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

[Ulysses]

8 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

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.  

 

I know.  It sounds banal, but before they can achieve anything they first have to get into office.  And the country does need the kind of change you describe.

[Victorian]

.

Wrong Fred.

Edited July 16, 2023 by Victorian

[manaliveits105]

So Keith won't commit to spending on services until economy fixed - guid Tory principle that and Labour will never sort the economy whereas The Tories probably will in time 

Red Mick no happy with Keith 

[JudyJudyJudy]

4 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

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.

Need someone like Andy Burnham to be the leader . Starmer lacks the common man touch and is a boring fart to boot. In the days of personality politics it’s important to have one 

[i wish jj was my dad]

The Tories have had 13 years to fix the economy but what with the shambles they made of brexit and letting Truss and Kwarteng take a wrecking ball it won't be easy for anybody to pull us out of the shite.  

[The Mighty Thor]

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

The Tories have had 13 years to fix the economy but what with the shambles they made of brexit and letting Truss and Kwarteng take a wrecking ball it won't be easy for anybody to pull us out of the shite.  

Particularly when you're starting at -4%GDP and Keith pretends the cause of that will magically work itself out. 

 

It's disingenuous at best. 

[ri Alban]

Borrow to build. Investment in the Country, not in you and your mates bank balances. 

Put the price caps back to what they were before they were lifted, for one. They've made enough out of us. And tax the supermarkets, oik companies etc... on their excess profits. You did notheito earn these, so they're going into help with the poor. There should be no share holder hand outs in water companies running up debt.

 

Build some fecking houses and pay the folk who need a pay rise.

[ri Alban]

And tell the UK what Boris and his mates were up to during their time in government. 

[Ray Gin]

10 hours ago, manaliveits105 said:

Labour will never sort the economy whereas The Tories probably will in time 

 

How long do they need? They've been in power for 13 years. All they've done is absolutely tank it.

[Gundermann]

This is Labour. Cynical and dishonest.

 

Worse, they're powerless. Scottish Labour apparently are a tad pissed off at Starmer changing his tune. However... London must be obeyed.

 

No Scotland, you can't have these laws devolved but, if a Tory or Labour govt in London comes up with shit legislation that hammers the poor, then Scot Gov should mitigate it....

 

[XB52]

I really really hope that, barring independence, the tories win the next election. Labour, whether in UK or Scotland, are just mimicking tory policies, or refusing to alter existing tory policies. Real Labour men/women must be tearing their hair out at the state of this party. 

[ri Alban]

Sounds like the big Labour majors are going to kick up some shite for 'Sir Kid Starver' keeping the tory 2 child policy.  

[JudyJudyJudy]

This is an incredible interview with the great Ken Loach . He takes no prisoners in it . He demolishes Starmer , analysis how Corbyn was vilified and why and how it has impacted on the Labour Party . He feels Labour is now ruined as it’s just Tory lite and calls for the unions to galvanise as they can only affect real change . It’s well worth a listen 

 

 

 

[Victorian]

Nothing worse than an impracticle socialist.  Sure,  the heart is in the right place but the philosophy tends to be unrealistic and/or self defeating.  It's this impracticality that usually helps to ensure the Tories are never out of the picture long enough for meaningful social and economic reform to take place,  develop and people to trust.

 

Show me an over-idealistic socialist and I'll show you an obstacle in the way of a fairer settlement.

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

Sure,  the heart is in the right place but the philosophy tends to be unrealistic and/or self defeating

Actually I would agree really . Ken loach spoke a lot of sense but outright 

“ socialist “ policies would not get labour into number 10 . It’s grand ideas about equality , distribution of wealth , etc etc but reality gets in the way . 

[Victorian]

Just now, JudyJudyJudy said:

Actually I would agree really . Ken loach spoke a lot of sense but outright 

“ socialist “ policies would not get labour into number 10 . It’s grand ideas about equality , distribution of wealth , etc etc but reality gets in the way . 

 

Exactly.  The sentiment of the ideology is perfectly valid but practicality and pragmatism are king in an age of populism,  short termism and,  to be frank,  idiocy.

 

Meaningful redistribution of fairness will take 10 to 20 years.  Step 1 is to lock out the Tories for 20 years.

[JudyJudyJudy]

3 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Exactly.  The sentiment of the ideology is perfectly valid but practicality and pragmatism are king in an age of populism,  short termism and,  to be frank,  idiocy.

 

Meaningful redistribution of fairness will take 10 to 20 years.  Step 1 is to lock out the Tories for 20 years.

