An election looms, so I think it is time to look at all the success over the 13 years that we have witnessed from the government.

What about the anti semitism in the Labour Party that Keir has eliminated. Was that all a right wing media campaign? Or the fact that many voters weren’t enamoured with the thought of Dianne Abbott as Home Secretary? Apart from Abbott most people with any parliamentary experience were pushed to the back benches because they weren’t in Corbyn’s inner circle. We even had Chris Williamson in the shadow cabinet at one time although even Corbyn realised he was far too much of a loose cannon. So he stood against the Labour candidate at the election and split the vote

MaizieD

Can you just be very patient and tell me again, please.

Or link me to the post in which you told me.

I'm sure that other posters would be interested, too.

Why? Why do you write such coercively controlling posts? If I had wanted to set myself up for attack, which is the only reason why you're asking me, don't you think I'd have already done so.

You don't actually want to know; you're not interested in my views; you just want to have a go at those views. Why would I repeat what I've said in the past just so you can do that?

Casdon

nightowl

DaisyAnneReturns

nightowl

Fair enough Daisy. But I don’t believe socialist = far left so there may be more of us than you think
I believe debate strengthens a party, shutting down debate (as is happening in the LP at the moment) just kills free thought and creates a monster.

I'm sorry I misunderstood what you were saying. I'm sure Starmer is a socialist. One of my worries, the opposite of yours, is how much of a socialist he is. I am pinning my hopes on my belief that he is equally as much a pragmatist. So far I have been able to believe that he is.

He seems to have good political advisors currently. I just hope he will continue to listen to them and that he will blend enough of both to rescue the country from the results of the last 13 years, during next five years.

By then he would be finding some challenges from the voters and would hopefully see a good reason for PR.

I don’t think it’s possible to be a ‘little bit socialist’ Daisy I think it’s a very clear belief system.

As Tony Benn, God bless him, famously said ‘the LP has never been a socialist party but it has always had socialists in it’. It looks as if the majority - on here as well as in the party - no longer want that to be allowed.

It’s doomed to be a forever unhappy marriage nightowl, so having recognised that the factions within the party don’t want to conduct change in the same way or to the same degree, it’s kinder to break now. Otherwise this will rumble on for ever. I genuinely don’t understand why the left don’t break away and form a party which suits their agenda - unless at bottom they know that isn’t what the majority of the population want so they won’t succeed alone. The reality is that about 60% of the electorate are ‘in the middle’ in my opinion.

The Labour Party had left wing roots, so I guess the so called left think they have as much right to remain in the party as the so called centrists. If the so called left leave to form a new party, what will the Labour Party stand for? I genuinely can’t imagine what it would look like or how it would have any individual identity on which to base a campaign.

nightowl why would a centrist join the Labour Party? There will be a centre-left group in Labour, just as there is a centre-right group in the Conservative Party but a centrist is someone who wouldn't think either of the two large parties have the answer. They could of course be left or right leaning but their main views would be centrist.

But it’s a different world and country to the one in which the Labour Party has it’s roots. Should they still be fighting to keep the mines open so that young men can aspire to have a job that sees them going into the bowels of the earth to dig for coal? Imo the party stands for fairness and decency and for giving everyone born in this country the ability to fulfil their true potential by giving them a good education and health care throughout their life. Maybe many working class people don’t feel that Labour want people to be aspirational: that wanting to be rich is frowned upon. Maybe a lot of people, me included feel that the left wing of the party are traditionally anti EU? That people like Mick Lynch, another vocal critic of Keir Starmer is anti EU and advised union members to vote leave.

There are many self-described centrists in the Labour Party DaisyAnne. I don’t know why they join, you’re asking the wrong person.

nightowl

There are many self-described centrists in the Labour Party DaisyAnne. I don’t know why they join, you’re asking the wrong person.

True nightowl. I meant it as a question more to myself and the world, but I agree it doesn't necessarily read like that.

When I think about it in the cold light of day, I believe Rory Stewart also calls himself a Centrist. Roll on the day when we have PR and it encourages more and smaller parties. We can then see exactly where the people we are voting for stand on the spectrum from left to right. Hopefully there will be then less chance of finding parties moved to unexpected extremes after they have been voted into power.

