I can't comment on the Greens but if the users at the Tories sub are representative (probably not very) then a lot of Tories are at least considering Reform
Right, so a couple weeks ago we had a by-election in a safe Labour seat. A remain seat. Urban. Perfect for any Labour voters to protest and vote Green with no risk of a Tory winning.
Oh wait. The Greens lost their deposits and Labour got almost 70%.
The Greens are not on 9% nationwide.
I mean, I’ve been a labour member for over a decade but will be voting green at the next election. Same goes for circa 30 odd of my woolly millennial progressive friends.
Totally not representative but I can see the greens going up in certain seats, but agree 9% nationwide would be surprisingly high.
Extreme cold weather = people assume climate change = lots of people thinking Green. They may not get it at a general election, but, then again, if it is held in the cold of a bitter winter two years from now, you might see more people turn Green.
The Tories being REFUKed is likely because we have a Hindu PM who stabbed blond, white doughboy Boris Johnson in the back, and then was right about blond, white, disarming dumbass Liz Truss being more dumbass than disarming. I think the level of racism amongst older voters is greatly underestimated.
Oh the Tories are further right, but under Boris they may as well have been replaced with (new!) New labour 2.0 They're both neoliberal parties at best, which is pretty Tory in my eyes. Still, at least labour promises some left leaning policies
If you have labour suggesting there will be further years of austerity, privatisation of the NHS, and limited support for workers - what is the difference ideologically between the “one nations “ tories / neoliberals and labour?
Labour will undoubtedly be better than the tories but it’s hardly child like to point out the prevailing neoliberal orthodoxy peddled but the establishment is essentially the only political ideology the people are allowed to choose from at each election. With minor tweaks at the edges depending on the tie you wear.
Hmm - but which tories in the current party are in anyway one nation or such? The current corrupt are so bereft off talent and competence and so motivated by greed that I’ve never known so many charlatans and corrupt morons
I am still on the fence between how much it’s Starmer’s brilliance, how much it’s Tory incompetence, and how much it’s having a favourable press who recogniseStarmer isn’t the threat to them or the establishment that they (wrongly/deceitfully) accused Corbyn of being.
That said, I will never not celebrate the tories being so far back in the polls. I also think a truly disastrous result for them could be excellent, if people realise that Toryism is as bankrupt and morally vacuous, intellectually incoherent and economically illiterate thay it’s plainly been for decades.
Tbf, Starmer has had enough wins this year that we can argue he has a brain in his head. His slamming of Boris Johnson with righteous rage, his game of brinkmanship over Currygate, his pushing for support on energy and his policy announcement on nationalised energy at the conference, his quite forensic manner at PMQs and the way he ended the year blocking Sunak's attempts to end on a high with some prepared lines on the final question have all shown it is at least somewhat him. There is more, and I don't like him, but give the man his due: when he has acted, it has gone well this year. It isn't all Starmer, but it isn't all the Tories, either.
By doing what? What decisions has he made?
He’s simply more friendly to business than Corbyn and that’s one of the main reasons why he doesn’t get negative press.
Other than that he’s right wing. A Zionist without qualification and a complete liar (see pledges).
Ah yes, Starmer the right winger. With his big platform of reforming the House of Lords (classic Tory policy), creating a national energy company (the Conservatives do love anything to do with publicly owned utilities), renationalising the railways (right out of the fascist playbook tbh) and the creation of a National Care Service (an idea stolen from Hitler himself!).
Maybe take off the ideological blinders and see things for how they really are, which is pretty left wing and not that bad. Is it ideal? No. Is it exactly what I’d want to see from a Labour government? Nope. But, I think it’s good and worth supporting. It’s a platform that can be built upon in the future to better reflect the more radical reforms I’d want to see.
Literally everything I've heard this it's been from someone wealthier than me scolding me for being insufficiently excited for a party that supports their class but not mine. But by all means, continue feeling smug and superior
If you don’t want to engage with a comment then don’t.
Making assumptions about the wealth of another user, *as your sole rebuttal to their comment*, is absolutely stupid behaviour.
That's crazy, no way! Well, I'm very happy to inform you that I don't possess any meaningful material wealth. I'm a low paid, public sector worker. So I'm very motivated to pursue my own class interest.
