Is there anything in politics more shit than the Labour Party?

[Shooter McGavin]

4 minutes ago, Boab said:

The smear campaign against Corbyn would be nothing compared to Lynch.

It’s even on here at times, never mind the media. 
 

Sadly true.

 

After a few interviews, wasn’t there people from the media raking his bins…

 

Anybody that takes on the Labour leadership will know that they’ll be crucified for trivial bulls***, whilst the tories lie, cheat and break the law with impunity.

[Costanza]

Just now, PortyBeach said:

You’re right on various levels here. 
Bearing in mind what you’ve said, I just wonder though if Starmer is taking too rigid a line on this incident.

Labour isn’t in power: it’s not as if a Labour Government Minister has endorsed strike action and compromised his ability to broker negotiations which might produce a resolution.

Labour is in opposition and I think that fact should allow individuals to follow their consciences. 
I’m sure the “libertarian” nut-jobs on the Tory back benches would agree…

I don't agree with the anti strike line.

After Mick Lynch did the TV rounds bodying pundits and politicians alike, support for the strikes rose to 45% with 37% opposed Public now support rail strikes after Mick Lynch TV studio tour, poll finds (msn.com)

Starmer isn't going to gain many votes from Tory voters for abstaining  on supporting the strikes but he sure as hell is going to lose a lot of Labour support; it seems self defeating to me.

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, PortyBeach said:

You’re right on various levels here. 
Bearing in mind what you’ve said, I just wonder though if Starmer is taking too rigid a line on this incident.

Labour isn’t in power: it’s not as if a Labour Government Minister has endorsed strike action and compromised his ability to broker negotiations which might produce a resolution.

Labour is in opposition and I think that fact should allow individuals to follow their consciences. 
I’m sure the “libertarian” nut-jobs on the Tory back benches would agree…

 

The MP is on the front bench team,  therefore 'bound' by the notion of collective responsibility.  It would be slightly different for a backbencher.

 

They really do have to be careful with this.  The alternative is to 'allow' a free hand on union support,  but the danger is being cast as in disarray,  against the people,  too in debt to the unions,  soft on strike chaos,  set to hand out too much in pay rises,  etc.  It goes on and on.

 

It's a huge trap.  The best solution is MPs being a bit more crafty how they go about showing their support.

[PortyBeach]

2 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

While the only definitive way to solve the problems with Brexit and the Good Friday agreement is for UK to rejoin the single market and customs union, a Labour Government will ensure the Good Friday Agreement is protected. 

 

Currently is going to shit. 

Tory MP Tobias Elwood said the same.

It is so obvious, but “Brexit” is an article of mystical faith for a significant amount in what used to be the Conservative Party but what is now described by Chris Patten as the “English Nationalist Party”.

 

[Taffin]

Labour are a joke party.

 

They stand for nothing.

 

Politics at the UK level is dead, there's nobody worth voting for.

[Mysterion]

I find myself in a position where I am struggling to work out quite what to think.

 

On the one hand find this approach to the strikes sickening.

On the other I can see a leader state a position and quickly deal with a member of his team undermining him. 

 

I think Starmer has made a significant error of judgement around the strike action. Absolutely no chance anyone today should have been talking about Labour, they should have been hounding Grant Shapps morning noon and night about his incompetence.

 

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by Mysterion

[Lone Striker]

2 hours ago, OTT said:

Its what happens in a two party system, the same is true in America. Tory and Diet Tory.

 

Corbyn had morals and knew who he is, can Starmer say the same thing?

 

 

The 2019 GE result was unique - in so much as big chunks of the English electorate seemed to break with tradition due to the Brexit fallout / impasse.  Plus the mesmerising Boris factor.    Hence an outrageously big majority for Tories, and embarrassingly poor performance for Labour (e.g. the so-called red-wall crumbling).   

 

Regardless of whether its Sunak or Truss leading the Tories in 2024, the key consideration for voters won't be Brexit  - it'll be household bills, electricity/gas rationing, food prices & security, NHS staffing & backlog  etc.     Thats a move back to "home territory" for Labour where they can lay the blame directly on 14 years of Tory government - but they still  need to gear up to offer a sensible plan on how to improve on all these in a way which catches the imagination of voters.    Its potentially a "things can only get better" scenario replay of 1997 - but without the slick energy & communication skill of Blair.

