Keir Starmer

[Jairzinho]

10 minutes ago, Megadrive Man said:

 

The problem is that when Labour win like this it completely emboldens the argument that this is the only way to win. 

 

It creates this never ending cycle of Tories followed by New Labour. 

 

The Tories and the SNP are tanking so badly that they are going to hand victory to Labour on a plate. This is the perfect time for Labour to actually be bold and put forward some big changes, but instead they will just bring in more of the same. 

 

 

Then the left have to make better arguments, and stop talking about things most people don't care about.

 

Or start a violent revolution starting with the media barons.

 

 

[Gnasher]

Starmer has rectified position following that LBC interview the other day. So fair play on him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm wonder if I'll get told off for posting that twitter link?

 

 

 

 

[Section_31]

You can post what you want Gnasher, I think you're a good poster, just slightly obsessed with the guy. 

[Denny Crane]

Labour or the Conservative Party will never offer PR. It would precipitate their demise. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Still not voting Labour but it’s always good to see the Tories getting a bloody nose. 
 

I believe the Tory candidate in Dorries’ old seat just got off as soon as the result was announced and didn’t hang around for the speeches etc. Oh dear! 

[Arniepie]

starmers biggest problem will the absolute shit show,these cunts have left the country in.

[TheSire]

42 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Starmer has rectified position following that LBC interview the other day. So fair play on him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm wonder if I'll get told off for posting that twitter link?

 

 

 

 

Notice the prick interviewer tried to cut him off and go for a soundbite.

[TheSire]

38 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

You can post what you want Gnasher, I think you're a good poster, just slightly obsessed with the guy. 

He is a good poster and seems a nice guy with similar values to most here. It's just the volume of certain posts means people can shut off after a while.

[Curly]

21 hours ago, Gnasher said:

Starmers stance on no ceasefire is represented by 1% of Labour voters if you go by this poll.

 

 

Bit you’re using data pulled that relates to one specific question, and assuming what it would mean in correlation with a completely different question about the same subject.

 

He could well think any country has the right to defend itself against terrorist attacks, but also think that an immediate ceasefire would be best in that same situation 

 

20 hours ago, Gnasher said:

 

That's not the point being made. 

 

 

89% of Labour voters agree with a ceasefire according to Zarah. Starmer unequivocally supporting Israeli actions is at odds with the overwhelming majority of people who vote Labour. It's becoming a theme.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jairzinho]

He could also not give a shit either way, and is basically just saying/doing whatever focus groups tell him is more likely to get someone from Burnley with an IQ of 47 to vote Labour.

[magicrat]

1 hour ago, Denny Crane said:

Labour or the Conservative Party will never offer PR. It would precipitate their demise. 

The Tories will never but I believe it possible Labour could swing behind a referendum on the issue down the line although highly unlikely in the next parliament. Personally I am in favour but how it would work in practice needs considerable thought and planning. How do Scotland , Wales, NI elect Nationalist MP's under any UK wide system ? How do small parties  who can't field candidates in more than a handful of seats get representation in Parliament ? How do candidates for election get allocated to constituencies ? How do by elections get treated ?   . Many more issues I haven't covered but even a referendum needs careful thought especially after the Brexit fiasco. Do you specify a super majority is required for change ?

How much detail as to a new system needs to be put out before a referendum ?  Do you need a confirmation referendum to ratify the new system ?  Last but not least the HOL would have to be reformed at the same time.,

 

Its a massive undertaking and I just think the impetus won't be there to have it happen top down. If the Lib dems ever got back into power sharing and there was clearly a groundswell of public support then just maybe it could get off the ground.

 

  

[bossy]

I’m not enthused at all by Starmer’s Labour Party but they won’t be as corrupt, incompetent and vicious as the bunch of dogs currently governing, so for that reason alone I think things will be better under Labour. How much better will depend on how well they do the basics. There’s a slim possibility that some of the Brexit shite will be rolled back too. Absolutely made up that there are a few hundred Tory MPs in despair at how they’ll continue grifting after the next GE. The truly rich Tory fuckers won’t care. 

