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

[Gundermann]

3 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Just the one point to question. The green party did not receive overwhelming votes in Scotland. It received alow total, less than liberal party, and is only able to see it's demands met due to SNP needing it's help.

 

IIRC, the combined vote of the SNP and Greens was around 50%. You can add Labour to that - some of them are still lefties.

 

As to meeting demands, the Scots Parly is more like most in Europe. Westminster with its outdated system is the outlier.

[Malinga the Swinga]

20 minutes ago, Gundermann said:

 

IIRC, the combined vote of the SNP and Greens was around 50%. You can add Labour to that - some of them are still lefties.

 

As to meeting demands, the Scots Parly is more like most in Europe. Westminster with its outdated system is the outlier.

You can't simply add green vote to other parties and say they received overwhelming support.

That's like me saying between Daniel Day Lewis and I have won 3 best actor Oscars between us.

The green vote was low. They should be, and hopefully will be irrelevant to vote at next election. It is what they deserve.

[i wish jj was my dad]

25 minutes ago, Gundermann said:

 

Nail on head there.

 

I don't think he was a great leader but I could imagine sitting down with him for a dram or two and debating the issues of the day.

I kinda agree. A decent, well-meaning man but attached to too many unpalatable causes. 

What I would say is that his policies, radical or not would not have burst the bank any worse than Johnson or Truss. 

[Australis]

If Labour get in power at the Scottish Parliament it will be another long spell of whining and moaning.

 

All they have to say is, the SNP left the country in such a mess and we are doing our best, but will take years to fix, at every FMQs 

 

No need any more to take minutes of meetings and big decisions now the nationalists have made that the norm.

 

Then the tired old out of ideas party gets kicked out for not being serious and taking voters for granted, like the last Scottish Labour administation, and recently the nationalists have done.

 

Rinse and repeat every 15 years.

 

 

 

[BlueRiver]

17 minutes ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

I kinda agree. A decent, well-meaning man but attached to too many unpalatable causes. 

What I would say is that his policies, radical or not would not have burst the bank any worse than Johnson or Truss. 

 

I agree with the two of you in that I don't think he was ill-intentioned either. 

 

I also agree with you that his policies wouldn't have done any worse than Johnson or Truss. Its just unfortunately Labour have a credibility problem with the electorate on these things. I think too often that policies aren't properly presented. So all we end up with is what sounds like massive expenditure with big tax rises. This also goes someway to my references to the changing landscape. Nationalised  railways for example probably appealed more a few years ago when less people were living the Thatcherite dream and more were using public transport. Now you have a lot of folk that in principle will say they like it but when it gets into it they're not willing to pay for these ideas through increased taxes because "well I use my car so I don't care" type attitudes. 

 

Same goes for building housing. Plenty think it's a great idea. Then the NIMBYism kicks in. 

 

I'd like to say that the scales might tip but in the next 15-20 years my generation are going to begin inheriting all the accrued wealth of the previous and I could see the selfishness kicking in more with millenials when that happens. 

 

 

 

[The Mighty Thor]

6 hours ago, BlueRiver said:

 

Go look one up. 

 

[BlueRiver]

Just now, The Mighty Thor said:

 

 

Sorry Thor 🤣 I didn't mean to be quite as blunt and wanky. 

[The Mighty Thor]

Just now, BlueRiver said:

 

Sorry Thor 🤣 I didn't mean to be quite as blunt and wanky. 

It's the reply I would've given 😉

[Gundermann]

1 hour ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

You can't simply add green vote to other parties and say they received overwhelming support.

That's like me saying between Daniel Day Lewis and I have won 3 best actor Oscars between us.

The green vote was low. They should be, and hopefully will be irrelevant to vote at next election. It is what they deserve.

 

Except I didn't.

[Gundermann]

1 hour ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

I kinda agree. A decent, well-meaning man but attached to too many unpalatable causes. 

What I would say is that his policies, radical or not would not have burst the bank any worse than Johnson or Truss. 

 

Very true. God knows how much this current govt, under several PMs and countless headless chicken and charlatan ministers, has cost the tax payer.

 

Some long standing myths about the Tories - that they're fiscally competent and the 'party of law and order' - should be well put to bed now. They've given us a cost of living crisis and are very much a criminal gang.