 

[BlueRiver]

Aren’t Labour polling something like 10 points clear of the Tories? 
 

What else are the opposition meant to be doing right now? As Victorian has indicated, strike action isn’t universally popular even amongst potential Labour voters. The ones it is popular with wouldn't consider voting Tory anyway. Not to mention we’ve no real idea if we’ll have an election in 6 months or in 2 years. 
 

Sacking the guy was perhaps a bit much but he went against clear instructions. Either way he’d left Starmer with either a decision to make, or allegations and dirt to fend off from a desperate press. 

[manaliveits105]

🍿

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 hours ago, Costanza said:

In a nutshell, Starmer is hopeless,  dishonest and without principle.

In 2019 he stood on the UCU picket line whilst part of the shadow cabinet.

As one of his 10 "pledges" he signed his name against Pledge 7:

"Strengthen Worker's Right and Trade Unions - Work shoulder to shoulder with trade unions to stand up for working people, tackle insecure work and low pay. Repeal the Trade Union Act. Oppose Tory attacks on the right to take industrial action and weakening of workplace rights".

 

I also don't buy the take that he needs to appear moderate to triangulate against the right wing media attacks.

He's not going to get the backing of the Daily Mail regardless of what he does. Look at the coverage of 'Beergate' or the reporting of his Brexit policy (vacuous non descript "we'll make Brexit better" nonsense) which was reported as a heinous reversal of Brexit.

Like the BBC's soft soaping of the Tories, it makes no difference to the Tories and their media supporters.

 

Starmer ran for the Labour leadership as a Continuity/Competent Corbyn and signed pledges on nationalising rail, energy, water (all ditched). He told an audience in Liverpool how he understood their feelings on the Sun newspaper and how he would give no interviews to them in the leadership campaign; he has now written columns for them.

In Commons votes, Labour has abstained on the welfare cap., abstained on a vote allowing real-terms Universal Credit and Pension cuts, abstained on the 'spycops' billl amendment that would have specifically banned the authorisation of rape, torture and murder by public bodies.

This can't just be about not trying to upset the horses can it?

 

The issue Starmer now has is that he is on a collision course with a large faction of his party and the unions and a lot of people who would have voted Labour regardless will now be considering their vote. That might be fine if Starmer wanted a progressive alliance to kick the Tories out and introduce PR but it doesn't look like he does, so where is this large vote share coming from?

 

The Corbyn manifesto was pretty much mainstream European social democracy and a lot of the domestic policies were popular.

The country needs radical policies (for the UK) like some of that manifesto to fix the damage the Tories have done but Starmer is either fiddling at the edges or just trotting out banal tropes.

I'm struggling to see who exactly he is inspiring here.

 

Terrific posting . 👍👍👍I completely agree that the country needs radical policies , similar to what Jeremy offered in 2017  and 2019 . 

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

The MP is on the front bench team,  therefore 'bound' by the notion of collective responsibility.  It would be slightly different for a backbencher.

 

They really do have to be careful with this.  The alternative is to 'allow' a free hand on union support,  but the danger is being cast as in disarray,  against the people,  too in debt to the unions,  soft on strike chaos,  set to hand out too much in pay rises,  etc.  It goes on and on.

 

It's a huge trap.  The best solution is MPs being a bit more crafty how they go about showing their support.

“ crafty “ is that no a euphemism for deceitful , not being transparent ? Surely that’s better politics ? 

[BlueRiver]

1 minute ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Terrific posting . 👍👍👍I completely agree that the country needs radical policies , similar to what Jeremy offered in 2017  and 2019 . 

“ crafty “ is that no a euphemism for deceitful , not being transparent ? Surely that’s better politics ? 

I’ve sympathy to these views but even if the country needs those policies, the country rejected them twice. So where were Labour to go from there? 