👍

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

Meaningful redistribution of fairness will take 10 to 20 years.  Step 1 is to lock out the Tories for 20 years.

 

And replace them with what?  You won't get a one-party Labour government for 20 years. It simply won't happen.

[Victorian]

11 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

And replace them with what?  You won't get a one-party Labour government for 20 years. It simply won't happen.

 

Probably not.  That's the problem.  

 

The greed and protectionism of the right is absolutely obsolete for ordinary people,  but so to is the idealism of some on the left.  

[Costanza]

You could lock out the Tories with PR but here's Starmer:

 

"On Thursday, Keir Starmer’s spokesperson said he has a “longstanding view against proportional representation”.

It is a view he kept well hidden during the 2020 Labour leadership election, when he said: “On electoral reform, we’ve got to address the fact that millions of people vote in safe seats and they feel their voice doesn’t count. That’s got to be addressed. We will never get full participation in our electoral system until we do that at every level.”

 

Honestly, the guys a charlatan.

He seems more interested in not scaring the horses and fighting factional battles with the left, that on even minor spending commitments like scrapping the 2 child benefit cap (1.4 bn to lift 270k children out of poverty) he's changed his mind on it.

 

 

 

[The Mighty Thor]

12 minutes ago, Costanza said:

You could lock out the Tories with PR but here's Starmer:

 

"On Thursday, Keir Starmer’s spokesperson said he has a “longstanding view against proportional representation”.

It is a view he kept well hidden during the 2020 Labour leadership election, when he said: “On electoral reform, we’ve got to address the fact that millions of people vote in safe seats and they feel their voice doesn’t count. That’s got to be addressed. We will never get full participation in our electoral system until we do that at every level.”

 

Honestly, the guys a charlatan.

He seems more interested in not scaring the horses and fighting factional battles with the left, that on even minor spending commitments like scrapping the 2 child benefit cap (1.4 bn to lift 270k children out of poverty) he's changed his mind on it.

 

 

 

 

This will be Keith's undoing.

 

He stands for nothing and will tell whichever self interest group whatever they want to hear to get him into Downing Street.

 

Anyone that thinks he'll shrug of the caution of any campaign once in office is dangerously deluded. That's of course if he navigates the Tory PR/smear campaign which will utterly assassinate his lack of back-bone.

 

 

[XB52]

14 minutes ago, Costanza said:

You could lock out the Tories with PR but here's Starmer:

 

"On Thursday, Keir Starmer’s spokesperson said he has a “longstanding view against proportional representation”.

It is a view he kept well hidden during the 2020 Labour leadership election, when he said: “On electoral reform, we’ve got to address the fact that millions of people vote in safe seats and they feel their voice doesn’t count. That’s got to be addressed. We will never get full participation in our electoral system until we do that at every level.”

 

Honestly, the guys a charlatan.

He seems more interested in not scaring the horses and fighting factional battles with the left, that on even minor spending commitments like scrapping the 2 child benefit cap (1.4 bn to lift 270k children out of poverty) he's changed his mind on it.

 

 

 

This type of crap is why Labour can't be trusted and why I still think the tories will win the next GE. The right wing media will be on overdrive showing the Labour lies, obviously ignoring the tory ones

[Victorian]

He needs to do a better job of explaining that prosperity,  affordable cost of living,  fairer wages and benefits will follow from creating economic growth,  resuscitation of the day-to-day real economy and reducing and mitigating against inflation.  And that it will not be instantly achieved.

 

Do something organic and sustainable and people wont need to demand 15% pay rises.  And the spectrum of benefits entitlements will begin to make a difference.

 

He does need to explain things better and move beyond the headline mantra of economic growth.

[Gundermann]

4 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

This is an incredible interview with the great Ken Loach . He takes no prisoners in it . He demolishes Starmer , analysis how Corbyn was vilified and why and how it has impacted on the Labour Party . He feels Labour is now ruined as it’s just Tory lite and calls for the unions to galvanise as they can only affect real change . It’s well worth a listen 

 

 

 

 

 

Nice one.

 

Labour getting it tight from many quarters now. Dame Jackie Baillie was crucified on Radio Scotland this morning - not oft thought of as a Paxman-type beast.

 

Not a huge fan of the National, or any newspaper really, but they've nailed it here:

[Gundermann]

#SirKidStarver trending too. What a midden by Labour.

