Current Affairs The Labour Party

Status
Not open for further replies.
tsubaki said:
The mistake you are making here is that you think Starmer and the group around him represent change of the kind that is required to fix the country and protect us going forwards. They do not; if they did they would not be "twenty points ahead in the polls", nor would they be receiving such an easy ride in the press.
Click to expand...
In your opinion.
 
tsubaki said:
The mistake you are making here is that you think Starmer and the group around him represent change of the kind that is required to fix the country and protect us going forwards. They do not; if they did they would not be "twenty points ahead in the polls", nor would they be receiving such an easy ride in the press.
Click to expand...
I dont think anybody truly believes Starmer will represent change or fix the country and if they do, they are utterly deluded, this country is about 3 or 4 Election cycles away from getting fixed and even that would require Leadership that simply doesnt exist.
 
Goat said:
I dont think anybody truly believes Starmer will represent change or fix the country and if they do, they are utterly deluded, this country is about 3 or 4 Election cycles away from getting fixed and even that would require Leadership that simply doesnt exist.
Click to expand...
As you memorably said mate: you're not voting Labour to get Labour....

crazy-eyes-steve-buscemi.gif
 
tsubaki said:
The mistake you are making here is that you think Starmer and the group around him represent change of the kind that is required to fix the country and protect us going forwards. They do not; if they did they would not be "twenty points ahead in the polls", nor would they be receiving such an easy ride in the press.
Click to expand...
Which is a bit problematic. Fundamentally if we don't have a party play the game then they're not getting into power.

Pretty sure I've described it as a faustian pact and an electoral rock and a hard place before, which is what it is. It'll be amelioration rather than total divergence in terms of approach and effects.
 
tsubaki said:
The mistake you are making here is that you think Starmer and the group around him represent change of the kind that is required to fix the country and protect us going forwards. They do not; if they did they would not be "twenty points ahead in the polls", nor would they be receiving such an easy ride in the press.
Click to expand...
Fair enough on all of that, but my question was really specifically about the alternatives. Is there something you have in mind that would be a better realistic approach? tis the last time i ask, dont expect an answer to be honest just procrastinations...
 
NilSatisOptimum said:
Fair enough on all of that, but my question was really specifically about the alternatives. Is there something you have in mind that would be a better realistic approach? tis the last time i ask, dont expect an answer to be honest just procrastinations...
Click to expand...

Go back a few pages and you’ll see the pledges starmer ran on to become leader.

Those pledges with starmer at the front of them wins the election.

He’s chosen to take the path he’s taken when he didn’t need to.

A Labour Party can be modern, progressive, and champion some left wing policies whilst appealing to the middle ground.

That’s what I thought I was getting when I voted for starmer. Unfortunately that isn’t the case.
 
Goat said:
I dont think anybody truly believes Starmer will represent change or fix the country and if they do, they are utterly deluded, this country is about 3 or 4 Election cycles away from getting fixed and even that would require Leadership that simply doesnt exist.
Click to expand...

I disagree in terms of the time involved - the Labour leadership doesn't really have any real support (of the kind required to weather a big crisis) amongst the electorate or the membership, nor are there credible replacements of the same type lurking in the wings. It isn't possible to consistently implement policy without either of those things

If (when) the likes of Streeting or Reeves get into trouble because of their policies, they will fall and the policies will change.
 
NilSatisOptimum said:
Fair enough on all of that, but my question was really specifically about the alternatives. Is there something you have in mind that would be a better realistic approach? tis the last time i ask, dont expect an answer to be honest just procrastinations...
Click to expand...

"Realistic" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.

What needs to happen is we get genuine local politicians being elected to parliament and representing their constituents fairly and honestly. That isn't realistic because it would mean the death of the modern party system, but it is what is needed because doing that is the first step in getting competent government.
 
Charro said:
Go back a few pages and you’ll see the pledges starmer ran on to become leader.

Those pledges with starmer at the front of them wins the election.

He’s chosen to take the path he’s taken when he didn’t need to.

A Labour Party can be modern, progressive, and champion some left wing policies whilst appealing to the middle ground.

That’s what I thought I was getting when I voted for starmer. Unfortunately that isn’t the case.
Click to expand...

tsubaki said:
"Realistic" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.

What needs to happen is we get genuine local politicians being elected to parliament and representing their constituents fairly and honestly. That isn't realistic because it would mean the death of the modern party system, but it is what is needed because doing that is the first step in getting competent government.
Click to expand...
The Party of Procrastination more original than Protest, think Ill leave the idealism there and get to back to the Party of pragmatism and realism, Labour...
 
NilSatisOptimum said:
The Party of Procrastination more original than Protest, think Ill leave the idealism there and get to back to the Party of pragmatism and realism, Labour...
Click to expand...

If Labour want to be in power for the long term they will have to implement left wing policies.

The landscape changes once you are in power and the Labour Party will have to change over time if it wants to be in power long term.

I worry this current Labour Party has one term only to lose at the next election to a tory party that has veered even more towards the right.

They’re getting in because the electorate has had enough of the tories in power. In five years time they won’t have that to go back on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top