I really don't want to have a go at you, DAR. I just would like to know what your definition of communist because, if you have told us, it was so long ago that I have forgotten. It isn't easy to talk about something when there isn't a common understanding of the terms being used.

ATM 'communist' sounds like a term of abuse and somewhat McCarthyish..

You don't really need my definition of communism Maisie, as what I see is people being attracted towards an economic system that would be, in some areas, more communist than socialist. I am quite sure you are able to understand that.

You may see it as a term of abuse; I don't. It is merely the definition of a way of thinking. I do not see myself as someone who would limit someone else's way of thinking. I am simply describing it. Centrists are, as I'm sure you are aware, in the liberal sphere of politics not the dictatorial extremes.

The idea that I would have the power of a McCarthy is quite ridiculous. I neither have nor want that power. Already the tone of your answer is one that suggests I am saying people are either disloyal or subversive. And you wonder why I choose not to answer you at times.

dar So making a guess that perhaps re-nationalising our water and railways might under your terms be deemed to be communist?

That will come as a surprise to a lot of conservative voters in the U.K, where 68% of conservative voters think water should be nationalised.

Or maybe a communist under your terms is one who thinks more social housing should be built?

Well surprise surprise - 53% of conservative voters think that more social housing should be built than houses for sale.

Or perhaps you aren’t happy with the idea of a Keynesian economy?

2 out of every three people want greater government spending on public services, which would of course result in economic growth.

If I’m barking up the wrong tree perhaps you can explain where am going wrong🙂

So last week to huge fanfares and hope😄 Sunak launched Stop small boats week well that could not have gone any worse.

This week it is apparently *NHS week. I guess we must keep our fingers crossed that the whole institution doesn’t collapse.

Not sure what the focus is next week - I can only assume everyone is hiding in the hope the focus doesn’t fall on them.

You don't really need my definition of communism Maisie, as what I see is people being attracted towards an economic system that would be, in some areas, more communist than socialist. I am quite sure you are able to understand that.

If I 'understood' it I wouldn't ask, would I? I'm sure you're able to understand that...

“2 out of every three people want greater government spending on public services, which would of course result in economic growth.”

The same could be said about HS2 but that’s highly questionable, if we embark on a lot of public service spending we're going to need a much larger labour force than else have now.

You sound angry Whitewave with what you think I think. Why do you now think I will try and explain (again) what I actually question? I don't want to upset you so I think it's better if I just stay silent. This seems to be exactly what you both want - views silenced, even when you misconstrue those views, if you don't think they agree with yours.

At the moment, both you and Maisie are reminding me of a girl I knew when we were both about twelve. On the way home from school one day, she asked me if I "believed in Catholics". Analyzing this, as I had been taught to do, I replied I believed that Catholics exist. She slapped me.

I feel you are both behaving exactly like that girl. What she believed in she considered a truth and no one would be allowed to even come near the question (even oddly constructed) unless she could make them agree, or at least not disagree, even if she had to use unacceptable methods.

But then, I don't see politics as a religion, I think people's lives are much to important to look at them like that.

Why are we all arguing when most of us want the same thing? Maybe that’s why the Conservatives win elections. Because they just concentrate on winning them, not the minutae of what their party stands for or why certain party members are chosen to represent the party and some aren’t.

MayBee70

Why are we all arguing when most of us want the same thing? Maybe that’s why the Conservatives win elections. Because they just concentrate on winning them, not the minutae of what their party stands for or why certain party members are chosen to represent the party and some aren’t.

In one 👏👍

MayBee70

Why are we all arguing when most of us want the same thing? Maybe that’s why the Conservatives win elections. Because they just concentrate on winning them, not the minutae of what their party stands for or why certain party members are chosen to represent the party and some aren’t.

You are right. I stand corrected 😄😄

MayBee70

Why are we all arguing when most of us want the same thing? Maybe that’s why the Conservatives win elections. Because they just concentrate on winning them, not the minutae of what their party stands for or why certain party members are chosen to represent the party and some aren’t.

I don't think you are arguing MayBee are you? Do we really all want the same thing, do we? If so why the attacks?

