it.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Feb 4, 2021 8:37:29 GMT
Of course Johnson's line that this would have left the vaccination effort in the starting blocks was utter cobblers but the damage was done. Even worse on the perfectly adequate and pointed subsequent question on the scandal of cladding and Grenfel, the fact that Johnson answered it by wittering on about the vaccination truly was a measure of the despicable man. Johnson’s inability to answer a question on cladding is because he doesn’t have a good answer to give. He therefore adopted the classical political defence - deflect. It’s where Starmer should focus his attack. Sadly, for him, he messed up yesterday and let Johnson off the hook. And he knows it. Keith is not very forensic is he!
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Feb 4, 2021 8:54:34 GMT
Johnson’s inability to answer a question on cladding is because he doesn’t have a good answer to give. He therefore adopted the classical political defence - deflect. It’s where Starmer should focus his attack. Sadly, for him, he messed up yesterday and let Johnson off the hook. And he knows it. Keith is not very forensic is he! Even if he is, it’s not something that is likely to inspire people very much. One of the most essential characteristics of leadership, IMO, is charisma. This applies to everything in life including politics. It’s a characteristic shared by both good and bad leaders - Obama had it, Trump had it. Thatcher had it, Blair had it. Major didn’t, Brown didn’t. Johnson does, Starmer doesn’t. Whether this is a good thing or not is sort of moot. It is a very handy thing for a political leader to have if he wants to win an election.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Feb 4, 2021 9:01:34 GMT
Keith is not very forensic is he! Even if he is, it’s not something that is likely to inspire people very much. One of the most essential characteristics of leadership, IMO, is charisma. This applies to everything in life including politics. It’s a characteristic shared by both good and bad leaders - Obama had it, Trump had it. Thatcher had it, Blair had it. Major didn’t, Brown didn’t. Johnson does, Starmer doesn’t. Whether this is a good thing or not is sort of moot. It is a very handy thing for a political leader to have if he wants to win an election. Johnson's lack of ability means the charisma he has is that of the conman. You might be drawn into it but you better check you've still got your wrist watch and wallet at the end of it.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Feb 4, 2021 9:10:16 GMT
Even if he is, it’s not something that is likely to inspire people very much. One of the most essential characteristics of leadership, IMO, is charisma. This applies to everything in life including politics. It’s a characteristic shared by both good and bad leaders - Obama had it, Trump had it. Thatcher had it, Blair had it. Major didn’t, Brown didn’t. Johnson does, Starmer doesn’t. Whether this is a good thing or not is sort of moot. It is a very handy thing for a political leader to have if he wants to win an election. Johnson's lack of ability means the charisma he has is that of the conman. You might be drawn into it but you better check you've still got your wrist watch and wallet at the end of it. I’m honestly not bothered one way or another. I’ve had the “good” fortune to meet a whole bunch of politicians and I’ve found them to be a right mixed bag - good, bad, indifferent regardless of what party they represent. Only one of them stole my rucksack though - although he kindly returned it.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Feb 6, 2021 7:58:16 GMT
Keith is not very forensic is he! Even if he is, it’s not something that is likely to inspire people very much. One of the most essential characteristics of leadership, IMO, is charisma. This applies to everything in life including politics. It’s a characteristic shared by both good and bad leaders - Obama had it, Trump had it. Thatcher had it, Blair had it. Major didn’t, Brown didn’t. Johnson does, Starmer doesn’t. Whether this is a good thing or not is sort of moot. It is a very handy thing for a political leader to have if he wants to win an election. I wouldn't disagree with that at all. Sadly, it's an indictment of the electorate more than anything else, and demonstrates precisely how you end up with the kind of inept clowns like Bluffer and Trump. I think it's far better to look beyond the 'personality' and consider the ability, the individual's history and their actual performance when in any kind of public role, but I agree that for most people it's just looks and entertainment value, which you can reduce down to calling charisma, and this is very much the case in regard to the Bluffer. Piss take obviously, but rings basically true...! www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/furious-public-cant-believe-theyll-vote-for-johnson-again-in-a-few-years-20210129204709I have to say we are particularly prone to this kind of charisma nonsense in the UK, but then we do follow the US in most areas, unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Feb 6, 2021 8:55:46 GMT
