If only you’d displayed the same kind of rage about the Tories pulling the UC uplift as you do about Rayner’s potty mouth.
Starmer looks less like the right man by the day. Haven't given up on a cushy by-election to sneak in Andy Burnham as the person who I think could do what you're suggesting.
Starmer looks less like the right man by the day. Haven't given up on a cushy by-election to sneak in Andy Burnham as the person who I think could do what you're suggesting.
OK let's just keep going with this rubbish and let this incompetent Government keep wrecking people's lives.Everyone loves a bit of left on left violence. Same reason Brexit got the publicity it did before the public gave a shit: lots of Tory infighting. And any question that can make politicians splutter and stumble is going to keep being asked.
It’s never going to happen as mad as hatter members and union leaders control the party. Starmer needs to stop pretending he is Blair and grow a pair and be like Kinnock and stand up to the fruitcakes
Agree about Burnham. I think the fact he’s seen as being outside the London/Westminster bubble will help him as well. would need something dramatic for it to happen before next election though
Kinnock also lost?
Thank you for illustrating my point.I couldn’t care less about her but she’s a moron and any other leader would have fired her not wimped around saying “it’s not language I’d use” - in power she could say it about US i residents German chancellors anyone. She’s a cretin and isn’t fit to wash dishes in a pub let alone he deputy prime minister
You are very welcome to her
always would but laid foundations by alienating the left
Thank you for illustrating my point.
Well I mean Starmer's alienated teachers and the unions at least, must count for something?
They won’t vote Tory you’re right, but the more Starmer alienates them the more will take their vote elsewhere or stay at home.The actual teachers and actual union members don’t care really and that’s the point - they aren’t going to vote Tory - Labour needs to concentrate on voters and not the moron members and tossers like mccloskey
They won’t vote Tory you’re right, but the more Starmer alienates them the more will take their vote elsewhere or stay at home.
No they don’t - but Labour needs every voter it can get. They aren’t inspiring anyone new with their insipid ideas.I hate to break it to you but teachers don’t win elections
I hate to break it to you but teachers don’t win elections
I agree about the hecklers… it’s not the time.This speech is really good and is what the Labour Party should be about, pure aspiration for ordinary people and the hope that things can get better.
The hecklers have destroyed themselves and they just sound lame and sad now.
I agree about the hecklers… it’s not the time.
The left showing it’s political naivety again. Having a big bust up and childish chanting plays right into Starmers hands right now.
The approach the left Dems took after Bidens confirmation as candidate would’ve been much more productive: conditional support rather than outright opposition.
With the end result of rolling over anyway.
What I call rolling over is when push comes to shove going along with something you don’t really believe in. All Starmer is missing is a figure like Bernie to get the left all to fall in line and be quietBut more influence. Compare what’s likely to pass under Biden with what passes under Obama.
What you call rolling over is smart negotiation. They’re getting more than they did by asking for way more then rolling back as a compromise.
What I call rolling over is when push comes to shove going along with something you don’t really believe in. All Starmer is missing is a figure like Bernie to get the left all to fall in line and be quiet
What I call rolling over is when push comes to shove going along with something you don’t really believe in. All Starmer is missing is a figure like Bernie to get the left all to fall in line and be quiet
Whilst I do agree with the sentiment and I get immensely frustrated when I have to accept something that I know could be better, often the alternative is to get nothing at all. Surely it is better to take a small step in the right direction which will give you a better starting position to renegotiate later, however frustrating that is.
It's being pragmatic. Obama knew he was never going to get a universal healthcare system through so he got something that will help pave the way in future. Same as you'd never get a ban on guns at the moment so you get more stringent checks and try to limit the types of guns and where they can be carried. It's nowhere near enough but it puts you in a better position for the future to get there in the end.
Biden didn't make 10 pledges that he didn't have any intention of keeping though, did he?The left showing it’s political naivety again. Having a big bust up and childish chanting plays right into Starmers hands right now.
The approach the left Dems took after Bidens confirmation as candidate would’ve been much more productive: conditional support rather than outright opposition.
Biden didn't make 10 pledges that he didn't have any intention of keeping though, did he?
I wouldn't say that, it was pretty vague with no real aspiration to anything better than tinkering with the status quo. The same new Labour supply side stuff that has no real impact:This speech is really good and is what the Labour Party should be about, pure aspiration for ordinary people and the hope that things can get better.
The hecklers have destroyed themselves and they just sound lame and sad now.
He hasn't named any specifically butWhich pledges has he said he’ll break?
He hasn't named any specifically but
Starmer: I’m ready to break pledges to make Labour electable
Keir Starmer has said he is willing to tear up the promises he made during the Labour leadership election if it is needed to make the party electable.www.independent.co.uk
There is an argument that he had misleadingly presented common ownership of utilities as akin to nationalisation in his election material. Yet he broke that one the other day. I've no idea what he means by common ownership, wouldn't be surprised if he suggests everybody buy shares off Sid like Maggie did.
I understand common ownership as like Corbyns energy policy: co-ops either worker or customer owned rather than state owned.
There seems to be a lot of bad faith and assumptions about what he’ll do in the future here.
For me I’m glad he’s focused on winning, it’s step one. I’m not convinced he can do that but I understand his approach. When we’ve got some actual policy to oppose from a sitting government then I’ll hold him to it, until then it’s all irrelevant really.
There’s some positions he’s taken that I’m vehemently against but the idea he’s turning Labour into the Tories isn’t a credible take IMO. If anything he’s still too socially liberal and left wing for the electorate.
Policies don't matter a jot for most people and focussing on that will only lead to more of the same. All about perception and personality and sadly for him he is lacking in both departments
Id agree about the latter. Former though he’s actually polling pretty well personally with the public.
Got any recent ones?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?