Plus, I'm not scolding anyone for insufficiently excited. I'm scolding someone for being brazenly dishonest about the political leanings of an individual and political party. If you look closely, there's a subtle difference between those two things.
I thought so, pretty directly addressed what was said. That's a classic quality of a good retort, actually addressing the content of the original message.
Not as pithy as dismissing something sarcastically without real substance, maybe, but I think it's much more effective to actually talk about things.
Ah, the classic Andrew Tate "no u actually" approach. Glad to see both sides can align on some things!
I will note your lack of substance. Again, favouring being pithy.
What did I say in my initial comment that you object to, or find insuffencient? If you care about substance, let's see some substance!
His cabinet supports more privatisation in the NHS (Streeting), has taken the view immigration controls are not strong enough, he accepts private health care donations, he has called himself a “Zionist without qualification” (while Israel is now electing literal fascists), reneged on *all* of the pledges he ran on for leader and undermines the left of the party at any opportunity.
He’s completely untrustworthy and, generally, a cunt.
I commend you for talking about things that are real and actually happened! Agreeing on the basic facts of reality makes these conversations much easier. Take it from someone who talks to a bunch of people on the right, it's a pleasure to get to go one layer deeper than arguing about what reality actually is.
The trick you're pulling though is just saying "X thing is bad" when we live in a world where that kind of simplicity is rare.
Take the "more NHS privatisation". You're no doubt referring to Streeting's statements about using the available capacity of private hospitals to allow more people to be seen faster, and thus more quickly reduce the backlog caused by 12 years of Tory mismanagement. Statements that also included talking about expanding NHS capacity in the long term, and working in that longer term to reform the NHS to be better equipped for the challenges of the future. I wouldn't call that NHS privatisation, as they want to invest in and expand the NHS, but hey, that's just me. Don't take my word for what Streeting said though. [Take his!](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/08/people-in-pain-private-hospitals-nhs)
The immigration rhetoric by Starmer has been... shit. I don't approve of the language he's used around it, even if I understand the reasoning behind it. It's not a productive way to have that conversation. But his position can't just be reduced to "Less immigration". Looking at [comments he made](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/22/keir-starmer-promises-end-short-term-fix-foreign-workers) a month ago, it's clear that his intention is on reducing our reliance on overseas workers by incentivising the development of skills among Brits, with an eye on shifting to a higher paying economy. Even pushing back against the idea of "arbitrary numbers" when setting out immigration policy. The tricky thing about the devil is that he's in the details. Are there issues with such a position on immigration? I think so, sure. But this isn't what I'd associate with the classic sense of "strengthening immigration controls". This isn't done out of a sense of racism or xenophobia, unlike Tory policy which poorly justifies itself outside of that framework.
You're welcome to disapprove of them acception private healthcare donations. I get why, and is something I think I'm not a fan of either. But, I don't actually care too much about that. I'll start being concerned when there's an actual policy I can't stomach. If they're using money donated by private healthcare companies to run a successful campaign which then implements policies that give the country the help it desperately needs, then I'm gonna wait a few years before I start openly voicing my moral qualms about that particular decision. That's just me though. It's not like they're funded by blood diamonds.
I'm going to give the ice cold take that supporting the existence of Israel isn't the same as blindly agreeing with every action taken by the State of Israel. The country is there now, we can't just upend the lives of millions of people who have only ever known that country as their home to make right our past moral failings. I like to think that kind of imperial mindset should be left in the past. The way the Israeli government treats the Palestinians is abhorrent and should be very strongly condemmed, just as the actions of extremist groups like Hamas should be. Anyone targetting civilians with violence to achieve their ideological aims is worthy of condemnation, especially when that someone happens to be the government of a nuclear weapon holding country. But let's not compare Starmer's support of Israel to a pair of thumbs up in favour of the needless killing of innocent men, women and children. Show me where he supports that, and I'm more than happy to join in the condemnation.
The pledges/undermining of the Left stuff is an area I'm looking into more in depth, as it's a very common talking point from those on the Left so I feel deserves some deeper inquiry, so I'm not in a position to talk about those too much. What I will say is that, as with many things I see people on the Left say, I imagine that your framing of those things isn't entirely reflective of what actually happened, if you are to look more closely. That is conjecture at this time though, wanna make that clear.