[JudyJudyJudy]

One thing is for sure my pal Jeremy will be loving all of this . He’s vindicated . Revenge is indeed a dish best served cold . It’s war on the Labour Party again 

[JudyJudyJudy]

One thing is for sure my pal Jeremy will be loving all of this . He’s vindicated . Revenge is indeed a dish best served cold . It’s war on the Labour Party again 

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

I’ve sympathy to these views but even if the country needs those policies, the country rejected them twice. So where were Labour to go from there? 

Tweak them a bit . Make them more palatable ? But maybe that’s improbable as it seems a significant majority in England are happy voting Tory whatever shite they throw at them 

[Ked]

4 hours ago, Ulysses said:

And today, the "leader" of the "Labour" Party has dumped Shadow Transport Minister Sam Tarry from the front bench for supporting workers who are on industrial action.  Sam's "a bit of a lefty" by all accounts.

 

Plenty of commentary here having a go at the Conservatives, and the SNP, but however much you might hate either of them at least they seem to be trying to "do what it says on the tin".

 

On the other hand, the Labour Party seems to be about as much use as a one-legged man in a chocolate teapot kicking contest.  Pointless, useless, washed up and past it.

 

 

We get what we deserve .

Career politicians who all toe same narrative.

UK politics is shit.

But aye Labour are reeking

[BlueRiver]

1 minute ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Tweak them a bit . Make them more palatable ? But maybe that’s improbable as it seems a significant majority in England are happy voting Tory whatever shite they throw at them 

Definitely. I do think some of the more out there policies probably should’ve never seen the light of day in 2019. 
 

Perhaps the personal baggage attached to Corbyn and McDonnell also being expunged from the equation might’ve helped. I guess there’s not much we can do now but see what the next Labour manifesto contains though. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

Just now, BlueRiver said:

Definitely. I do think some of the more out there policies probably should’ve never seen the light of day in 2019. 
 

Perhaps the personal baggage attached to Corbyn and McDonnell also being expunged from the equation might’ve helped. I guess there’s not much we can do now but see what the next Labour manifesto contains though. 

Yes be interesting to see what next manifesto has . They need to get rid of Starmer though ! Andy  Burnham , Mick Lynch might do the bis . A bit lateral thinking needed . 

[XB52]

Tories lurching further and further right and labour follow them. Thank christ we have a solution up here that doesn't involve either of these parties

[BlueRiver]

Just now, JudyJudyJudy said:

Yes be interesting to see what next manifesto has . They need to get rid of Starmer though ! Andy  Burnham , Mick Lynch might do the bis . A bit lateral thinking needed . 

I honestly think Burnham would be the only viable candidate besides Starmer (and it’s a pity he isn’t the leader in my view). 
 

All I can say for certain is that unless Labour go off their rockers in the next manifesto, I’ll be voting for them regardless of leader. I’m utterly sick to the back teeth of the Conservatives. 
 

I think a good point was made further up the thread about the 2019 election (possibly even a bit like Scottish elections where the constitution dominates and probably doesn’t give a fair reflection of the country on other matters) being a bit of an outlier with the Brexit aspect. With that more firmly removed people will be voting on other issues and I struggle to see a reality where the North of England goes blue again. Then again I haven’t seen a lot of things coming in my life so maybe don’t go with my view 😂

[Costanza]

9 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

I’ve sympathy to these views but even if the country needs those policies, the country rejected them twice. So where were Labour to go from there? 

I'd argue that Corbyn's credibility as a PM and Brexit trumped any domestic issues, certainly a lot of the domestic policies were popular.

Labour economic policies are popular, so why aren’t Labour? | YouGov

 

Part of Labour's problem was the anti-semitism row, Corbyn being seen as soft on terrorism and Brexit. The Brexit party stood down in opposition to the Tories and the Labour Brexit policy (ironically designed by Starmer) wasn't popular at all and was seen as a betrayal.

In that period we were in the grip of a English National issue really and Labour heartlands voting for Brexit.

Now with a cost of living crisis and energy bills, a lot more people would be keen for state intervention and ownership but Starmer has ditched all that talk to get elected as Labour leader.