Even if he is, it’s not something that is likely to inspire people very much. One of the most essential characteristics of leadership, IMO, is charisma. This applies to everything in life including politics. It’s a characteristic shared by both good and bad leaders - Obama had it, Trump had it. Thatcher had it, Blair had it. Major didn’t, Brown didn’t. Johnson does, Starmer doesn’t. Whether this is a good thing or not is sort of moot. It is a very handy thing for a political leader to have if he wants to win an election. I wouldn't disagree with that at all. Sadly, it's an indictment of the electorate more than anything else, and demonstrates precisely how you end up with the kind of inept clowns like Bluffer and Trump. I think it's far better to look beyond the 'personality' and consider the ability, the individual's history and their actual performance when in any kind of public role, but I agree that for most people it's just looks and entertainment value, which you can reduce down to calling charisma, and this is very much the case in regard to the Bluffer. Piss take obviously, but rings basically true...! www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/furious-public-cant-believe-theyll-vote-for-johnson-again-in-a-few-years-20210129204709I have to say we are particularly prone to this kind of charisma nonsense in the UK, but then we do follow the US in most areas, unfortunately. We weren’t in this country to that dodgy dossier arse hole Blair turned up on the scene New labour appearance over substance
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Rave on Feb 6, 2021 10:54:54 GMT
I wouldn't disagree with that at all. Sadly, it's an indictment of the electorate more than anything else, and demonstrates precisely how you end up with the kind of inept clowns like Bluffer and Trump. I think it's far better to look beyond the 'personality' and consider the ability, the individual's history and their actual performance when in any kind of public role, but I agree that for most people it's just looks and entertainment value, which you can reduce down to calling charisma, and this is very much the case in regard to the Bluffer. Piss take obviously, but rings basically true...! www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/furious-public-cant-believe-theyll-vote-for-johnson-again-in-a-few-years-20210129204709I have to say we are particularly prone to this kind of charisma nonsense in the UK, but then we do follow the US in most areas, unfortunately. We weren’t in this country to that dodgy dossier arse hole Blair turned up on the scene New labour appearance over substance Lol. It's Labour's fault.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Feb 6, 2021 10:59:33 GMT
We weren’t in this country to that dodgy dossier arse hole Blair turned up on the scene New labour appearance over substance Lol. It's Labour's fault. Yeah pretty much if starmer had kept his mouth shut and corbyn had stood by his original opposition to the Eu There could well of been a different election result
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Feb 6, 2021 11:22:28 GMT
Even if he is, it’s not something that is likely to inspire people very much. One of the most essential characteristics of leadership, IMO, is charisma. This applies to everything in life including politics. It’s a characteristic shared by both good and bad leaders - Obama had it, Trump had it. Thatcher had it, Blair had it. Major didn’t, Brown didn’t. Johnson does, Starmer doesn’t. Whether this is a good thing or not is sort of moot. It is a very handy thing for a political leader to have if he wants to win an election. I wouldn't disagree with that at all. Sadly, it's an indictment of the electorate more than anything else, and demonstrates precisely how you end up with the kind of inept clowns like Bluffer and Trump. I think it's far better to look beyond the 'personality' and consider the ability, the individual's history and their actual performance when in any kind of public role, but I agree that for most people it's just looks and entertainment value, which you can reduce down to calling charisma, and this is very much the case in regard to the Bluffer. Piss take obviously, but rings basically true...! www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/furious-public-cant-believe-theyll-vote-for-johnson-again-in-a-few-years-20210129204709I have to say we are particularly prone to this kind of charisma nonsense in the UK, but then we do follow the US in most areas, unfortunately. Rather than disparaging the electorate, shouldn’t the real question be why someone and their policies aren’t voted for? The outcomes of having a go at the electorate have been evident in elections and referendums and it might be more beneficial to understand this group instead of the underlying tones of suggestion that they are too easily taken in, or never really knew what was going on. Once politicians realise this (some arguably do) then perhaps the needs of those individuals who clearly make up a sizeable percentage of any vote would see different outcomes. The continued position of dismissing their views and adopting an approach of being intellectually or morally superior just hardens the view that they aren’t being listened to or represented. If this approach is changed, we may see outcomes more to the centre or left of the political spectrum in our democracy.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Feb 6, 2021 12:10:59 GMT
I doubt it. I think you'd see much more acceptance or deliverance of what have traditionally been considered views at the more extreme ends of the political spectrum.
