Current Affairs The Labour Party

[orchard]

How about let’s wait and see ?

How about a 5 year elected oligarchy with a massive majority of whip-drips ?

 

[Rita_Poon]

I've made no mention of Windrush, you brought that to the fore. I suggest you re-read, and if you want to call May a racist go ahead ffs.

you brought may, Starmer, and extradition to the fore. Now you're on the run.

 

[orchard]

you brought may, Starmer, and extradition to the fore. Now you're on the run.

Christ. I compared their attitudes in one specific case. You're erroneously extrapolating from that and suggesting I think she's better than Starmer like life's some sort of Top-Trump game.

 

[davek]

The overall impression I get is he's happy to put the boot in to low-lying fruit (6month prison sentence for stealing a bottle of water during a riot) but finds reasons to let the establishment escape justice when it goes ott.

He appals me. He's the most sinister, potentially most authoritarian, PM in the making we've had for many a long year.

I stick by what I said all along: this feller will be utterly hated with a vengeance before the first year of his premiership is out.

 

[Rita_Poon]

Christ. I compared their attitudes in one specific case. You're erroneously extrapolating from that and suggesting I think she's better than Starmer like life's some sort of Top-Trump game.

I made a statement. There was no mind reading or suggestion involved.

 

[davek]

Oh ffs

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Using the Johnson government as a benchmark ? Are you saying that like Johnson, Starmer/Labour's pledges mean nothing anyway ? How specifically are Labour going to be better than the Tories in that case ? Foreign policy will be the same. Economics are going to be the same. A better distribution of accents?

I'd say the manifestos are largely useless, yes. I mean the Lib Dems are engaging in a whole lot of fantasy politics because they know full well they'll never have to deliver on anything. Labour are perhaps being marginally more realistic, but I'm prepared to wait and see.

Regarding what I'd view as a good outcome. I suppose two things for this parliament, one that's within their control and one that isn't. On the former, the Tories, certainly since Johnson, and arguably since Brexit, have been sleazy and corrupt in the way they've gone about things, so I'd like Starmer to return the office of government to something approaching respectability and decency again, as we've lost a lot of standing both at home and abroad due to the utter shambles since 2016. On the latter, it's been noticeable how little domestic governance has really happened since 2016. Some of that is due to self-inflicted chaos (Brexit) and some due to external affairs (Covid and Ukraine), but a return to humdrum, run of the mill governance would be no bad thing and help to try and get public services into better shape again. This would also include being pragmatic in negotiations with Brussels so that we try to minimise the damage Brexit is causing.

If they can do that then I'd be fairly happy. I've said before that we're in a mess financially, so it's hard to see enormous changes happening until the economy is in better shape.

 

[orchard]

I made a statement. There was no mind reading or suggestion involved.

Yeah, okay, May was/is a complete arse, but somehow managed to appear humane compared with Starmer in that particular instance.

 

[orchard]

I'd say the manifestos are largely useless, yes. I mean the Lib Dems are engaging in a whole lot of fantasy politics because they know full well they'll never have to deliver on anything. Labour are perhaps being marginally more realistic, but I'm prepared to wait and see.

Regarding what I'd view as a good outcome. I suppose two things for this parliament, one that's within their control and one that isn't. On the former, the Tories, certainly since Johnson, and arguably since Brexit, have been sleazy and corrupt in the way they've gone about things, so I'd like Starmer to return the office of government to something approaching respectability and decency again, as we've lost a lot of standing both at home and abroad due to the utter shambles since 2016. On the latter, it's been noticeable how little domestic governance has really happened since 2016. Some of that is due to self-inflicted chaos (Brexit) and some due to external affairs (Covid and Ukraine), but a return to humdrum, run of the mill governance would be no bad thing and help to try and get public services into better shape again. This would also include being pragmatic in negotiations with Brussels so that we try to minimise the damage Brexit is causing.

If they can do that then I'd be fairly happy. I've said before that we're in a mess financially, so it's hard to see enormous changes happening until the economy is in better shape.

Isn't the manifesto of an elected party supposed to be legally binding to a certain degree ?

I get all the hope mate, I really do, but you're not going to get a change from them being 'sleazy and corrupt in the way they've gone about things' the evidence is there already. Subsidised corporatism all the way with financial liabilities kicking in down the line, and this is not what the country needs imo.