[Denny Crane]

50 minutes ago, magicrat said:

The Tories will never but I believe it possible Labour could swing behind a referendum on the issue down the line although highly unlikely in the next parliament. Personally I am in favour but how it would work in practice needs considerable thought and planning. How do Scotland , Wales, NI elect Nationalist MP's under any UK wide system ? How do small parties  who can't field candidates in more than a handful of seats get representation in Parliament ? How do candidates for election get allocated to constituencies ? How do by elections get treated ?   . Many more issues I haven't covered but even a referendum needs careful thought especially after the Brexit fiasco. Do you specify a super majority is required for change ?

How much detail as to a new system needs to be put out before a referendum ?  Do you need a confirmation referendum to ratify the new system ?  Last but not least the HOL would have to be reformed at the same time.,

 

Its a massive undertaking and I just think the impetus won't be there to have it happen top down. If the Lib dems ever got back into power sharing and there was clearly a groundswell of public support then just maybe it could get off the ground.

 

  

 

I'm in favour as it will dilute the power of lobbying, the media and is obviously more democratic  -- where 70% of votes don't carry any weight presently . The first two are part of the reasons why it won't happen. Media oligarchs and those buying influence from Starmer and Sunak don't want to deal with multiple parties.

 

The big one is monopolies are not known for giving up power and increasing competition voluntary. If it doesn't favour them they won't do it. I would love to be wrong. PR favours the general public more than them. 

[Bjornebye]

Was Streeting offering "good tories" a safe home in the Labour Party. The little runt. He's a fucking tory if ever there was one 

[Rushies tash]

3 hours ago, magicrat said:

The Tories will never but I believe it possible Labour could swing behind a referendum on the issue down the line although highly unlikely in the next parliament. Personally I am in favour but how it would work in practice needs considerable thought and planning. How do Scotland , Wales, NI elect Nationalist MP's under any UK wide system ? How do small parties  who can't field candidates in more than a handful of seats get representation in Parliament ? How do candidates for election get allocated to constituencies ? How do by elections get treated ?   . Many more issues I haven't covered but even a referendum needs careful thought especially after the Brexit fiasco. Do you specify a super majority is required for change ?

How much detail as to a new system needs to be put out before a referendum ?  Do you need a confirmation referendum to ratify the new system ?  Last but not least the HOL would have to be reformed at the same time.,

 

Its a massive undertaking and I just think the impetus won't be there to have it happen top down. If the Lib dems ever got back into power sharing and there was clearly a groundswell of public support then just maybe it could get off the ground.

 

  

 

If they did want it to happen (and that's a fucking massive unlikely 'if'), they'd have to keep the arguments for it, and the slogans, simple - like the Tories do so effectively. "Your vote will count"; "You will be heard"; "You will have a voice" etc.

[Bjornebye]

Do you know what, let's just get these cunts out of power and worry about the rest after that. 

[magicrat]

1 hour ago, Rushies tash said:

 

If they did want it to happen (and that's a fucking massive unlikely 'if'), they'd have to keep the arguments for it, and the slogans, simple - like the Tories do so effectively. "Your vote will count"; "You will be heard"; "You will have a voice" etc.

Absolutely and very true. The strong counter argument will be that people won't be voting for a candidate as it will happen in a significant number of constituencies you could vote in a person from Labour and end up with a Tory MP . Or vice versa.

Educating millions of idiots that you are voting for a party on a nationwide basis not a local individual will be an uphill battle

Opponents of PR will question its accountability if constituents don't have a local MP duly elected by the people he/she represents in Parliament.  Of course we all know once in Westminster most MPs just do as they are told by party leaderships anyway,   There is also the Tory mantra that PR leads to weak government because no party alone can get an overall majority.

Personally I think it protects the country from the likes of this current bunch of rabid cunts.

  

To be fair I think most Labour supporters I speak to want PR but it's just a mountain of work even to get the ball rolling . So much so, and with so many pressing issues, I can't see the party pushing on with it any time soon.  Hope I'm wrong     

[Rushies tash]

17 minutes ago, magicrat said:

Absolutely and very true. The strong counter argument will be that people won't be voting for a candidate as it will happen in a significant number of constituencies you could vote in a person from Labour and end up with a Tory MP . Or vice versa.