If you asked the public what they wanted you'd get back a mixture of minimal taxation but great public services, hanging, cheaper petrol and car tax but better roads, fewer foreigners but cheaper food and hospitality, buying British but cheaper goods, free travel without hindrance but restricted entry for foreigners, longer jail sentences and more prisons but without raising taxes, cleaner air and no climate change without stopping driving everywhere..and various other wishlist items which are often contradictory in nature.
This is what happens when you have an electorate which is mostly ill informed or apathetic about politics, as most people are. I've no doubt this will be attacked for being condescending and patronising but that is the case across much of the UK.
As I've said previously, this could be addressed through education. A "life skills" core subject which includes politics, where taxes go, mortgages, credit card advice etc etc to produce a better informed youth that leaves school ready for adulthood where they will be less likely to rack up huge debt and better understand how the country works. They do this in Germany at the moment.
Playing devil's advocate now, but maybe if you're so stupid or apathetic that you don't get your GCSE in "life skills" you don't get to vote...!
|
|
|
Post by Soro's Sorrows on Feb 6, 2021 21:48:14 GMT
I doubt it. I think you'd see much more acceptance or deliverance of what have traditionally been considered views at the more extreme ends of the political spectrum. If you asked the public what they wanted you'd get back a mixture of minimal taxation but great public services, hanging, cheaper petrol and car tax but better roads, fewer foreigners but cheaper food and hospitality, buying British but cheaper goods, free travel without hindrance but restricted entry for foreigners, longer jail sentences and more prisons but without raising taxes, cleaner air and no climate change without stopping driving everywhere..and various other wishlist items which are often contradictory in nature. This is what happens when you have an electorate which is mostly ill informed or apathetic about politics, as most people are. I've no doubt this will be attacked for being condescending and patronising but that is the case across much of the UK. As I've said previously, this could be addressed through education. A "life skills" core subject which includes politics, where taxes go, mortgages, credit card advice etc etc to produce a better informed youth that leaves school ready for adulthood where they will be less likely to rack up huge debt and better understand how the country works. They do this in Germany at the moment. Playing devil's advocate now, but maybe if you're so stupid or apathetic that you don't get your GCSE in "life skills" you don't get to vote...! The government (of any flavour) should not be responsible for every aspect of a citizens life. Most advise passes from parent to child, grandparent to grandchild, sibling to sibling, this is the way it should be. I know you will disagree. As for the your to stupid to vote comment, I won't even entertain that as a topic for discussion, it is beneath you to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Feb 8, 2021 12:24:41 GMT
"Get the Army and Navy store on the phone, we need more flags......"
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Feb 8, 2021 12:33:11 GMT
"Get the Army and Navy store on the phone, we need more flags......" I wonder if the 4 point increase in the green and liberal vote has anything to do with this sudden flag waving I have a feeling for every vote this flag waving brings in another will leave to other alternatives
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Feb 8, 2021 12:56:11 GMT
Like I keep saying, England is a right-wing country, and becomes more like the US every day. Best get used to it!
If over 100,000 dead people, the worst Covid performance in Europe by some distance, the ongoing Brexit trading mess, voting to stop hungry kids getting free meals and against an independent assessment by the judiciary of whether genocidal countries are fit to do trade deals with, plus all the dodgy contracts for PPE don't have any impact on voting intention, what other conclusion is there?!
Corbyn got his arse handed to him. Starmer isn't ahead in the polls despite all the above.
What brand of non right-wing politics would England accept?