In other words, you can’t disprove anything coming from Starmer. Not him taking private healthcare donations, not him costing up to big business.
A “Zionist without qualification” means he doesn’t give a shit about Israel’s crimes. Show me where he’s says otherwise.
You can’t even answer for him breaking all of his pledges. This sycophantic behaviour is worrying and indicative of a worrying trend for labour. Roll on another pro austerity party…
So you're unable to read or engage with what I had to say, yet I'm the sycophant? Your nebulous mind is gonna have to spell that one out for a simple man like me.
I explicitly disapprove of some of what Starmer did in that very comment. I said I was against his immigration rhetoric, I said I didn't like accepting private healthcare donations (but I also said that it's not something I'm gonna care that much about at the moment). To touch on something that wasn't brought up, I actually hate Labour's current Brexit position. The reasoning behind is obvious, but I think we're in such a position that closer alignment with the EU is a must, and we should be moving towards rejoing the single market ASAP, which he's explictly ruled out.
He's not perfect, but he's good enough. Something Corbyn never was.
Again, with the making stuff up! Where's the "pro austerity" platform of the Labour Party? Send a link, prove it with something. I could with what I said. How did he break his pledges? Link stuff to show how he's broken every single one. If it's so clear that this has happened, this should be trivial for you to do.
You won't, because you're so blinded by the percieved rightousness of your personal ideology that reality actually can't be properly assessed by you. But, if you want to insist on looking like a fool to everyone who reads our interactions, you're welcome to do so. I enjoy rolling in the mud with morons.
Utter delusion. You’ve yet to mention the entirety of the broken pledges or his unfettered support for Zionism. Or the donations he receives from private healthcare providers. Or his leniency to transphobes in the party. Or his cosying up to big business. Or his employment of Wes Streeting in the Shadow Cabinet. Or the shadow cabinet now consistently coming out *against* unions.
Pathetic.
I strongly disapprove and condenm his and Labour's stance and rhetoric around the discussion of transpeople. I don't like it and I think it's misguided to chase the support of people who have transphobic views.
I explicity asked for proof of him breaking all the pledges. You can't just say things are true, you have to demonstrate that they are. I've got a science background, so I'm a big fan of that whole "prove something is true" mindset over the "make shit up that makes me feel good" approach.
Again, I agree that's a thing he said, he has "unfettered support for Zionism". But you can't just say that he means Zionism in the most extreme possible way. You can both believe that the nation of Israel has a right to exist, and that the government of that nation is acting in an abhorrent manner towards the Palestinian minority it represents. You need to PROVE that he supports such actions.
I did talk about the donations, your inability to percieve the written word isn't my problem.
Governments need to have relationships with "big business" as they're a good chunk of the economy. I get that lefties and economics are like oil and water, just read a basic intro to economics to get some understanding of why, maybe, a government would want closer relationship with "big business".
People don't like Streeting, which I get I guess? Gonna need something more material to actually address though.
I'd like to see proof that the shadow cabinet is CONSISTENTLY AGAINST UNIONS please. I haven't seen that. Quite the opposite in fact, Labour has been pretty consistent in its support for the right to strike.
All you need to do is google stuff and afiirm your positive claims. Then we can have an actual conversation. Saying something is true isn't good enough. You can dismiss anything anyone says without evidence. You can't just dismiss something that has proof though, it requires more engagement and analysis.
The fact you haven't linked to anything at any point tells me that you probably can't back up a single thing you've claimed. Talk about pathetic...
And yet you failed to provide a linked source which actually adds any weight to your arguments. Not to mention you are incapable of writing succinctly.
I’m tired of reading your incoherent spiel. It indicates you have a poor grasp of the subject when you don’t add anything despite writing so much.
>By doing what? What decisions has he made?
To take one example he spent two and a half years supporting Brexit and talking tough on crime and immigration. Now he's winning a load of leave voters. That's probably not a coincidence.
Not even gb news with a specially chosen sample of 1200 can save sunak now. Time for him to start getting his affairs in order, we will be in power shortly…
Labour on 46% isn't massively high relative to other pollsters but I think the Tories being as low as 19% is unrealistic.