 

[Costanza]

9 minutes ago, Victorian said:

He needs to do a better job of explaining that prosperity,  affordable cost of living,  fairer wages and benefits will follow from creating economic growth,  resuscitation of the day-to-day real economy and reducing and mitigating against inflation.  And that it will not be instantly achieved.

 

Do something organic and sustainable and people wont need to demand 15% pay rises.  And the spectrum of benefits entitlements will begin to make a difference.

 

He does need to explain things better and move beyond the headline mantra of economic growth.

All politicians talk of growth but is there any detail to how he will achieve that? 

Also, is the message to people struggling "we'd like to help you but we can't until we grow the economy which will take an unspecified length of time"?

Talk about giving people hope!

 

We're not talking about mass Corbyn expansionist pledges here but some small tinkering of the welfare state.

The cost of the two child cap is less than the money given to Ukraine.

Is that money also going to be subject to fiscal responsibility?

These are deliberate choices and it's no wonder people are scathing of it given what he has pledged in the past.

[Costanza]

20 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

 

This will be Keith's undoing.

 

He stands for nothing and will tell whichever self interest group whatever they want to hear to get him into Downing Street.

 

Anyone that thinks he'll shrug of the caution of any campaign once in office is dangerously deluded. That's of course if he navigates the Tory PR/smear campaign which will utterly assassinate his lack of back-bone.

 

 

If he did reverse caution in power he'll be accused by some of betraying his manifesto. Might be a good thing for some but potentially ruinous for Labour longer term.

[Victorian]

8 minutes ago, Costanza said:

All politicians talk of growth but is there any detail to how he will achieve that? 

Also, is the message to people struggling "we'd like to help you but we can't until we grow the economy which will take an unspecified length of time"?

Talk about giving people hope!

 

We're not talking about mass Corbyn expansionist pledges here but some small tinkering of the welfare state.

The cost of the two child cap is less than the money given to Ukraine.

Is that money also going to be subject to fiscal responsibility?

These are deliberate choices and it's no wonder people are scathing of it given what he has pledged in the past.

 

Absolutely.  It can't simple be all about 'jam tomorrow'.  A more timely benefit to people is mitigation against inflation and related cost of living.  Maybe they need to develop some kind of package to centrally fund subsidised energy,  transport costs,  maybe even basic food essentials,  etc.  

[ri Alban]

The way he's going,  it'll be a case of why vote Labour,  when you can vote tory and get the real thing.

[Japan Jambo]

1 hour ago, The Mighty Thor said:

 

This will be Keith's undoing.

 

He stands for nothing and will tell whichever self interest group whatever they want to hear to get him into Downing Street.

 

Anyone that thinks he'll shrug of the caution of any campaign once in office is dangerously deluded. That's of course if he navigates the Tory PR/smear campaign which will utterly assassinate his lack of back-bone.

 

 

 

The ultimate empty blouse, complete and utter charlatan.

[Gundermann]

1 hour ago, ri Alban said:

The way he's going,  it'll be a case of why vote Labour,  when you can vote tory and get the real thing.

 

All Starmef is offering is to be a more effective Tory who won't completely tank the economy but will otherwise keep the current course and do eff-all for the poor, be they in work or out.

 

[Victorian]

Nothing like giving someone a chance,  eh?

 

Enjoy the Tories getting back in in about 6 years time.  

[ri Alban]

6 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Nothing like giving someone a chance,  eh?

 

Enjoy the Tories getting back in in about 6 years time.  

A chance to do what? Tell us.

[Victorian]

Just now, ri Alban said:

A chance to do what? Tell us.

 

A chance to improve the fairness of peoples' lives over what will take a good few years.

 

Alternatively just say it can't be done,  wont be done,  continue to wonder why the Tories get away with enriching the rich and ****ing the poor.  

[BlueRiver]

15 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

A chance to improve the fairness of peoples' lives over what will take a good few years.

 

Alternatively just say it can't be done,  wont be done,  continue to wonder why the Tories get away with enriching the rich and ****ing the poor.  

 

They prefer glorious opposition and greeting than having the capability to change literally anything. 

 

The masochism of the left that want a rerun of the miner strikes knows no bounds. 

[The Mighty Thor]

16 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

A chance to improve the fairness of peoples' lives over what will take a good few years.

 

Alternatively just say it can't be done,  wont be done,  continue to wonder why the Tories get away with enriching the rich and ****ing the poor.  

He's not offering to improve the fairness of people's lives. 

 

He's not offering an alternative. He's adopting the 'make Brexit work' nonsense that will simply not work and is the key driver of our inflationary and GDP woes. 