[i wish jj was my dad]

28 minutes ago, Gundermann said:

 

Very true. God knows how much this current govt, under several PMs and countless headless chicken and charlatan ministers, has cost the tax payer.

 

Some long standing myths about the Tories - that they're fiscally competent and the 'party of law and order' - should be well put to bed now. They've given us a cost of living crisis and are very much a criminal gang.

Yip.  Corbyn may have been naive, maybe even incompetent but he isn't bent and he wouldn't have been fleecing the taxpayer to fill his own satchel with bucks and enriching his pals.   It is hard to see how he could been any worse with him in charge.   All he would have had to do was actually listen to the advice of his civil servants.  

[Ulysses]

7 hours ago, BlueRiver said:

 

 

Nah I get you. I've sometimes wondered if your despair at Labour here is somewhat a reflection of being a bit scunnered by FF and FG playing what looks to be similar games in Ireland. 

 

Or worse, the games that the Labour Party here has played over the years.

 

Ultimately, my concern is only partly with the platform.  I get that voters don't want and won't vote for a strongly leftist platform, though at the back of it all I think British voters are more centrist and soft left than one might give them credit for.

 

I just find that the Labour Party as currently set up, or as currently led, doesn't even succeed in its first task, which is offering voters a solid and coherent opposition and alternative vision to a government that is inept, inadequate, and barely any better than a kleptocracy. And if Labour are that bad at being the  opposition, it's hard to imagine they'll be much use at being the government.

[Malinga the Swinga]

1 hour ago, Gundermann said:

 

Except I didn't.

Yes you did. You said Scotland voted overwhelmingly for SNP and Greens.

No we didn't.

The greens received hardly any votes at all. 

[Gundermann]

6 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

Yes you did. You said Scotland voted overwhelmingly for SNP and Greens.

No we didn't.

The greens received hardly any votes at all. 

 

Here's what I said.

 

Quote

Equally, in Scotland, we voted overwhelmingly for left-of-centre parties - SNP and Greens but more if you count Scot Lab.

 

Now, can you dig up the electon figures and prove me wrong?

 

SNP and Greens alone have more seats than all the others combined. Add Labour to that and it dwarfs Tories and Libs. You can discount the system of PR if you wish but it was designed by a Labour govt in Westminster. Could also add, when did a govt in WM last have a popular majority - either on its own or in coalition?

 

[BlueRiver]

7 minutes ago, Gundermann said:

 

Here's what I said.

 

 

Now, can you dig up the electon figures and prove me wrong?

 

SNP and Greens alone have more seats than all the others combined. Add Labour to that and it dwarfs Tories and Libs. You can discount the system of PR if you wish but it was designed by a Labour govt in Westminster. Could also add, when did a govt in WM last have a popular majority - either on its own or in coalition?

 

 

2010-2015

[ri Alban]

Going by fptp, the SNP wiped the floor with everyone. But due to a fairer system,  the Diddy teams received medals, I mean seats, for turning up. Unlike at WM.

[Gundermann]

13 hours ago, BlueRiver said:

 

2010-2015

 

Indeed. Who would say that the Libs weren't instrumental to this coalition despite receiving only 20% or so of the vote?

 

It's not unusual for WM govts to be elected on less than 40% of the vote - even less if you consider turnout is 60 - 65%. That in itself is indicative of many millions just not bothering to vote, perhaps because they know that real change won't happen with two very similar parties, Tory and Labour?

[The Mighty Thor]

22 minutes ago, Gundermann said:

 

Indeed. Who would say that the Libs weren't instrumental to this coalition despite receiving only 20% or so of the vote?

 

It's not unusual for WM govts to be elected on less than 40% of the vote - even less if you consider turnout is 60 - 65%. That in itself is indicative of many millions just not bothering to vote, perhaps because they know that real change won't happen with two very similar parties, Tory and Labour?

It'll be even worse now as we effectively have two wings of the same flawed ideology vying to continue the same policy agenda. 

 

what a choice. 

[Victorian]

When the current gang is so useless and corrupt,  merely changing the personnel becomes imperative,  regardless of any perceived similarity in the overall policy agenda.  Disrupting the current settlement of mutual interest and understanding between government/party position,  party donation,  lobbying,  powerful business actors is absolutely necessary.  That particular house of shit needs to be bulldozered.  