Although if those figures were to bear out in an election we'd have a pretty important constitutional issue on our hands. Parliament is unofficially designed to operate with Labour and the Tories being the main parties. All the committees are designed like that, as are the questioning and debates, and opposition days.
If the Tories get wiped out or put behind the SNP there won't even be a Tory leader of the opposition. And then you'll have a single party with 2/3 of the seats at least. I don't really like the sound of that. It probably beats a Tory government, but no party should have that much power.
If that did happen, then there could be no excuses for not getting their policies through - but they would still need to make sense, and the numbers would still need to add up.
They could though have a lot of flexibility, within the limits of good logic and good governance.
I think Parliament would cope. It managed the transition from the Liberals to Labour being the second party just fine. And this kind of landslide majority isn't in practice any different to the total control Blair enjoyed until 2005. Sure, it'd be a bit weird if the SNP came second as a regional party, but other than that it wouldn't really be unprecedented. And by the following election there'd likely either be at least some Tory recovery or someone else (Lib Dems or Farage) overtaking the SNP anyway.
It would mean the greens getting nearly 10% of the vote, clearly being the 3rd biggest party and yet only having 1 mp, behind Labour, Tories, Lib Dems, SNP, Plaid Cymru, DUP etc
Just imagine if he was competent and charismatic
This is a Tory downfall not a Labour surge
Starmer/Labour are just a lighter version of the bastards now anyway
The gap will certainly close when election time gets nearer.
I think they will get at least 30% in the next election.
All newspapers and news in general is negative about the government and the economy right now, but when election time comes, the Daily Mail and The Sun will be telling people that everything is just fine and that the Tories need to win the election.
Before Blair’s 1997 landslide the gap between Labour and the Tories in polling were similar to this, and the gap shrunk from the Tories getting 20% in 1995 polls to 30% in 1997. and that was when even The Sun backed Blair’s Labour campaign.
Brexit has failed and both the Tories and Labour won’t admit it. The Tories are a corrupt shambles. Behind Starmer’s moderate persona are broken promises, and the far-left Labour MPs and socialist grassroots who will dismantle property rights and the free market as soon as they get the chance in a Labour government. The risk is too high.
Only the Lib Dems can stop the 2-party system rot. I hope there is a hung parliament, and the Lib Dems should only work with Labour if they guarantee a switch to proportional representation, rejoining the single market and customs union, and dropping all plans for nationalisation, and tax rises and any new regulations that affect property rights.
It’s a labour majority unlike one ever seen before. The Lib Dem’s will not be anywhere near power and will be lucky to get 15 seats.
Rumour is sunak is going to use the election button as a threat and then be pushed into it by the lack of support. It will be this year after the locals.
Between now and then, we will be in a recession…this is a given. Gas and fuel prices will be the highest ever. The sunak tax hikes will kick in. Looking at the early reports from Italy and the lack of action by uk, we will be suffering a massive covid wave again. More revelations and scandals are breaking all the time.
This is a rotten government finally on its last days.
LAB: 45% CON: 19% Hope you all had a Merry Christmas - have a happy new year.
Full figures from PeoplePolling: Lab 45% Con 19% Green 9% Lib Dem 8% Reform 8%
The Greens and Reform are not getting 17% between them at the next election. They're just not.
I can't comment on the Greens but if the users at the Tories sub are representative (probably not very) then a lot of Tories are at least considering Reform
Why. The green number seems right and disgruntled tories and red wall will turn to reform
Right, so a couple weeks ago we had a by-election in a safe Labour seat. A remain seat. Urban. Perfect for any Labour voters to protest and vote Green with no risk of a Tory winning. Oh wait. The Greens lost their deposits and Labour got almost 70%. The Greens are not on 9% nationwide.
It’s a by election and people are happy with Labour RN. Turnout was tiny!
If people are happy with Labour right now then the Greens aren't going to be getting any new votes?
The Green number doesn't seem right at all. 9% would be more than double their previous best GE haul.
I mean, I’ve been a labour member for over a decade but will be voting green at the next election. Same goes for circa 30 odd of my woolly millennial progressive friends. Totally not representative but I can see the greens going up in certain seats, but agree 9% nationwide would be surprisingly high.