 

[Xizor]

Isn't the manifesto of an elected party supposed to be legally binding to a certain degree ?

No. By convention the Lords won't attempt to block/significantly change anything that a government tries to do that was announced in their manifesto, as at that point it's considered that the electorate have already explicitly agreed to its implementation.

This is why some Tories were calling for the ECHR withdrawal to be included in their manifesto - not just because it's a statement of intent but on the slim chance they have of victory it would cut the Lords out of interfering the way they have over Rwanda so far.

But in terms of some sort of 'binding' promise? The main jeopardy to ignoring your manifesto once in office is that your opponents can throw it back at you next time, "You said this and didn't do it" etc. I never really pay too much attention but I assume most manifestos fall apart when they hit the reality of power, especially ones made by the opposition who may have very little experience of governing.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Isn't the manifesto of an elected party supposed to be legally binding to a certain degree ?

I get all the hope mate, I really do, but you're not going to get a change from them being 'sleazy and corrupt in the way they've gone about things' the evidence is there already. Subsidised corporatism all the way with financial liabilities kicking in down the line, and this is not what the country needs imo.

It's relative I suppose. I mean I don't suppose if we went back in time we'd view the Major government, or even the Blair government as being without sleaze and corruption, but they both seem saintly compared to the shambles since 2016. I'm not expecting Mother Theresa, just something better than we've had for the last 7 years.

 

[orchard]

No. By convention the Lords won't attempt to block/significantly change anything that a government tries to do that was announced in their manifesto, as at that point it's considered that the electorate have already explicitly agreed to its implementation.

This is why some Tories were calling for the ECHR withdrawal to be included in their manifesto - not just because it's a statement of intent but on the slim chance they have of victory it would cut the Lords out of interfering the way they have over Rwanda so far.

But in terms of some sort of 'binding' promise? The main jeopardy to ignoring your manifesto once in office is that your opponents can throw it back at you next time, "You said this and didn't do it" etc. I never really pay too much attention but I assume most manifestos fall apart when they hit the reality of power, especially ones made by the opposition who may have very little experience of governing.

Yeah, it was specifically regarding the HoL being obliged to wave through policy from the manifesto that I was thinking about, and as you say, it's convention, cheers.

 

[Wizard]

A 13-ish year old who hacked a US gov server looking for UFO stuff was going to be extradited to the US for a C70yr sentence by Starmer but May overruled his decision.
Very long, had it on in the background.

I just looked into this as it sounded a bit mad. He wasn't a teenager, he was in his mid-30's and did a bit more than looking for UFO stuff. His extradition case took 10 years to be decided, eventually being blocked due to him having Asperger's and being a suicide risk. Alan Johnson was Home Secretary for part of this time and he said he should have been extradited and criticised May. When May finally blocked it Keir Starmer had to decide whether to prosecute in the UK and decided not to.

So a bit more complicated than "May saving the young teen from Starmer".

Gary McKinnon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ArtetaMoney]

I just looked into this as it sounded a bit mad. He wasn't a teenager, he was in his mid-30's and did a bit more than looking for UFO stuff. His extradition case took 10 years to be decided, eventually being blocked due to him having Asperger's and being a suicide risk. Alan Johnson was Home Secretary for part of this time and he said he should have been extradited and criticised May. When May finally blocked it Keir Starmer had to decide whether to prosecute in the UK and decided not to.

So a bit more complicated than "May saving the young teen from Starmer".

Gary McKinnon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Don’t let the truth ruin a good lie.

 

[Walken]

I just looked into this as it sounded a bit mad. He wasn't a teenager, he was in his mid-30's and did a bit more than looking for UFO stuff. His extradition case took 10 years to be decided, eventually being blocked due to him having Asperger's and being a suicide risk. Alan Johnson was Home Secretary for part of this time and he said he should have been extradited and criticised May. When May finally blocked it Keir Starmer had to decide whether to prosecute in the UK and decided not to.

So a bit more complicated than "May saving the young teen from Starmer".

Gary McKinnon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I remember reading an interview with him in FHM of all places, felt sorry for him but by his own admission was a long way from being a lad interested in UFOs. When someone willingly becomes a Davek acolyte you have to scrutinise their posts more carefully. Which is a bit of a shame for such a good poster.