 

14 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

One thing is for sure my pal Jeremy will be loving all of this . He’s vindicated . Revenge is indeed a dish best served cold . It’s war on the Labour Party again 

 

The Forde report vindicated him to an extent, Starmer of course ignored its findings.

[JudyJudyJudy]

4 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

I honestly think Burnham would be the only viable candidate besides Starmer (and it’s a pity he isn’t the leader in my view). 
 

All I can say for certain is that unless Labour go off their rockers in the next manifesto, I’ll be voting for them regardless of leader. I’m utterly sick to the back teeth of the Conservatives. 
 

I think a good point was made further up the thread about the 2019 election (possibly even a bit like Scottish elections where the constitution dominates and probably doesn’t give a fair reflection of the country on other matters) being a bit of an outlier with the Brexit aspect. With that more firmly removed people will be voting on other issues and I struggle to see a reality where the North of England goes blue again. Then again I haven’t seen a lot of things coming in my life so maybe don’t go with my view 😂

👍👍

[BlueRiver]

1 minute ago, Costanza said:

I'd argue that Corbyn's credibility as a PM and Brexit trumped any domestic issues, certainly a lot of the domestic policies were popular.

Labour economic policies are popular, so why aren’t Labour? | YouGov

 

Part of Labour's problem was the anti-semitism row, Corbyn being seen as soft on terrorism and Brexit. The Brexit party stood down in opposition to the Tories and the Labour Brexit policy (ironically designed by Starmer) wasn't popular at all and was seen as a betrayal.

In that period we were in the grip of a English National issue really and Labour heartlands voting for Brexit.

Now with a cost of living crisis and energy bills, a lot more people would be keen for state intervention and ownership but Starmer has ditched all that talk to get elected as Labour leader.

 

The Forde report vindicated him to an extent, Starmer of course ignored its findings.

To be fair after I posted it I did give it a little consideration and I tend to agree. That along with cutting back on some of the more out there policies (thinking especially on the £50bn magicked up days before the election to pay for WASPI, and the 10% of the shares in a company going to workers stuff) may have clinched it. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

3 minutes ago, Costanza said:

I'd argue that Corbyn's credibility as a PM and Brexit trumped any domestic issues, certainly a lot of the domestic policies were popular.

Labour economic policies are popular, so why aren’t Labour? | YouGov

 

Part of Labour's problem was the anti-semitism row, Corbyn being seen as soft on terrorism and Brexit. The Brexit party stood down in opposition to the Tories and the Labour Brexit policy (ironically designed by Starmer) wasn't popular at all and was seen as a betrayal.

In that period we were in the grip of a English National issue really and Labour heartlands voting for Brexit.

Now with a cost of living crisis and energy bills, a lot more people would be keen for state intervention and ownership but Starmer has ditched all that talk to get elected as Labour leader.

 

The Forde report vindicated him to an extent, Starmer of course ignored its findings.

👍👍

[JudyJudyJudy]

3 minutes ago, Costanza said:

I'd argue that Corbyn's credibility as a PM and Brexit trumped any domestic issues, certainly a lot of the domestic policies were popular.

Labour economic policies are popular, so why aren’t Labour? | YouGov

 

Part of Labour's problem was the anti-semitism row, Corbyn being seen as soft on terrorism and Brexit. The Brexit party stood down in opposition to the Tories and the Labour Brexit policy (ironically designed by Starmer) wasn't popular at all and was seen as a betrayal.

In that period we were in the grip of a English National issue really and Labour heartlands voting for Brexit.

Now with a cost of living crisis and energy bills, a lot more people would be keen for state intervention and ownership but Starmer has ditched all that talk to get elected as Labour leader.

 

The Forde report vindicated him to an extent, Starmer of course ignored its findings.

It was the media hatchet job against Corbyn which also done it . Has there ever been a politician so maligned and ridiculed as he was ? It really was shocking . There were certainly dark forces out to ensure he never became prime minister . 

[Costanza]

Just now, BlueRiver said:

To be fair after I posted it I did give it a little consideration and I tend to agree. That along with cutting back on some of the more out there policies (thinking especially on the £50bn magicked up days before the election to pay for WASPI, and the 10% of the shares in a company going to workers stuff) may have clinched it. 