[il Duce McTarkin]

9 minutes ago, Victorian said:

That particular house of shit needs to be bulldozered.  

 

They need a one-way trip to Blair Drummond with @ri Alban.

[ri Alban]

[Ron Burgundy]

20 hours ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

You can't simply add green vote to other parties and say they received overwhelming support.

That's like me saying between Daniel Day Lewis and I have won 3 best actor Oscars between us.

The green vote was low. They should be, and hopefully will be irrelevant to vote at next election. It is what they deserve.

That made me giggle 😄

[Ulysses]

20 hours ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

 

That's like me saying between Daniel Day Lewis and I have won 3 best actor Oscars between us.

 

 

I'm gonna use that line when I get the chance.

[ri Alban]

On 12/07/2023 at 14:54, Malinga the Swinga said:

You can't simply add green vote to other parties and say they received overwhelming support.

That's like me saying between Daniel Day Lewis and I have won 3 best actor Oscars between us.

The green vote was low. They should be, and hopefully will be irrelevant to vote at next election. It is what they deserve.

The greens won seats, added to the SNPs,  who were one short of a majority,  made a super majority.  

 

Are you married or have any connection(coach, manager, drama teacher) to the most over rated actor ever(DDL)? No, you say. Well, why would you have any claim to his Oscars. 

[ri Alban]

5 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

I'm gonna use that line when I get the chance.

A comedian used to say it on stage.

 

It's stolen material,  so you better watch Joe Rogan doesn't come to your door.

[Ulysses]

3 hours ago, ri Alban said:

A comedian used to say it on stage.

 

It's stolen material,  so you better watch Joe Rogan doesn't come to your door.

 

What's the difference between @ri Alban and Joe Rogan?

 

Joe Rogan's not British. 

[ri Alban]

8 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

What's the difference between @ri Alban and Joe Rogan?

 

Joe Rogan's not British. 

Joe Rogan's not a comedian.   

 

 

 

 

You were bang on about Labour, BTW. If you look closer, they are not Labour.  But that other lot are crooks and need removed. So what do you do? 

[Ulysses]

6 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Joe Rogan's not a comedian.   

 

 

Fair.

[Ulysses]

7 hours ago, ri Alban said:

You were bang on about Labour, BTW. If you look closer, they are not Labour.  But that other lot are crooks and need removed. So what do you do? 

 

One of the most remarkable features of politics today is the extent to which conservativism across much of the world has become a byword for stupidity, crassness, coarseness, exclusion, dishonesty, inefficiency, corruption - and above all else, anti-democratic behaviour.

 

It's not just how much that has happened, but the speed with which it has happened. Many conservative political parties in the world today are unrecognisable by comparison to what they were as recently as 2007-2008.  It is literally the case that in many countries they simply cannot function without being all of the things I describe above.  Say what we like about the likes of Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan, but they would not recognise the so-called conservatism promoted by the likes of Johnson, Trump and their pals around the world, and they would regard them as radical right-wingers rather than conservatives.

 

Why and how conservatism was hijacked, got hollowed out, and became extremist and undemocratic is one for the political science research community to work out.  But in the meantime of course the world needs alternatives, and in UK politics the biggest alternative is the Labour Party (no disrespect to the SNP, or to smaller UK-wide parties which IMO are also alternatives).

 

But the point of winning power is to use it, and in opposition Labour does not act like a political movement that has any real confidence in its own ability to use the power of government to be a real alternative and counterweight to failed and corrupt conservatism.

 

The Labour Party in opposition is carrying on like David Cameron's Tories did between 2005 and 2010. That's saner than the lunatic shitshow on the other side, but it is not Labour as Attlee, Wilson, or Kinnock would know it. I can even imagine Blair in the background mumbling to himself "FFS, Keir, grow a pair and take these people on."

 

There's one member here who has posted a few poll results to show that the Labour Party is currently more popular than the Tories.  But at least one of those polls also made it clear that only a minority of voters trust Labour in the kind of policy areas we expect Labour to care about and be good at, like health, housing and education.

 

It's not enough to "not be them".  The Labour Party needs to find ways of really distancing itself from them and offering a genuine alternative rather than Tory-lite.