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Feb 8, 2021 13:14:09 GMT
Flag shagging has now reached farcical proportions. Which ever way you paint it images like these in Politicians own homes is utterly mental.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Feb 8, 2021 13:16:10 GMT
Like I keep saying, England is a right-wing country, and becomes more like the US every day. Best get used to it! If over 100,000 dead people, the worst Covid performance in Europe by some distance, the ongoing Brexit trading mess, voting to stop hungry kids getting free meals and against an independent assessment by the judiciary of whether genocidal countries are fit to do trade deals with, plus all the dodgy contracts for PPE don't have any impact on voting intention, what other conclusion is there?! Corbyn got his arse handed to him. Starmer isn't ahead in the polls despite all the above. What brand of non right-wing politics would England accept? The problem is with dismissing the Corbyn era is that pre-Brexit in 2017 the Labour policies were fairly radical (by current standards) and were popular. So logic suggests that if he was the wrong person for the job, the right person for the job should build on that, whilst enticing disenfranchised people to register to vote Labour. Starmer has ripped up pretty much every pledge he made to get in as leader, is spouting the same pro-business guff that Balls was in 2015 when Labour lost and pathetically going after the so-called Red Wall with all this patronising flag shagging nonsense. Even his own PLP are briefing against him now. The myth that Labour need to move to the centre will see them lose another election and another election. It's a radical alternative this country needs not the same old shit.....
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Feb 8, 2021 13:25:47 GMT
Like I keep saying, England is a right-wing country, and becomes more like the US every day. Best get used to it! If over 100,000 dead people, the worst Covid performance in Europe by some distance, the ongoing Brexit trading mess, voting to stop hungry kids getting free meals and against an independent assessment by the judiciary of whether genocidal countries are fit to do trade deals with, plus all the dodgy contracts for PPE don't have any impact on voting intention, what other conclusion is there?! Corbyn got his arse handed to him. Starmer isn't ahead in the polls despite all the above. What brand of non right-wing politics would England accept? The problem is with dismissing the Corbyn era is that pre-Brexit in 2017 the Labour policies were fairly radical (by current standards) and were popular. So logic suggests that if he was the wrong person for the job, the right person for the job should build on that, whilst enticing disenfranchised people to register to vote Labour. Starmer has ripped up pretty much every pledge he made to get in as leader, is spouting the same pro-business guff that Balls was in 2015 when Labour lost and pathetically going after the so-called Red Wall with all this patronising flag shagging nonsense. Even his own PLP are briefing against him now. The myth that Labour need to move to the centre will see them lose another election and another election. It's a radical alternative this country needs not the same old shit..... You do wonder if privately, Starmer and his dwindling band of supporters even vaguely blame themselves for the suicidal Brexit policy they pushed through and ultimately met with electoral oblivion . They are not that deluded behind closed doors are they?
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Feb 8, 2021 13:26:58 GMT
Like I keep saying, England is a right-wing country, and becomes more like the US every day. Best get used to it! If over 100,000 dead people, the worst Covid performance in Europe by some distance, the ongoing Brexit trading mess, voting to stop hungry kids getting free meals and against an independent assessment by the judiciary of whether genocidal countries are fit to do trade deals with, plus all the dodgy contracts for PPE don't have any impact on voting intention, what other conclusion is there?! Corbyn got his arse handed to him. Starmer isn't ahead in the polls despite all the above. What brand of non right-wing politics would England accept? The problem is with dismissing the Corbyn era is that pre-Brexit in 2017 the Labour policies were fairly radical (by current standards) and were popular. So logic suggests that if he was the wrong person for the job, the right person for the job should build on that, whilst enticing disenfranchised people to register to vote Labour. Starmer has ripped up pretty much every pledge he made to get in as leader, is spouting the same pro-business guff that Balls was in 2015 when Labour lost and pathetically going after the so-called Red Wall with all this patronising flag shagging nonsense. Even his own PLP are briefing against him now. The myth that Labour need to move to the centre will see them lose another election and another election. It's a radical alternative this country needs not the same old shit..... England doesn't want a radical alternative. I'm sure you realise this, and prefer to stick to what you believe would make the country a better place. Which is admirable and fair enough, but doesn't change anything I wrote about England being a right-wing country. It's had the same old shit for the last forty-two years, to a greater or lesser extent. In terms of what counts as electable, we've basically had a choice of either full-on right-wing governments like the current lot of incompetents clearly are, or less right-wing neo-liberals (less right-wing in most areas, but not necessarily all!). Over the last four decades the only time public services actually improved was under the less right-wing electable bunch, but that's by the by. Most people in England appear to be quite content with the way things are going/have gone, considering that similar governments keep getting voted in.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Feb 8, 2021 13:33:26 GMT