To be fair, there did turn out to be a magic money tree so that £50bn seems like a drop in the ocean!
I also forgot that Diane Abbot as Home Secretary probably gave people the fear as much as it did me.

This is probably a niche view of mine, but John McDonnell would have been a far more effective leader than Corbyn but likely his baggage would have stopped him as well.

 

[Costanza]

Just now, JudyJudyJudy said:

It was the media hatchet job against Corbyn which also done it . Has there ever been a politician so maligned and ridiculed as he was ? It really was shocking . There were certainly dark forces out to ensure he never became prime minister . 

Well absolutely; the irony of Corbyn on newsnight with a russian hat and stories of him being a russian spy whilst the media knew full well that Johnson slipped his own security to meet a former KGB agent and the party dripping in Russian money, about sums up political reporting in this country

[Ulysses]

Collective responsibility?  You'd have thought that the first place where collective responsibility mattered would be in the relationship between the Labour Party and workers - especially workers who are trying not to fall further behind as the cost of living spirals upwards.  

 

So if the Labour Party has to avoid representing workers in case the capitalists and middle classes get annoyed, what exactly is it for?  Who exactly does it represent?

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, Costanza said:

Well absolutely; the irony of Corbyn on newsnight with a russian hat and stories of him being a russian spy whilst the media knew full well that Johnson slipped his own security to meet a former KGB agent and the party dripping in Russian money, about sums up political reporting in this country

I know , bunch of b******* argghhh 

Edited July 27, 2022 by JudyJudyJudy

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

Collective responsibility?  You'd have thought that the first place where collective responsibility mattered would be in the relationship between the Labour Party and workers - especially workers who are trying not to fall further behind as the cost of living spirals upwards.  

 

So if the Labour Party has to avoid representing workers in case the capitalists and middle classes get annoyed, what exactly is it for?  Who exactly does it represent?

Yep . They started as a party of the working people . A voice in parliament . Today is one of the most shameful days in labours history . The game is over for Starmer. 

[Ulysses]

11 minutes ago, Costanza said:

I'd argue that Corbyn's credibility as a PM and Brexit trumped any domestic issues, certainly a lot of the domestic policies were popular.

Labour economic policies are popular, so why aren’t Labour? | YouGov

 

 

If the policies were generally popular (they were), and the leader wasn't credible (he wasn't), why has the Labour Party not only ditched the leader, but gone soft on the policies?

 

I'm not suggesting the party should have mad and out there policies, but having some degree of sympathy and support for working people trying to catch a break is a pretty basic requirement.  If they can't do that they're not at the races.  

[BlueRiver]

9 minutes ago, Costanza said:

To be fair, there did turn out to be a magic money tree so that £50bn seems like a drop in the ocean!
I also forgot that Diane Abbot as Home Secretary probably gave people the fear as much as it did me.

This is probably a niche view of mine, but John McDonnell would have been a far more effective leader than Corbyn but likely his baggage would have stopped him as well.

 

Very true. However that immense spending during Covid has probably paid a not insignificant part in the position we’re now in. 

As for McDonnell I agree with you. He was an engaging speaker for one thing. The IRA sympathies in particular I think was an insurmountable obstacle in many parts of the country though. Especially considering a lot of army is drawn from traditional Labour heartlands. 

[BlueRiver]

9 minutes ago, Costanza said:

Well absolutely; the irony of Corbyn on newsnight with a russian hat and stories of him being a russian spy whilst the media knew full well that Johnson slipped his own security to meet a former KGB agent and the party dripping in Russian money, about sums up political reporting in this country

That was indefensible for a supposedly neutral broadcaster. 

[Costanza]

Just now, Ulysses said:

 

If the policies were generally popular (they were), and the leader wasn't credible (he wasn't), why has the Labour Party not only ditched the leader, but gone soft on the policies?

 

I'm not suggesting the party should have mad and out there policies, but having some degree of sympathy and support for working people trying to catch a break is a pretty basic requirement.  If they can't do that they're not at the races.  