 

He's not willing to challenge the electoral status quo by adopting PR, despiet saying he would.

 

In fact he's not offering anything different.

 

Keith couldn't land a blow on the most corrupt PM in history and he's now got the biggest 'open goal' in British political history in front of him and as he reveals himself week by week as we get closer to the GE, you get the sense that he's going to feck it up. 

[The Mighty Thor]

1 hour ago, ri Alban said:

The way he's going,  it'll be a case of why vote Labour,  when you can vote tory and get the real thing.

 

 

Which is exactly what Englandshire will do. 

 

1 hour ago, Japan Jambo said:

 

The ultimate empty blouse, complete and utter charlatan.

 

This. A total fraud. 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Completely laughable piece from Toynbee in the Guardian. She’s decided that Starmer is the bomb and is basically saying, just elect him and then see what happens

[Japan Jambo]

2 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Completely laughable piece from Toynbee in the Guardian. She’s decided that Starmer is the bomb and is basically saying, just elect him and then see what happens

 

spoiler alert - feck all

[i wish jj was my dad]

I've never voted Labour and am certainly no fan of Starmer but short of the country saying none of the above I have no idea what the alternative is. He simply CAN'T be as bad as what has gone before. 

And I don't see independence as the solution either. The wind is out of the SNP's sails and I could never bring myself to support Alba while sleepy cuddles is headlining that gig. HTF did we get into this effing mess? 

[Costanza]

10 hours ago, Victorian said:

 

Absolutely.  It can't simple be all about 'jam tomorrow'.  A more timely benefit to people is mitigation against inflation and related cost of living.  Maybe they need to develop some kind of package to centrally fund subsidised energy,  transport costs,  maybe even basic food essentials,  etc.  

I wouldn't consider the two-child benefit cap as jam tomorrow. It's a relatively small amount of money to lift a huge number of children out of poverty. Given the impact on families and the UK's low birth rate (about 1.6) it doesn't even seem that economically sensible either.

It's also a bit of a dog whistle implying 3 kids families are somehow undesirable.

Starmer has been given a huge hospital pass with the Tories economic catastrophe but a continuation of more austerity is not going to grow the economy or repair the huge structural damage the Tories have done.

No one sensible wants the Tories to win power but that doesn't mean Starmer can escape criticism for his endless uturns.

[SectionDJambo]

If we don’t get a change of government next time, then Matt Bellamy’s shirt will be the truth.

This can’t go on. Like Major/Thatcher and Sunny Jim, enough is enough.

We need to break the cycle of corruption and arrogance of power.

It is up to the people.

[Ulysses]

14 hours ago, Victorian said:

 

Probably not.  That's the problem.  

 

The greed and protectionism of the right is absolutely obsolete for ordinary people,  but so to is the idealism of some on the left.  

 

So therefore meaningful redistribution of fairness won't ever happen?  

 

Ah well, let's all vote Conservative so.  Or Liberal Democrat, or Green, or Plaid, or SNP, or something.

[Ulysses]

10 hours ago, Victorian said:

 

A chance to improve the fairness of peoples' lives over what will take a good few years.

 

Alternatively just say it can't be done,  wont be done,  continue to wonder why the Tories get away with enriching the rich and ****ing the poor.  

 

But you've already said it can't be done.  If the people who are committed to voting Labour think Labour are doomed to failure, they're not exactly selling the concept to everyone else.  

[i wish jj was my dad]

5 hours ago, Costanza said:

I wouldn't consider the two-child benefit cap as jam tomorrow. It's a relatively small amount of money to lift a huge number of children out of poverty. Given the impact on families and the UK's low birth rate (about 1.6) it doesn't even seem that economically sensible either.

It's also a bit of a dog whistle implying 3 kids families are somehow undesirable.

Starmer has been given a huge hospital pass with the Tories economic catastrophe but a continuation of more austerity is not going to grow the economy or repair the huge structural damage the Tories have done.

No one sensible wants the Tories to win power but that doesn't mean Starmer can escape criticism for his endless uturns.

This is a very good post. You would have to be one heartless b'stard to support this policy which is wrong on moral and economic grounds. Do we stop the 'feckless' from sending their third kid to school next because it's a burden on the state? 

I get that whoever has to clear up the mess has to grow the economy but that has to be driven by a basic premise of decency. 

[ri Alban]

20 hours ago, Victorian said:

Nothing worse than an impracticle socialist.  Sure,  the heart is in the right place but the philosophy tends to be unrealistic and/or self defeating.  It's this impracticality that usually helps to ensure the Tories are never out of the picture long enough for meaningful social and economic reform to take place,  develop and people to trust.