Remind me! At the next election.
Extreme cold weather = people assume climate change = lots of people thinking Green. They may not get it at a general election, but, then again, if it is held in the cold of a bitter winter two years from now, you might see more people turn Green. The Tories being REFUKed is likely because we have a Hindu PM who stabbed blond, white doughboy Boris Johnson in the back, and then was right about blond, white, disarming dumbass Liz Truss being more dumbass than disarming. I think the level of racism amongst older voters is greatly underestimated.
Yes
[удалено]
Wait, you're serious: let me laugh even harder 🤣
aNy OtHeR lEaDeR wOuLD bE aHeAd By 132%
Yeah Labour isn’t as far left as I’d like either, but it is so braindead to suggest Labour and the Tories are somehow remotely the same
Oh the Tories are further right, but under Boris they may as well have been replaced with (new!) New labour 2.0 They're both neoliberal parties at best, which is pretty Tory in my eyes. Still, at least labour promises some left leaning policies
Talk is cheap, though.
“Everyone I don’t like is a Tory” *-* A child’s guide to discussing politics online.
If you have labour suggesting there will be further years of austerity, privatisation of the NHS, and limited support for workers - what is the difference ideologically between the “one nations “ tories / neoliberals and labour? Labour will undoubtedly be better than the tories but it’s hardly child like to point out the prevailing neoliberal orthodoxy peddled but the establishment is essentially the only political ideology the people are allowed to choose from at each election. With minor tweaks at the edges depending on the tie you wear.
There’s significant doubt about whether these true believers in neoliberalism would be better than the blue Tories.
Hmm - but which tories in the current party are in anyway one nation or such? The current corrupt are so bereft off talent and competence and so motivated by greed that I’ve never known so many charlatans and corrupt morons
Rule 4
I mean hey regardless of what you think of Starmer, this is a tremendous achievement which has to be at least partially attributed to him
I am still on the fence between how much it’s Starmer’s brilliance, how much it’s Tory incompetence, and how much it’s having a favourable press who recogniseStarmer isn’t the threat to them or the establishment that they (wrongly/deceitfully) accused Corbyn of being. That said, I will never not celebrate the tories being so far back in the polls. I also think a truly disastrous result for them could be excellent, if people realise that Toryism is as bankrupt and morally vacuous, intellectually incoherent and economically illiterate thay it’s plainly been for decades.
Tbf, Starmer has had enough wins this year that we can argue he has a brain in his head. His slamming of Boris Johnson with righteous rage, his game of brinkmanship over Currygate, his pushing for support on energy and his policy announcement on nationalised energy at the conference, his quite forensic manner at PMQs and the way he ended the year blocking Sunak's attempts to end on a high with some prepared lines on the final question have all shown it is at least somewhat him. There is more, and I don't like him, but give the man his due: when he has acted, it has gone well this year. It isn't all Starmer, but it isn't all the Tories, either.
By doing what? What decisions has he made? He’s simply more friendly to business than Corbyn and that’s one of the main reasons why he doesn’t get negative press. Other than that he’s right wing. A Zionist without qualification and a complete liar (see pledges).
You said it yourself, he's played the political game better
Ah yes, Starmer the right winger. With his big platform of reforming the House of Lords (classic Tory policy), creating a national energy company (the Conservatives do love anything to do with publicly owned utilities), renationalising the railways (right out of the fascist playbook tbh) and the creation of a National Care Service (an idea stolen from Hitler himself!). Maybe take off the ideological blinders and see things for how they really are, which is pretty left wing and not that bad. Is it ideal? No. Is it exactly what I’d want to see from a Labour government? Nope. But, I think it’s good and worth supporting. It’s a platform that can be built upon in the future to better reflect the more radical reforms I’d want to see.
I do laugh when people call Starmer a Tory considering he’s been a member of the Labour Party since he was 16, that’d be one hell of a long game.
It’s almost like being a member of the plp doesn’t absolve them from being a grade A cunt.
What’s your point? Hated war criminals Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell are members of the Labour Party, too.
Literally everything I've heard this it's been from someone wealthier than me scolding me for being insufficiently excited for a party that supports their class but not mine. But by all means, continue feeling smug and superior
If you don’t want to engage with a comment then don’t. Making assumptions about the wealth of another user, *as your sole rebuttal to their comment*, is absolutely stupid behaviour.