Well, Starmer hitched on to that to win the leadership election (a competent Corbyn basically) and has ditched frankly almost all of the policies.

What I don't get with this strategy is that you become dishonest with large swathes of your own party and also opposition voters will think "this guy said what that electorate wanted to hear to win that election, why should he be any different in a general election?")

 

Starmer was on the Rest is Politics podcast a couple of weeks ago with Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart. It's worth a listen if only to see how vacuous he comes across on policy and Brexit; I simply don't hear any big ideas from him and as you say particularly to help working people. The windfall tax was a drop in the ocean. Compare that to the French nationalising EDF.

The guy isn't the answer sadly.

[Ulysses]

6 minutes ago, Costanza said:

Well, Starmer hitched on to that to win the leadership election (a competent Corbyn basically) and has ditched frankly almost all of the policies.

What I don't get with this strategy is that you become dishonest with large swathes of your own party and also opposition voters will think "this guy said what that electorate wanted to hear to win that election, why should he be any different in a general election?")

 

Starmer was on the Rest is Politics podcast a couple of weeks ago with Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart. It's worth a listen if only to see how vacuous he comes across on policy and Brexit; I simply don't hear any big ideas from him and as you say particularly to help working people. The windfall tax was a drop in the ocean. Compare that to the French nationalising EDF.

The guy isn't the answer sadly.

 

Being an outsider, I don't know whether people perceive Starmer as an honest or dishonest politician, but I suspect a lot of people regard him as a "red Tory", and I'd agree with you that he has a talent for speaking without saying anything.

 

But if not him, then who?  And what?  As in, what policy platform?  As I said, I'm not expecting the Labour Party to lurch to the left, but if it is to be taken seriously it has to have policies that make life better and easier for working people and people trying to cope with inflation, and leadership who will stick to those policies, make a coherent case for them, and stick the boot in on the opposition.  Right now it has neither.

[Costanza]

6 minutes ago, BlueRiver said:

Very true. However that immense spending during Covid has probably paid a not insignificant part in the position we’re now in. 

As for McDonnell I agree with you. He was an engaging speaker for one thing. The IRA sympathies in particular I think was an insurmountable obstacle in many parts of the country though. Especially considering a lot of army is drawn from traditional Labour heartlands. 

yeah agree; the IRA and 'thuggish' reputation wouldn't help him. He does come across as an interesting political thinker though. 

[Costanza]

10 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Being an outsider, I don't know whether people perceive Starmer as an honest or dishonest politician, but I suspect a lot of people regard him as a "red Tory", and I'd agree with you that he has a talent for speaking without saying anything.

 

But if not him, then who?  And what?  As in, what policy platform?  As I said, I'm not expecting the Labour Party to lurch to the left, but if it is to be taken seriously it has to have policies that make life better and easier for working people and people trying to cope with inflation, and leadership who will stick to those policies, make a coherent case for them, and stick the boot in on the opposition.  Right now it has neither.

The only mainstream Labour politicians I've heard talking about policy to help working people are Andy Burnham (bringing buses under public control in Manchester) and Ed Milliband (that was on a podcast admittedly on Universal Basic Income).
To me the framework should be what is  broken in society? NHS waiting lists and services in A&E, huge energy bills, high public transport costs (trains particularly), education funding, affordable housing and mass house building, rental prices, trading with Europe, moving to a green economy and net zero

I don't see how you can't solve these issues without moving left i.e. the market isn't going to solve it so needs to be state intervention.

You need to be clever to get a manifesto that answers that and deflects the usual bankrupt the country ripostes.
Starmer's 'big idea' is growth but every politician says that and ultimately you'll never get massively high levels of growth anyway that will significantly solve the issues we face, so it needs to be something more radical. We're actually I think in 1945 type place where we need a plan to repair a broken country and economy but Starmer and the Tories are just fiddling at the edges.

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by Costanza

[John Findlay]

11 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

Don't think the Labour Government will send anyone to Rwanda. 

They have to be in government first to try and do anything.

Keir Hardie swivelling in his grave.