 

 

Edited July 14, 2023 by Ulysses

[ri Alban]

55 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

One of the most remarkable features of politics today is the extent to which conservativism across much of the world has become a byword for stupidity, crassness, coarseness, exclusion, dishonesty, inefficiency, corruption - and above all else, anti-democratic behaviour.

 

It's not just how much that has happened, but the speed with which it has happened. Many conservative political parties in the world today are unrecognisable by comparison to what they were as recently as 2007-2008.  It is literally the case that in many countries they simply cannot function without being all of the things I describe above.  Say what we like about the likes of Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan, but they would not recognise the so-called conservatism promoted by the likes of Johnson, Trump and their pals around the world, and they would regard them as radical right-wingers rather than conservatives.

 

Why and how conservatism was hijacked, got hollowed out, and became extremist and undemocratic is one for the political science research community to work out.  But in the meantime of course the world needs alternatives, and in UK politics the biggest alternative is the Labour Party (no disrespect to the SNP, or to smaller UK-wide parties which IMO are also alternatives).

 

But the point of winning power is to use it, and in opposition Labour does not act like a political movement that has any real confidence in its own ability to use the power of government to be a real alternative and counterweight to failed and corrupt conservatism.

 

The Labour Party in opposition is carrying on like David Cameron's Tories did between 2005 and 2010. That's saner than the lunatic shitshow on the other side, but it is not Labour as Attlee, Wilson, or Kinnock would know it. I can even imagine Blair in the background mumbling to himself "FFS, Keir, grow a pair and take these people on."

 

There's one member here who has posted a few poll results to show that the Labour Party is currently more popular than the Tories.  But at least one of those polls also made it clear that only a minority of voters trust Labour in the kind of policy areas we expect Labour to care about and be good at, like health, housing and education.

 

It's not enough to "not be them".  The Labour Party needs to find ways of really distancing itself from them and offering a genuine alternative rather than Tory-lite.

 

 

 👍 

[ri Alban]

Tory boy Starmer on Tory slapper's BBC show.

[Gundermann]

[i wish jj was my dad]

My sense of what has happened is that conservatism as we previously knew it has been hijacked by populism.  With the help of Murdoch, Harmsworth  and their platforms the likes of Johnson, Trump etc have been able to push the message that the liberal establishment don't care about Joe Soap but they know what matters to the man/woman on the street.  That's where all this culture wars shite comes from and while I don't believe Sunak is anywhere near as bad as Johnson or Truss he is still peddling the Lee Anderson shite.  I'd love to see labour or any other party take Sunak on and show the current version of the Tories for what they are but Starmer doesn't seem to have the balls to challenge the thinking of the average sun or daily mail reader.  I can understand that to a degree because first he needs to be elected but FFS it's awful that the UK has sank so low.  

[Victorian]

27 minutes ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

My sense of what has happened is that conservatism as we previously knew it has been hijacked by populism.  With the help of Murdoch, Harmsworth  and their platforms the likes of Johnson, Trump etc have been able to push the message that the liberal establishment don't care about Joe Soap but they know what matters to the man/woman on the street.  That's where all this culture wars shite comes from and while I don't believe Sunak is anywhere near as bad as Johnson or Truss he is still peddling the Lee Anderson shite.  I'd love to see labour or any other party take Sunak on and show the current version of the Tories for what they are but Starmer doesn't seem to have the balls to challenge the thinking of the average sun or daily mail reader.  I can understand that to a degree because first he needs to be elected but FFS it's awful that the UK has sank so low.  

 

Correct.  You can only proceed on the basis of pragmatism and having the intelligence to know which fights can be picked and which are best avoided.  

 

Labour simply will not make progress by being cast as the opponent to idiotic views,  perceptions,  suspicions,  prejudices.  It wont get anywhere by telling idiots that they're wrong.  It will only achieve anything by firstly gaining power and secondly by retaining power for at least a second term.  It might be able to change views,  perceptions,  suspicions,  prejudices through actions and results that are only achieved whilst in power.

 

No Labour = more Tory corruption and decline.  That is not an option.

[Victorian]

Starmer tried,  but didn't quite manage,  to deliver the message about economic reform being essential to the delivery of everything further downstream.  He should have hammered home the message that economic growth AND much lower inflation will double team on future wage demands.  Growth provides the prosperity to fund wages.  Low inflation deflates the wage rise demands.  