 

Show me an over-idealistic socialist and I'll show you an obstacle in the way of a fairer settlement.

And I'll show you a tory. 

 

It's like listening to the UKG, out justifying the unjustifiable.  

 

 

We can't have Scottish independence,  just because we want rid of the Tories,  but we 'Must' give Labour a chance. Not with this Tory in charge, I'd rather the tories did what the tories do, not blue Labour gaslighting us like they did in 2014.

[Victorian]

4 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

So therefore meaningful redistribution of fairness won't ever happen?  

 

Ah well, let's all vote Conservative so.  Or Liberal Democrat, or Green, or Plaid, or SNP, or something.

 

4 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

But you've already said it can't be done.  If the people who are committed to voting Labour think Labour are doomed to failure, they're not exactly selling the concept to everyone else.  

 

There's no choice other than to put faith in Labour to gain control and hopefully stick around long enough to make a difference.  It's no different to any other democratic event.  Voting is always an act of faith,  trust,  hope.  What you get is usually different from that of what you perceive.  It's simply a hope that a new administration will succeed.

 

The alternative is more corruption and decline and inequality.  

[Gundermann]

4 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

 

There's no choice other than to put faith in Labour to gain control and hopefully stick around long enough to make a difference.  It's no different to any other democratic event.  Voting is always an act of faith,  trust,  hope.  What you get is usually different from that of what you perceive.  It's simply a hope that a new administration will succeed.

 

The alternative is more corruption and decline and inequality.  

 

A choice would be independence - if the UK establishment wasn't so feart. That would at least give the Labour Party here the chance to do its own thing and preferably return to being a progressive left-of-centre force for good and not just pale Tories and lapdogs of the Murdoch empire.

 

Labour have had substantial stints in power in recent decades and done virtually eff-all with it. Blair had huge power but got in bed with Bush - the craziest US president in history at that point - and took us into an illegal war. Labour in Scotland lumbered our local authorities with the PFI farce - I work in one. It's a disgrace. I also believe the gap between rich and poor widened during the Blair/ Brown years.

 

I wish for power to be devolved as far down as possible. Independence would be a start. Norway with its egalitarian distribution of resources and strong local democracy is a fairly good model for us, IMO.

[XB52]

5 minutes ago, Gundermann said:

 

A choice would be independence - if the UK establishment wasn't so feart. That would at least give the Labour Party here the chance to do its own thing and preferably return to being a progressive left-of-centre force for good and not just pale Tories and lapdogs of the Murdoch empire.

 

Labour have had substantial stints in power in recent decades and done virtually eff-all with it. Blair had huge power but got in bed with Bush - the craziest US president in history at that point - and took us into an illegal war. Labour in Scotland lumbered our local authorities with the PFI farce - I work in one. It's a disgrace. I also believe the gap between rich and poor widened during the Blair/ Brown years.

 

I wish for power to be devolved as far down as possible. Independence would be a start. Norway with its egalitarian distribution of resources and strong local democracy is a fairly good model for us, IMO.

Exactly. In Scotland we have a true choice to make; stay with the 2 main right wing parties, or go with independence 

[Victorian]

3 minutes ago, Gundermann said:

 

A choice would be independence - if the UK establishment wasn't so feart. That would at least give the Labour Party here the chance to do its own thing and preferably return to being a progressive left-of-centre force for good and not just pale Tories and lapdogs of the Murdoch empire.

 

Labour have had substantial stints in power in recent decades and done virtually eff-all with it. Blair had huge power but got in bed with Bush - the craziest US president in history at that point - and took us into an illegal war. Labour in Scotland lumbered our local authorities with the PFI farce - I work in one. It's a disgrace. I also believe the gap between rich and poor widened during the Blair/ Brown years.

 

I wish for power to be devolved as far down as possible. Independence would be a start. Norway with its egalitarian distribution of resources and strong local democracy is a fairly good model for us, IMO.

 

Fine.  But all the indications are that independence probably isn't likely in the forseeable future.  Getting rid of the Tories is very likely.  Keeping rid of the Tories is less certain but still realistic.  An attempt at change is necessary.

 

Imagine the nick of the country if and when the Tories start another long cycle of power.  The calibre of person that inhalbits the parliamentary party is in the sewer and will get worse.  

 

Like all democratic events.  None are ever guarantees of delivery.  Even a vote for independence is the same leap of faith as voting for an alternative party of power.