Vast majority of Labour MPs proving they are no different to the Tories.

In it for themselves.

[manaliveits105]

Wonder which party will come up with this idea here ?

 

Where most governments have been sluggish in their efforts to tackle inflation, Spain has blazed full steam ahead with a scheme making some train journeys completely free.

The initiative means passengers will be able to hop across Catalonia, immerse themselves in the architectural splendours of Andalucía or explore the museums and restaurants of the Basque country.

The announcement came on Tuesday, when Spain’s socialist-led coalition government declared that travel across certain parts of the state-owned rail-network, Renfe, would be free from 1 September to the end of the year.

[Konrad von Carstein]

1 hour ago, manaliveits105 said:

Wonder which party will come up with this idea here ?

 

Where most governments have been sluggish in their efforts to tackle inflation, Spain has blazed full steam ahead with a scheme making some train journeys completely free.

The initiative means passengers will be able to hop across Catalonia, immerse themselves in the architectural splendours of Andalucía or explore the museums and restaurants of the Basque country.

The announcement came on Tuesday, when Spain’s socialist-led coalition government declared that travel across certain parts of the state-owned rail-network, Renfe, would be free from 1 September to the end of the year.

Sounds like something the Scottish Government would look at... Bloody Tartan Tories.

 

[Victorian]

7 hours ago, Ulysses said:

Collective responsibility?  You'd have thought that the first place where collective responsibility mattered would be in the relationship between the Labour Party and workers - especially workers who are trying not to fall further behind as the cost of living spirals upwards.  

 

So if the Labour Party has to avoid representing workers in case the capitalists and middle classes get annoyed, what exactly is it for?  Who exactly does it represent?

 

It's representation is to get into a position where it can enact policies and management of the economy that can provide people with a better settlement.

 

That's the sum total of it right now.  These are exceptional times.  Only one thing matters to attempt to make meaningful change for the better and that is to oust this government.  If Labour can't do it or choose to stick rigidly to an ideology that fails to gain power then it's all for nothing.  It's just a notional support circle with the workers while the Tories continue to rob the gaff for their people.

[Dazo]

I’m guessing this mp is thinking long term and getting voted in next election. Starmer isn’t going to be around for long and this nothing gesture where he knew the outcome goes down well with his constituents. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

Well said 

 

 

 

 

[Riccarton3]

Starmer said he wanted power over unity. Said it to appear decisive and serious to a either/or question.  

 

So never sought unity, preferring  to marginalise sections of the same Party. Election time comes along and the divisions are drawn out. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 28, 2022 by Riccarton3

[Maple Leaf]

22 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

A sir being in charge of Labour ffs. 

 
😕
 

I could scarcely believe my eyes when I read that.  Incredible.

[Costanza]

Very interesting reveal this about Starmer.

Bodes well for a general election.

 

 

[RobboM]

6 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

I could scarcely believe my eyes when I read that.  Incredible.

Really?
He was Director of Public Prosecutions for 5 years and was knighted in New Years Honours list after he stepped down for services to "law and criminal justice"
Is that really a deal breaker?

[HartleyLegend3]

Labour party is a boat with everyone in it rowing in different directions. 

 

Their voting base is generations of families who actq like Labour are a cult

 

"Ma Da voted for them so a vote for them"

 

Starmer is Mr Boring 😴 

[Boab]

1 hour ago, Maple Leaf said:

I could scarcely believe my eyes when I read that.  Incredible.

There are 166 Labour Peers in the House of Lords. 
As far as I’m concerned, no Labour member should be a lord. In fact, they should be actively involved in abolishing it.

That goes for union leaders who took a peerage as well.

Disgrace.

[Maple Leaf]

1 hour ago, RobboM said:

Really?
He was Director of Public Prosecutions for 5 years and was knighted in New Years Honours list after he stepped down for services to "law and criminal justice"
Is that really a deal breaker?

I definitely have an old-fashioned view of the Labour Party.  Having a "Sir" as head of the working man's party just seems incongruous to me.  I'm out of touch, no doubt.

[Cruyff]

Starmer's a scab.