Bye Bye Tories

[RestlessSoul]

If the Tories had fielded a half decent candidate for Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan would have been vulnerable. ULEZ, Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, knife crime and Labour’s weak response to Gaza could all have worked against him. But conservative central office decided to choose a xenophobic, Islamophobic, homophobic little Englander in the nation’s capital. Tory uselessness now extends to their own election strategies.

 

[Secret Chief]

Khan in again.

 

[Kathryn]

Yes he did, but what a silly mistake for the Former Prime Minister whose government had introduced compulsory photo-id at voting stations.
Or maybe he thought that such folks as he didn't need to obey rules? After all, he held parties during the covid lockdown.

Don't get me started.

 

[Secret Chief]

Don't get me started.

Weren't they just socially-distanced work meetings that just happened to involve a small glass of wine?






sorry

 

[Kathryn]

Weren't they just socially-distanced work meetings that just happened to involve a small glass of wine?






sorry

Sure!

 

[Yerda]

I've got a PhD in cynicism but I concur with @Altfish on this point. Now we have the joys of social media I think things have significantly changed on the public influencing stage but back then I think the Murd*** press could, if not make or break a party's chances they certainly had a strong influence. Until 2018 the Sun had the largest daily newspaper circulation in the UK.

This is my point.

Blair was so successful because he was literally Rupert Murdoch's child's godfather. Not because he had great ideas, delivered spectacular results, was so compelling a thinker that people couldn't help but get swept up. He promised to give Satan whatever he wanted in return for support. He was such a giving ally that he was taken into their household. New Labour weren't more electable because they were better at politics. It was because they promised not to threaten anyone with money and power.

And now, Starmer is definitely better at politics than Corbyn. But not that much. He has no backbone and melts under mild scrutiny. His success (and the subsequent press annihilation of the Conservatives) is because he promises not to threaten anyone with money and power.

 

[RestlessSoul]

This is my point.

Blair was so successful because he was literally Rupert Murdoch's child's godfather. Not because he had great ideas, delivered spectacular results, was so compelling a thinker that people couldn't help but get swept up. He promised to give Satan whatever he wanted in return for support. He was such a giving ally that he was taken into their household. New Labour weren't more electable because they were better at politics. It was because they promised not to threaten anyone with money and power.

And now, Starmer is definitely better at politics than Corbyn. But not that much. He has no backbone and melts under mild scrutiny. His success (and the subsequent press annihilation of the Conservatives) is because he promises not to threaten anyone with money and power.

Starmer’s success - and it’s remarkable the extent to which he’s reversed Labour’s fortunes - is due to the fact he’s reclaimed the centre ground of British politics. The centre ground is where most people are, and I say that as someone whose own political views are closer to Jeremy Corbyn’s on most issues.

If protest politics and ideological purity are your thing, there are other parties. The purpose of the Labour Party is to govern, and for that you need to win elections

 

[Yerda]

Starmer’s success - and it’s remarkable the extent to which he’s reversed Labour’s fortunes - is due to the fact he’s reclaimed the centre ground of British politics.

This is courtier speak for, "he has made sure that Labour will not threaten anyone that matters". Which is my point.

The centre ground is where most people are, and I say that as someone whose own political views are closer to Jeremy Corbyn’s on most issues.

Ah, so this why cartoonish buffoons and right wing psychos are winning power everywhere. They must have claimed the "centre ground".

If protest politics and ideological purity are your thing, there are other parties. The purpose of the Labour Party is to govern, and for that you need to win elections.

The purpose of the Labour party is supposed to be to represent the labour movement. Winning elections is good for the people on the gravy train but precisely zero use to us if the are beholden to a few exceptionally powerful interests.

It blows my mind that people can sling cheap shots about protest politics and ideological purity while willfully ignoring (at least) half a century of electoral politics all over the world. We keep seeing this happen, you keep voting for them and having a go at the people pointing out that it is obviously daft to expect anything from them when they **** us over. I mean, wow. You're such a pragmatic and muscular realist that you can completely dismiss the fifty previous occasions that this has happened. Heroic even.

 

[Altfish]

This is courtier speak for, "he has made sure that Labour will not threaten anyone that matters". Which is my point.


Ah, so this why cartoonish buffoons and right wing psychos are winning power everywhere. They must have claimed the "centre ground".


The purpose of the Labour party is supposed to be to represent the labour movement. Winning elections is good for the people on the gravy train but precisely zero use to us if the are beholden to a few exceptionally powerful interests.