[Portable Badger]

23 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Starmer tried,  but didn't quite manage,  to deliver the message about economic reform being essential to the delivery of everything further downstream.  He should have hammered home the message that economic growth AND much lower inflation will double team on future wage demands.  Growth provides the prosperity to fund wages.  Low inflation deflates the wage rise demands.  

But that message won’t resonate with the Old Labour Party faithful.

That’s Torytalk you’re stating - that’s what Thatcher focused on. 

[The Mighty Thor]

Keith absolutely convincing nobody that they're not just the Tory rouge on Kuenssberg.

 

Probably played well with the shitehawks he covets. 

 

 

 

 

[i wish jj was my dad]

44 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Correct.  You can only proceed on the basis of pragmatism and having the intelligence to know which fights can be picked and which are best avoided.  

 

Labour simply will not make progress by being cast as the opponent to idiotic views,  perceptions,  suspicions,  prejudices.  It wont get anywhere by telling idiots that they're wrong.  It will only achieve anything by firstly gaining power and secondly by retaining power for at least a second term.  It might be able to change views,  perceptions,  suspicions,  prejudices through actions and results that are only achieved whilst in power.

 

No Labour = more Tory corruption and decline.  That is not an option.

It's really sad but we've seen for ourselves that the focus of Tory policies is to appeal to readers of the sun, express and mail.  Unfortunately, that's what has won them elections.  This election has to be about the economy and inclusive, sustainable growth but those rags will keep the focus on culture wars, stop the boats and demonisation.  You can bet your bottom dollar that as we get closer to elections we will see a lot of focus on what Starmer did or didn't do to stop Savile.   

[Victorian]

19 minutes ago, Portable Badger said:

But that message won’t resonate with the Old Labour Party faithful.

That’s Torytalk you’re stating - that’s what Thatcher focused on. 

 

Who cares?  Old thought socialism and purist free market economy are both obsolete ideologies in the current world.  Labour cannot function as a credible alternative or as a regular government whilst pandering to out-and-out socialism and all points left.  The Tory way and everything it provides to wealthy and powerful private business and financial interests is also completely redundant for ordinary people.

 

People first,  people friendly,  centrist economic values is the future.

[Portable Badger]

7 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Who cares?  Old thought socialism and purist free market economy are both obsolete ideologies in the current world.  Labour cannot function as a credible alternative or as a regular government whilst pandering to out-and-out socialism and all points left.  The Tory way and everything it provides to wealthy and powerful private business and financial interests is also completely redundant for ordinary people.

 

People first,  people friendly,  centrist economic values is the future.

Thanks for answering 👍🏻

 

It gets to part of what I was implying  - namely that there are many on this thread stating they won’t vote Labour cos the party don’t have the Old Labour values of yesteryear.  Those policies don’t work and frankly scare the shite out of most voters today. Starmer will have a job convincing them with his policies & lack of personality but may win cos people just want a change.

 

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Portable Badger said:

Thanks for answering 👍🏻

 

It gets to part of what I was implying  - namely that there are many on this thread stating they won’t vote Labour cos the party don’t have the Old Labour values of yesteryear.  Those policies don’t work and frankly scare the shite out of most voters today. Starmer will have a job convincing them with his policies & lack of personality but may win cos people just want a change.

 

 

In the absence of anything else,  this is the default bare minimum.  A change not just for any change,  but more practically in order to disrupt/interupt the relationships between government,  rich & powerful interests and ruling party donations.  These relationships may well be replaced with others of some limited similarity,  but the status quo needs to be smashed.  

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

In the absence of anything else,  this is the default bare minimum.  A change not just for any change,  but more practically in order to disrupt/interupt the relationships between government,  rich & powerful interests and ruling party donations.  These relationships may well be replaced with others of some limited similarity,  but the status quo needs to be smashed.  

 

"We must replace what we have with something like it, while simultaneously smashing the status quo."

 

 

Ouch.

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

 

"We must replace what we have with something like it, while simultaneously smashing the status quo."

 

 

Ouch.

 

Not really what I said.

 

Ouch.

[Ulysses]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

 

Not really what I said.

 

Ouch.

 

What did you say, then?  You can't "smash the status quo" while also replacing one set of relationships between big players with another similar set of relationships.

 

If the only point is to win, then what's the point? 