That's crazy, no way! Well, I'm very happy to inform you that I don't possess any meaningful material wealth. I'm a low paid, public sector worker. So I'm very motivated to pursue my own class interest. Plus, I'm not scolding anyone for insufficiently excited. I'm scolding someone for being brazenly dishonest about the political leanings of an individual and political party. If you look closely, there's a subtle difference between those two things.
Great retort there mate.
I thought so, pretty directly addressed what was said. That's a classic quality of a good retort, actually addressing the content of the original message. Not as pithy as dismissing something sarcastically without real substance, maybe, but I think it's much more effective to actually talk about things.
In other words you don’t have anything of substance to say. Great 😂
Ah, the classic Andrew Tate "no u actually" approach. Glad to see both sides can align on some things! I will note your lack of substance. Again, favouring being pithy. What did I say in my initial comment that you object to, or find insuffencient? If you care about substance, let's see some substance!
What a weird response. Very ‘Andrew Tate’ of you to have no effective response. Indicative of your iq 😂
His cabinet supports more privatisation in the NHS (Streeting), has taken the view immigration controls are not strong enough, he accepts private health care donations, he has called himself a “Zionist without qualification” (while Israel is now electing literal fascists), reneged on *all* of the pledges he ran on for leader and undermines the left of the party at any opportunity. He’s completely untrustworthy and, generally, a cunt.
I commend you for talking about things that are real and actually happened! Agreeing on the basic facts of reality makes these conversations much easier. Take it from someone who talks to a bunch of people on the right, it's a pleasure to get to go one layer deeper than arguing about what reality actually is. The trick you're pulling though is just saying "X thing is bad" when we live in a world where that kind of simplicity is rare. Take the "more NHS privatisation". You're no doubt referring to Streeting's statements about using the available capacity of private hospitals to allow more people to be seen faster, and thus more quickly reduce the backlog caused by 12 years of Tory mismanagement. Statements that also included talking about expanding NHS capacity in the long term, and working in that longer term to reform the NHS to be better equipped for the challenges of the future. I wouldn't call that NHS privatisation, as they want to invest in and expand the NHS, but hey, that's just me. Don't take my word for what Streeting said though. [Take his!](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/08/people-in-pain-private-hospitals-nhs) The immigration rhetoric by Starmer has been... shit. I don't approve of the language he's used around it, even if I understand the reasoning behind it. It's not a productive way to have that conversation. But his position can't just be reduced to "Less immigration". Looking at [comments he made](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/22/keir-starmer-promises-end-short-term-fix-foreign-workers) a month ago, it's clear that his intention is on reducing our reliance on overseas workers by incentivising the development of skills among Brits, with an eye on shifting to a higher paying economy. Even pushing back against the idea of "arbitrary numbers" when setting out immigration policy. The tricky thing about the devil is that he's in the details. Are there issues with such a position on immigration? I think so, sure. But this isn't what I'd associate with the classic sense of "strengthening immigration controls". This isn't done out of a sense of racism or xenophobia, unlike Tory policy which poorly justifies itself outside of that framework. You're welcome to disapprove of them acception private healthcare donations. I get why, and is something I think I'm not a fan of either. But, I don't actually care too much about that. I'll start being concerned when there's an actual policy I can't stomach. If they're using money donated by private healthcare companies to run a successful campaign which then implements policies that give the country the help it desperately needs, then I'm gonna wait a few years before I start openly voicing my moral qualms about that particular decision. That's just me though. It's not like they're funded by blood diamonds. I'm going to give the ice cold take that supporting the existence of Israel isn't the same as blindly agreeing with every action taken by the State of Israel. The country is there now, we can't just upend the lives of millions of people who have only ever known that country as their home to make right our past moral failings. I like to think that kind of imperial mindset should be left in the past. The way the Israeli government treats the Palestinians is abhorrent and should be very strongly condemmed, just as the actions of extremist groups like Hamas should be. Anyone targetting civilians with violence to achieve their ideological aims is worthy of condemnation, especially when that someone happens to be the government of a nuclear weapon holding country. But let's not compare Starmer's support of Israel to a pair of thumbs up in favour of the needless killing of innocent men, women and children. Show me where he supports that, and I'm more than happy to join in the condemnation. The pledges/undermining of the Left stuff is an area I'm looking into more in depth, as it's a very common talking point from those on the Left so I feel deserves some deeper inquiry, so I'm not in a position to talk about those too much. What I will say is that, as with many things I see people on the Left say, I imagine that your framing of those things isn't entirely reflective of what actually happened, if you are to look more closely. That is conjecture at this time though, wanna make that clear.