Educating millions of idiots that you are voting for a party on a nationwide basis not a local individual will be an uphill battle

Opponents of PR will question its accountability if constituents don't have a local MP duly elected by the people he/she represents in Parliament.  Of course we all know once in Westminster most MPs just do as they are told by party leaderships anyway,   There is also the Tory mantra that PR leads to weak government because no party alone can get an overall majority.

Personally I think it protects the country from the likes of this current bunch of rabid cunts.

  

To be fair I think most Labour supporters I speak to want PR but it's just a mountain of work even to get the ball rolling . So much so, and with so many pressing issues, I can't see the party pushing on with it any time soon.  Hope I'm wrong     

 

Party politics in this country gives a lie to the shite pedalled to keep the staus quo - about local people representing your interests in parliament. Kwarsi Kwarteng is supposed to 'represent' me, but I've never fucking seen him and he lives in Greenwich. People also tend to vote based upon national issues rather than local ones (as a rule, but not always) - otherwise you'd end up with hundreds of different parties and individuals in parliament rather than what we have now. As you say, PR isn't perfect, but it would curb the more extreme excesses from any party - especially the cunts we have in charge now.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

7 hours ago, Section_31 said:

You can post what you want Gnasher, I think you're a good poster, just slightly obsessed with the guy. 

Don't say that; you'll make Ursula jealous.

[Gnasher]

45 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Don't say that; you'll make Ursula jealous.

 

[Dicko]

It's not a win for Labour it's just that all the tories stayed at home.

In one of the elections the difference between the Labour counts was 811.

 

If the Tories canvas properly and get people in who are halfway credible (whatever that means in toryland) they'll regain them in the next election.

[Bruce Spanner]

5 minutes ago, Dicko said:

It's not a win for Labour it's just that all the tories stayed at home.

In one of the elections the difference between the Labour counts was 811.

 

If the Tories canvas properly and get people in who are halfway credible (whatever that means in toryland) they'll regain them in the next election.

Oh, fucking shut up.

 

It is quite a remarkable result(s)

 

Anyone saying otherwise is utterly deluded.

[Arniepie]

31 minutes ago, Dicko said:

It's not a win for Labour it's just that all the tories stayed at home.

In one of the elections the difference between the Labour counts was 811.

 

If the Tories canvas properly and get people in who are halfway credible (whatever that means in toryland) they'll regain them in the next election.

Personally I think it's a massive win

Hasn't that Bedford seat been tory for about 80 odd years?

It's the messege it sends out aswell.

That know they are toast.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Dicko said:

It's not a win for Labour it's just that all the tories stayed at home.

In one of the elections the difference between the Labour counts was 811.

 

If the Tories canvas properly and get people in who are halfway credible (whatever that means in toryland) they'll regain them in the next election.

So you're saying that the party that gets most people to come out and vote for it wins?

 

Fascinating insight.

[Moo]

11 hours ago, Section_31 said:

 

Do you reckon it's an ego thing with Starmer? I'm not so sure. I think he's just pretty calculating. He's a barrister by trade, he's identified the Tories as a problem that needs to be solved and has identified steps to make it happen. The first was, rightly or wrongly, rebranding the party to make it more palatable to middle England. 

 

I don't think he's a bad guy as such. He could have made plenty of money at a private law firm but he stayed with the CPS. There's never been any indication of corruption or anything untoward, unlike his opponents. He's an anti populist. He's about the machine rather than the man. 

 

I understand why people can't be arsed with him and the direction of the party, I really do, but I'm passionate about getting the Tories out come hell or high water, it really is a life or death situation now for many people. 

 

Genuinely no idea but my gut instinct says not.  I do have two concerns on this score though; Firstly the enthusiasm with which he's dealt with the purge, and secondly, power corrupts and I worry that if Labour win a hefty majority he'll think he's got it right and doesn't need to look beyond that. 

I desperately hope Labour win... but need support from other parties to govern effectively and be put in a position where they have to seriously consider electoral reform.