It blows my mind that people can sling cheap shots about protest politics and ideological purity while willfully ignoring (at least) half a century of electoral politics all over the world. We keep seeing this happen, you keep voting for them and having a go at the people pointing out that it is obviously daft to expect anything from them when they **** us over. I mean, wow. You're such a pragmatic and muscular realist that you can completely dismiss the fifty previous occasions that this has happened. Heroic even.

I think we would all prefer a more left-wing Labour Party but history tells us that they don't get enough of the public support to win an election.
So, sadly, the choice is hold your nose and vote Labour; or vote for someone else and help the Tories get in again.

 

[RestlessSoul]

This is courtier speak for, "he has made sure that Labour will not threaten anyone that matters". Which is my point.


Ah, so this why cartoonish buffoons and right wing psychos are winning power everywhere. They must have claimed the "centre ground".


The purpose of the Labour party is supposed to be to represent the labour movement. Winning elections is good for the people on the gravy train but precisely zero use to us if the are beholden to a few exceptionally powerful interests.

It blows my mind that people can sling cheap shots about protest politics and ideological purity while willfully ignoring (at least) half a century of electoral politics all over the world. We keep seeing this happen, you keep voting for them and having a go at the people pointing out that it is obviously daft to expect anything from them when they **** us over. I mean, wow. You're such a pragmatic and muscular realist that you can completely dismiss the fifty previous occasions that this has happened. Heroic even.

So what's your vision for Labour then? Remain true to socialist principles (however you define them) whilst remaining forever on the margins, untainted by power? How does that benefit working people?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Of course, I'm happy to see the Tories get trashed at the elections, but this is tinged with caution for two reasons:

First, the last Labour prime minister was Tony Blair, a war criminal and warmonger who should stand trial for what he did as PM. Just because the Tories' government has been atrocious doesn't necessarily mean Labour's will be much (or even any) better.

Second, Keir Starmer seems to me a chameleon who barely has any principles. It is one thing to be pragmatic and appeal to the general electorate via compromises and discussion to modify one's platform; I think it is often necessary to win elections. In my opinion, Starmer has gone past this and into vague, equivocating territory on more than one issue, chief among them is the war on Gaza—and Labour has lost many votes from Muslims due to its leadership's position on the war.

Sir Keir has denied he ever backed Israel withholding humanitarian aid from Gaza.

Asked on LBC on October 11 if cutting off power and water was an appropriate response, Sir Keir replied: "I think that Israel does have that right. It is an ongoing situation.

"Obviously everything should be done within international law, but I don’t want to step away from the core principles that Israel has a right to defend herself and Hamas bears responsibility for the terrorist acts."

But he later rowed back the remarks amid concerns within the party that it has angered voters, particularly those in Muslim communities.

On October 2, he told broadcasters: "I know that LBC clip has been widely shared and caused real concern and distress in some Muslim communities, so let me be clear about what I was saying and what I wasn’t saying.

"I was saying that Israel has the right to self-defence, and when I said that right I meant it was that right to self-defence.

"I was not saying that Israel had the right to cut off water, food, fuel or medicines."

Starmer warned he risks ‘plunging party into crisis’ over Labour’s Israel stance

The Labour leader has sparked fury among left-wing and Muslim members of the Labour Party over his refusal to call for a ceasefire in Gaza

www.independent.co.uk

So, while I'm glad to see the disgrace that is Sunak's Conservative Party get thrown out of office, I will withhold celebrating Labour's wins until they—especially their leadership—demonstrate that they haven't completely abandoned humanitarian and moral principles in pursuit of power. Pragmatism and compromise run along a spectrum, and they don't have to completely overshadow said principles. Surely a more reasonable balance exists somewhere along the spectrum than where Starmer has positioned himself so far, at least regarding the war on Gaza.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Of course, I'm happy to see the Tories get trashed at the elections, but this is tinged with caution for two reasons:

First, the last Labour prime minister was Tony Blair, a war criminal and warmonger who should stand trial for what he did as PM. Just because the Tories' government has been atrocious doesn't necessarily mean Labour's will be much (or even any) better.

Well, for a start, Brown was the last PM, and not that good, and you might target Blair for his mistakes, whatever such might have been, but he was still the most effective leader that the Labour Party had for many years. And the criminal and warmonger labels I'm afraid are merely rhetoric, given he hasn't been brought before any court so as to prove such. Apart from the fact that any Tory government would probably have done much the same with regards Iraq, and also the fact that it was the USA mostly that fouled up the post Iraq-war situation in Iraq.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Well, for a start, Brown was the last PM, and not that good, and you might target Blair for his mistakes, whatever such might have been, but he was still the most effective leader that the Labour Party had for many years.