 

And is it really good enough that only a minority of voters trust the Labour Party to manage the big issues that should be second nature to the party?  Health, education, housing?

 

We all know that Labour are likely to win the next General Election. The real question is what happens after that.

[Victorian]

Just now, Ulysses said:

 

What did you say, then?  You can't "smash the status quo" while also replacing one set of relationships between big players with another similar set of relationships.

 

If the only point is to win, then what's the point? 

 

And is it really good enough that only a minority of voters trust the Labour Party to manage the big issues that should be second nature to the party?  Health, education, housing?

 

We all know that Labour are likely to win the next General Election. The real question is what happens after that.

 

What I said,  fairly clearly,  was that Labour needs to provide economic policy that puts "people first".  Also that the status quo of relationships between government,  business and financial interests and party funding needs smashed,  albeit there will be relationships with "some limited similarity".  I also mentioned the importance of what happens next.  

 

They need to get in first to effect meaningful change.  And it will take a bit of time.

 

Not sure what your gripe is tbh.  I said all this already.  In plain language.

[ri Alban]

If Labour can't beat the tories on Labour policy,  they ought to chuck it. And if folk are still voting tory, we'll they seriously have a mental illness. 

[The Mighty Thor]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

We all know that Labour are likely to win the next General Election. The real question is what happens after that.

In the words of Roger Daltry

 

'Meet the new boss, same as the old boss'

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

What I said,  fairly clearly,  was that Labour needs to provide economic policy that puts "people first".  Also that the status quo of relationships between government,  business and financial interests and party funding needs smashed,  albeit there will be relationships with "some limited similarity".  I also mentioned the importance of what happens next.  

 

They need to get in first to effect meaningful change.  And it will take a bit of time.

 

Not sure what your gripe is tbh.  I said all this already.  In plain language.

 

My gripe, such as it is, isn't with you.  WADR you weren't as clear as you'd like to think you were, but that's not a complaint.  Nor am I complaining because I disagree with you. I reckon you'll vote Labour at the next GE, and it's highly likely I'd do the same if I was a registered voter in GB.

 

My issue is that even though you know what you want from a Labour government, and even if lots of people including me can get on board with that, what I'm seeing from the current leader of the party makes me very concerned that they won't deliver that.  And I am not saying that from some kind of Millie or Momentum perspective; regardless of Blair's unpopularity in certain quarters, I think his first two governments did a very good job.

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

 

My gripe, such as it is, isn't with you.  WADR you weren't as clear as you'd like to think you were, but that's not a complaint.  Nor am I complaining because I disagree with you. I reckon you'll vote Labour at the next GE, and it's highly likely I'd do the same if I was a registered voter in GB.

 

My issue is that even though you know what you want from a Labour government, and even if lots of people including me can get on board with that, what I'm seeing from the current leader of the party makes me very concerned that they won't deliver that.  And I am not saying that from some kind of Millie or Momentum perspective; regardless of Blair's unpopularity in certain quarters, I think his first two governments did a very good job.

 

Agreed.  But we'll just need to wait and see what's delivered.  They'll need to produce something in the first term to get a second term.  But what the country needs is systemic and sustained change over many years.  

[Ulysses]

30 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

If Labour can't beat the tories on Labour policy,  they ought to chuck it. And if folk are still voting tory, we'll they seriously have a mental illness. 

 

To be fair, Labour is seen as better than the Conservatives on what we'd call Labour policies.  What should worry Labour is that only a minority of voters trust them on those key issues - more than other parties, but still a minority, and still a smaller number than the percentage who say they'll vote Labour.

 

Why does that even matter?  First of all, it shows that voters don't really believe Labour are any different to the Tories on really important stuff like housing, health and education. They are not convinced that this version of the Labour Party will deliver. And secondly, it shows they have a soft support. People are not saying they'll vote for Labour; they're just saying they'll vote against the Conservatives.

 

When I started this thread almost 12 months ago, it was out of frustration at the lacklustre leadership of Labour and its inability to score the open goals being given to it by an ineffective and corrupt government. Then the Tories brought us the Liz Truss fiasco, and Labour found itself well ahead in the polls. But the leadership is still lacklustre, and as long as voters don't genuinely trust the party on "heartland" Labour issues like health, education, housing and welfare, the lead Labour has in the polls could quite easily slip away.