The problem is with dismissing the Corbyn era is that pre-Brexit in 2017 the Labour policies were fairly radical (by current standards) and were popular. So logic suggests that if he was the wrong person for the job, the right person for the job should build on that, whilst enticing disenfranchised people to register to vote Labour. Starmer has ripped up pretty much every pledge he made to get in as leader, is spouting the same pro-business guff that Balls was in 2015 when Labour lost and pathetically going after the so-called Red Wall with all this patronising flag shagging nonsense. Even his own PLP are briefing against him now. The myth that Labour need to move to the centre will see them lose another election and another election. It's a radical alternative this country needs not the same old shit..... England doesn't want a radical alternative. I'm sure you realise this, and prefer to stick to what you believe would make the country a better place. Which is admirable and fair enough, but doesn't change anything I wrote about England being a right-wing country. It's had the same old shit for the last forty years, to a greater or lesser extent. In terms of what counts as electable, we've basically had a choice of either full-on right-wing governments like the current lot of incompetents clearly are, or less right-wing (in most areas, but not necessarily all!). Over the last four decades the only time public services actually improved was under the less right-wing electable bunch, but that's by the by. Most people in England appear to be quite content with the way things are going/have gone, considering that similar governments keep getting voted in. Interesting read. To say that the election in 2019 was a complete rejection of the Corbyn project is to completely misread the situation. Starmer is wilfully misreading it. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-party-election-corbyn-leader-polls-nationalisation-a9248511.html
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Rave on Feb 8, 2021 13:39:00 GMT
England doesn't want a radical alternative. I'm sure you realise this, and prefer to stick to what you believe would make the country a better place. Which is admirable and fair enough, but doesn't change anything I wrote about England being a right-wing country. It's had the same old shit for the last forty years, to a greater or lesser extent. In terms of what counts as electable, we've basically had a choice of either full-on right-wing governments like the current lot of incompetents clearly are, or less right-wing (in most areas, but not necessarily all!). Over the last four decades the only time public services actually improved was under the less right-wing electable bunch, but that's by the by. Most people in England appear to be quite content with the way things are going/have gone, considering that similar governments keep getting voted in. Interesting read. To say that the election in 2019 was a complete rejection of the Corbyn project is to completely misread the situation. Starmer is wilfully misreading it. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-party-election-corbyn-leader-polls-nationalisation-a9248511.htmlIndeed. Labour's stance on Brexit was by far the biggest contributor to their historic loss. 2017 proves that unequivocally.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Feb 8, 2021 13:39:59 GMT
The problem is with dismissing the Corbyn era is that pre-Brexit in 2017 the Labour policies were fairly radical (by current standards) and were popular. So logic suggests that if he was the wrong person for the job, the right person for the job should build on that, whilst enticing disenfranchised people to register to vote Labour. Starmer has ripped up pretty much every pledge he made to get in as leader, is spouting the same pro-business guff that Balls was in 2015 when Labour lost and pathetically going after the so-called Red Wall with all this patronising flag shagging nonsense. Even his own PLP are briefing against him now. The myth that Labour need to move to the centre will see them lose another election and another election. It's a radical alternative this country needs not the same old shit..... England doesn't want a radical alternative. I'm sure you realise this, and prefer to stick to what you believe would make the country a better place. Which is admirable and fair enough, but doesn't change anything I wrote about England being a right-wing country. It's had the same old shit for the last forty-two years, to a greater or lesser extent. In terms of what counts as electable, we've basically had a choice of either full-on right-wing governments like the current lot of incompetents clearly are, or less right-wing (in most areas, but not necessarily all!). Over the last four decades the only time public services actually improved was under the less right-wing electable bunch, but that's by the by. Most people in England appear to be quite content with the way things are going/have gone, considering that similar governments keep getting voted in. I don't believe that England doesn't want an alternative, but if you believe that the Labour Party may as well disband now. The socialist alliance within the Labour Party should form a new green, anti austerity party pushing Proportional Representation, taking most of the trade unions and boots on the ground members with them, leaving current Labour with it's corporate donors and few members to swish around in the proverbial pool of piss with the Lib Dems. I hope it happens, alas it won't though........