Ah, yes. I had forgotten about Brown. I don't know about "effective," but I think Blair was certainly the one with the more influential and consequential policies out of the two, for better or worse (I would say for far worse, overall).

And the criminal and warmonger labels I'm afraid are merely rhetoric, given he hasn't been brought before any court so as to prove such.

I don't think he will ever be brought to court over his actions, but that seems to me a reflection on the legal and political systems in his country, not an absolving fact. Putin and Xi Jinping haven't stood trial either, but it's clear that the former is a war criminal and the latter is genocidal. Political analysts, independent organizations, and human rights experts, among others, have weighed in on the actions of all three and expressed views similar to what I've said here.

Apart from the fact that any Tory government would probably have done much the same with regards Iraq, and also the fact that it was the USA mostly that fouled up the post Iraq-war situation in Iraq.

I think we can only speculate about that at this point. Either way, though, I'm more concerned about current Labour's policies. We will see what they do once in power—I say "once" rather than "if they reach power" because it seems all but decided that the Tories will lose the general election at this point.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Ah, yes. I had forgotten about Brown. I don't know about "effective," but I think Blair was certainly the one with the more influential and consequential policies out of the two, for better or worse (I would say for far worse, overall).

A record of three terms might count against such though.

I don't think he will ever be brought to court over his actions, but that seems to me a reflection on the legal and political systems in his country, not an absolving fact. Putin and Xi Jinping haven't stood trial either, but it's clear that the former is a war criminal and the latter is genocidal. Political analysts, independent organizations, and human rights experts, among others, have weighed in on the actions of all three and expressed views similar to what I've said here.

They might have done, given that the popular opinion is often driven by numbers of deaths, but the ultimate responsibility still goes to the USA in my opinion (for incompetence) - as well as those living in Iraq.

I think we can only speculate about that at this point. Either way, though, I'm more concerned about current Labour's policies. We will see what they do once in power—I say "once" rather than "if they reach power" because it seems all but decided that the Tories will lose the general election at this point.

Well I wouldn't rely on any Corbyn enthusiasts to get a future Labour party into government - even if I too would likely support many of such policies, and would likely be seen as quite left-wing. I do at least try to be realistic.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Well I wouldn't rely on any Corbyn enthusiasts to get a future Labour party into government - even if I too would likely support many of such policies, and would likely be seen as quite left-wing. I do at least try to be realistic.

I agree. As I said in my first post in this thread, I think a degree of compromise is often necessary to win elections and actually get something done in a democracy. I just think Starmer has gone too far by being highly vague and equivocal on some issues.

 

[Yerda]

So what's your vision for Labour then? Remain true to socialist principles (however you define them) whilst remaining forever on the margins, untainted by power? How does that benefit working people?

At this point burn it to the ground and start again. It's a neoliberal party that serves the owner class - we already have the tories and lib dems (and SNP up here) doing that. Just looks like another group of landlords competing for the favour of press barons and the City of London - I don't see that helping working people.

 

[Yerda]

Natalie Elphicke....

 

[Yerda]

In July 2021, she was one of five MPs found to have breached their code of conduct by the Commons Select Committee on Standards for attempting to influence senior judges in November 2020 in her husband's sentencing appeal after his conviction for sexual assault. The committee recommended that Elphicke and two other MPs receive a one-day suspension from parliament. She apologised for her actions.[27][28]
...

Reflecting on the defection, Steve Baker, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland, commented on Twitter: "I have been searching in vain for a Conservative MP who thinks themself to the right of Natalie Elphicke. One just quipped, 'I didn’t realise there was any room to her right.'"
...

Consistently voted against laws to promote equality and human rights...

Consistently voted against landlords paying for the costs of building safety works...

Consistently voted for authorising criminal conduct by undercover officers and covert sources...

Voted for mass surveillance of people’s communications and activities...

Voted for reducing capital gains tax...

Consistently voted for more restrictive regulation of trade union activity...

Consistently voted against higher taxes on banks...

Ooft. She sounds like the sort of person who belongs in Starmer's Labour.

 

[Secret Chief]

JULY 4

GENERAL ELECTION


WOO HOOOOOOOOO

 

[Secret Chief]

Taxi for Mr Gove. And 76 other tories. Better to quit rather than lose.

- Michael Gove to stand down at general election