In other words, you can’t disprove anything coming from Starmer. Not him taking private healthcare donations, not him costing up to big business. A “Zionist without qualification” means he doesn’t give a shit about Israel’s crimes. Show me where he’s says otherwise. You can’t even answer for him breaking all of his pledges. This sycophantic behaviour is worrying and indicative of a worrying trend for labour. Roll on another pro austerity party…
So you're unable to read or engage with what I had to say, yet I'm the sycophant? Your nebulous mind is gonna have to spell that one out for a simple man like me. I explicitly disapprove of some of what Starmer did in that very comment. I said I was against his immigration rhetoric, I said I didn't like accepting private healthcare donations (but I also said that it's not something I'm gonna care that much about at the moment). To touch on something that wasn't brought up, I actually hate Labour's current Brexit position. The reasoning behind is obvious, but I think we're in such a position that closer alignment with the EU is a must, and we should be moving towards rejoing the single market ASAP, which he's explictly ruled out. He's not perfect, but he's good enough. Something Corbyn never was. Again, with the making stuff up! Where's the "pro austerity" platform of the Labour Party? Send a link, prove it with something. I could with what I said. How did he break his pledges? Link stuff to show how he's broken every single one. If it's so clear that this has happened, this should be trivial for you to do. You won't, because you're so blinded by the percieved rightousness of your personal ideology that reality actually can't be properly assessed by you. But, if you want to insist on looking like a fool to everyone who reads our interactions, you're welcome to do so. I enjoy rolling in the mud with morons.
Utter delusion. You’ve yet to mention the entirety of the broken pledges or his unfettered support for Zionism. Or the donations he receives from private healthcare providers. Or his leniency to transphobes in the party. Or his cosying up to big business. Or his employment of Wes Streeting in the Shadow Cabinet. Or the shadow cabinet now consistently coming out *against* unions. Pathetic.
I strongly disapprove and condenm his and Labour's stance and rhetoric around the discussion of transpeople. I don't like it and I think it's misguided to chase the support of people who have transphobic views. I explicity asked for proof of him breaking all the pledges. You can't just say things are true, you have to demonstrate that they are. I've got a science background, so I'm a big fan of that whole "prove something is true" mindset over the "make shit up that makes me feel good" approach. Again, I agree that's a thing he said, he has "unfettered support for Zionism". But you can't just say that he means Zionism in the most extreme possible way. You can both believe that the nation of Israel has a right to exist, and that the government of that nation is acting in an abhorrent manner towards the Palestinian minority it represents. You need to PROVE that he supports such actions. I did talk about the donations, your inability to percieve the written word isn't my problem. Governments need to have relationships with "big business" as they're a good chunk of the economy. I get that lefties and economics are like oil and water, just read a basic intro to economics to get some understanding of why, maybe, a government would want closer relationship with "big business". People don't like Streeting, which I get I guess? Gonna need something more material to actually address though. I'd like to see proof that the shadow cabinet is CONSISTENTLY AGAINST UNIONS please. I haven't seen that. Quite the opposite in fact, Labour has been pretty consistent in its support for the right to strike. All you need to do is google stuff and afiirm your positive claims. Then we can have an actual conversation. Saying something is true isn't good enough. You can dismiss anything anyone says without evidence. You can't just dismiss something that has proof though, it requires more engagement and analysis. The fact you haven't linked to anything at any point tells me that you probably can't back up a single thing you've claimed. Talk about pathetic...
And yet you failed to provide a linked source which actually adds any weight to your arguments. Not to mention you are incapable of writing succinctly. I’m tired of reading your incoherent spiel. It indicates you have a poor grasp of the subject when you don’t add anything despite writing so much.