Whitewavemark2

MayBee70

Why are we all arguing when most of us want the same thing? Maybe that’s why the Conservatives win elections. Because they just concentrate on winning them, not the minutae of what their party stands for or why certain party members are chosen to represent the party and some aren’t.

You are right. I stand corrected 😄😄

maybe I’ve been pondering what you said, and I think you are so right in that for the Tories, winning is all that matters. With regard to labour and their supporters I think, yes winning is more important than it has ever been, but the main problem with a Labour supporter is the angst they seem to go through, about what is right, fair and honest. So we tend to get tied up in knots about doing the right thing and perhaps lose what is important which is getting rid of the Tories.

Whitewavemark2

Whitewavemark2

MayBee70

Why are we all arguing when most of us want the same thing? Maybe that’s why the Conservatives win elections. Because they just concentrate on winning them, not the minutae of what their party stands for or why certain party members are chosen to represent the party and some aren’t.

You are right. I stand corrected 😄😄

maybe I’ve been pondering what you said, and I think you are so right in that for the Tories, winning is all that matters. With regard to labour and their supporters I think, yes winning is more important than it has ever been, but the main problem with a Labour supporter is the angst they seem to go through, about what is right, fair and honest. So we tend to get tied up in knots about doing the right thing and perhaps lose what is important which is getting rid of the Tories.

I think you are right Whitewavemark2 Conservatives have got a win at any cost gene

It’s no secret that I have been a lifelong Conservative, now politically homeless.

I wouldn’t like to see any party have a huge majority again, if it’s close the parties might work together and negotiate as opposed to being constantly confrontational.

GrannyGravy13

Whitewavemark2

Whitewavemark2

MayBee70

Why are we all arguing when most of us want the same thing? Maybe that’s why the Conservatives win elections. Because they just concentrate on winning them, not the minutae of what their party stands for or why certain party members are chosen to represent the party and some aren’t.

You are right. I stand corrected 😄😄

maybe I’ve been pondering what you said, and I think you are so right in that for the Tories, winning is all that matters. With regard to labour and their supporters I think, yes winning is more important than it has ever been, but the main problem with a Labour supporter is the angst they seem to go through, about what is right, fair and honest. So we tend to get tied up in knots about doing the right thing and perhaps lose what is important which is getting rid of the Tories.

I think you are right Whitewavemark2 Conservatives have got a win at any cost gene

It’s no secret that I have been a lifelong Conservative, now politically homeless.

I wouldn’t like to see any party have a huge majority again, if it’s close the parties might work together and negotiate as opposed to being constantly confrontational.

Labour is more “we must win at any cost, provided we can take everyone with us and we all agree on minutia” otherwise we need to take it to conference and thrash it out there, washing our dirty linen in public, an unedifying spectacle that is so useful to the right wing media.

From outside the two larger parties, both of which are coalitions, I see the Tories scrapping behind closed doors and winning more often and Labour scrapping with the doors open and winning less often.

Winning more often is good. Being open with your intentions is also good. In most countries with voting systems like ours this seems to be standard.

Doesn't that mean the problem is with the voters who, these days, seem, in large numbers, to only want to vote for TV personalities. Only Ukraine seems to have come out well from that view of politics.

Not sure that U.K. voters elect TV personalities DaisyAnneRetrns

But, any prospective MP in the 21st century must utilise all forms of media to get their own political points of view and their parties manifesto known to the widest audience possible.

GrannyGravy13

Not sure that U.K. voters elect TV personalities DaisyAnneRetrns

But, any prospective MP in the 21st century must utilise all forms of media to get their own political points of view and their parties manifesto known to the widest audience possible.

I think Johnson’s appearance on HIGNFY is what propelled him into political success. Even I was charmed by him back then (albeit not in the way that I’m charmed by Rory Stewart these days).

MayBee70

GrannyGravy13

Not sure that U.K. voters elect TV personalities DaisyAnneRetrns

But, any prospective MP in the 21st century must utilise all forms of media to get their own political points of view and their parties manifesto known to the widest audience possible.

I think Johnson’s appearance on HIGNFY is what propelled him into political success. Even I was charmed by him back then (albeit not in the way that I’m charmed by Rory Stewart these days).

My niece is one of many who watched him on HIGNIFY and thought that he was brilliant! I'm not sure what she thinks now.