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Feb 8, 2021 13:40:06 GMT
England doesn't want a radical alternative. I'm sure you realise this, and prefer to stick to what you believe would make the country a better place. Which is admirable and fair enough, but doesn't change anything I wrote about England being a right-wing country. It's had the same old shit for the last forty years, to a greater or lesser extent. In terms of what counts as electable, we've basically had a choice of either full-on right-wing governments like the current lot of incompetents clearly are, or less right-wing (in most areas, but not necessarily all!). Over the last four decades the only time public services actually improved was under the less right-wing electable bunch, but that's by the by. Most people in England appear to be quite content with the way things are going/have gone, considering that similar governments keep getting voted in. Interesting read. To say that the election in 2019 was a complete rejection of the Corbyn project is to completely misread the situation. Starmer is wilfully misreading it. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-party-election-corbyn-leader-polls-nationalisation-a9248511.htmlWho said "the election in 2019 was a complete rejection of the Corbyn project"? However, anyone who did say that, basing their response on the election results and the worst result for Labour in 40 years, could be given some latitude for doing so! Corbyn lost 48 seats in England. To the Conservatives! Johnson increased the Tory vote share by almost 2%, Corbyn's Labour went down by almost 8%. Sometimes, you just have to face up to facts and accept that England didn't/doesn't want that kind of political party any more...whether that's ultimately sensible is another question!
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Feb 8, 2021 13:48:09 GMT
England doesn't want a radical alternative. I'm sure you realise this, and prefer to stick to what you believe would make the country a better place. Which is admirable and fair enough, but doesn't change anything I wrote about England being a right-wing country. It's had the same old shit for the last forty-two years, to a greater or lesser extent. In terms of what counts as electable, we've basically had a choice of either full-on right-wing governments like the current lot of incompetents clearly are, or less right-wing (in most areas, but not necessarily all!). Over the last four decades the only time public services actually improved was under the less right-wing electable bunch, but that's by the by. Most people in England appear to be quite content with the way things are going/have gone, considering that similar governments keep getting voted in. I don't believe that England doesn't want an alternative, but if you believe that the Labour Party may as well disband now. The socialist alliance within the Labour Party should form a new green, anti austerity party pushing Proportional Representation, taking most of the trade unions and boots on the ground members with them, leaving current Labour with it's corporate donors and few members to swish around in the proverbial pool of piss with the Lib Dems. I hope it happens, alas it won't though........ Well, the election results of the last four decades wouldn't agree with you! We're moving into a different area slightly, but I do think, especially in our archaic, not-fit-for-purpose voting system, that having one right-wing party against an opposition made up of Labour (broadly left/centre), LDs (broadly centre) and Greens (broadly left/centre) in England and SNP (broadly left/centre) in Scotland inevitably makes it easier for the right to maintain power, since it splits the opposition vote. In which case, in FPTP, you might as well go the whole hog and merge the lot. In essence, that was the whole point of the Brexit referendum - to stop the Tory Party splitting into the kind of fragmented right, which you can see reflected in the current opposition benches. A broad church, as they say, which encompasses Left, centrist, green issues would probably work. Alternatively bring in PR so that you do actually get proper representation and these parties can exist independently and have some political impact.
|
|