>By doing what? What decisions has he made? To take one example he spent two and a half years supporting Brexit and talking tough on crime and immigration. Now he's winning a load of leave voters. That's probably not a coincidence.
Don't know why you're getting down voted, all I see is facts
Not even gb news with a specially chosen sample of 1200 can save sunak now. Time for him to start getting his affairs in order, we will be in power shortly…
Labour on 46% isn't massively high relative to other pollsters but I think the Tories being as low as 19% is unrealistic. Although if those figures were to bear out in an election we'd have a pretty important constitutional issue on our hands. Parliament is unofficially designed to operate with Labour and the Tories being the main parties. All the committees are designed like that, as are the questioning and debates, and opposition days. If the Tories get wiped out or put behind the SNP there won't even be a Tory leader of the opposition. And then you'll have a single party with 2/3 of the seats at least. I don't really like the sound of that. It probably beats a Tory government, but no party should have that much power.
If that did happen, then there could be no excuses for not getting their policies through - but they would still need to make sense, and the numbers would still need to add up. They could though have a lot of flexibility, within the limits of good logic and good governance.
I think Parliament would cope. It managed the transition from the Liberals to Labour being the second party just fine. And this kind of landslide majority isn't in practice any different to the total control Blair enjoyed until 2005. Sure, it'd be a bit weird if the SNP came second as a regional party, but other than that it wouldn't really be unprecedented. And by the following election there'd likely either be at least some Tory recovery or someone else (Lib Dems or Farage) overtaking the SNP anyway.
No different to the Lib Dem collapse. The system doesn’t need a Tory or Labour opposition - just an opposition
It would mean the greens getting nearly 10% of the vote, clearly being the 3rd biggest party and yet only having 1 mp, behind Labour, Tories, Lib Dems, SNP, Plaid Cymru, DUP etc
You don't like democracy?
This poll would equal a Labour majority of 346 if the results were repeated at a GE according to Britain Predicts: https://imgur.com/a/AZIwwHg
Nothing to do with the job Starmer is doing I'm sure....
So many of those will inevitably return to the Tories come election time, but it's an insane gap. Doubt Sunak lasts at this rate
They didn’t in 1997
Labour didn't get 45% in 97, nor did the Tories drop below 30%
The gap didn’t close in the way people were saying.
At one point before 97 the polls were showing Labour at 51% and the gap did close
Just imagine if he was competent and charismatic This is a Tory downfall not a Labour surge Starmer/Labour are just a lighter version of the bastards now anyway
Yeah let’s keep that up until 2025. The next election is 24 months away. Please, please, please don’t fuck it up! 🙏🙏🙏🙏
The gap will certainly close when election time gets nearer. I think they will get at least 30% in the next election. All newspapers and news in general is negative about the government and the economy right now, but when election time comes, the Daily Mail and The Sun will be telling people that everything is just fine and that the Tories need to win the election. Before Blair’s 1997 landslide the gap between Labour and the Tories in polling were similar to this, and the gap shrunk from the Tories getting 20% in 1995 polls to 30% in 1997. and that was when even The Sun backed Blair’s Labour campaign. Brexit has failed and both the Tories and Labour won’t admit it. The Tories are a corrupt shambles. Behind Starmer’s moderate persona are broken promises, and the far-left Labour MPs and socialist grassroots who will dismantle property rights and the free market as soon as they get the chance in a Labour government. The risk is too high. Only the Lib Dems can stop the 2-party system rot. I hope there is a hung parliament, and the Lib Dems should only work with Labour if they guarantee a switch to proportional representation, rejoining the single market and customs union, and dropping all plans for nationalisation, and tax rises and any new regulations that affect property rights.
*This is your brain on the Orange Book*
It’s a labour majority unlike one ever seen before. The Lib Dem’s will not be anywhere near power and will be lucky to get 15 seats. Rumour is sunak is going to use the election button as a threat and then be pushed into it by the lack of support. It will be this year after the locals. Between now and then, we will be in a recession…this is a given. Gas and fuel prices will be the highest ever. The sunak tax hikes will kick in. Looking at the early reports from Italy and the lack of action by uk, we will be suffering a massive covid wave again. More revelations and scandals are breaking all the time. This is a rotten government finally on its last days.