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.

Urmstongran

You’d surely all have to agree that a democratic vote (by those who could be bothered) such as the referendum was, needed to be honoured?

Yes, I did, although I didn't vote for it. I'm with Thatcher in the view that referendums are more the last resort of desperate politicians or despots, but once we'd had it, we needed to abide by it.

However, it seems many have wised up to the lies told by Johnson, Farage, et al, and regret things.

www.whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/poll-of-polls-uk-eu/

Forrest Gump was a great guide to life Callistemon

nightowl

I give up

Don't give up nightowl
We need all viewpoints on here or it becomes an echo chamber.

I liked Starmer but am becoming rather uncertain about him lately.

Another Forrest Gump phrase:
'life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get' - until after the election!

Thanks Oreo I appreciate your post, but I try to avoid political threads these days anyway. I supported Jeremy Corbyn and we all know what that means .

I was called hard left, a communist (which is laughable to those who know me) and ‘morally bankrupt’ (which I have to admit still stings, as integrity is everything to me). None of it actually bothers me now, and I'm certainly not afraid to state my opinions but I mostly can’t be bothered to be honest. I think people are so entrenched in their own opinions that there’s little room for actual debate on these threads, so I’m happy to let them be. And it looks to me as though the lefties get more of a bashing than the other way around, but I would say that wouldn’t I?

Don’t give up nightowl or that means you’ve been pushed off a thread.
There’s room for left wing views as well as very left wing, centre or to the right on here.Critics of Starmer too can post opinions, why ever not?
Nobody has to vote a certain way or even vote at all.

I give up

Galaxy

Oh I have criticisms of Starmer, I also have criticisms of the Tories, There are posters on this thread whose only purpose for being on here seems to be to undermine the Labour Party. I absolutely am going to keep pointing that out.

Anyone who does not fully understand the realities of First Past the Post here?

How can anyone say 'it is not about being elected'? How is any PM + Governement going to make any changes to the dire situation the UK finds itself in currently- without being elected.

Undermining the LP via attacks against Starmer could have dire consequences. If people abstain, or vote for a party which has not chance due to FPTP - the real risk is to let Tories in again. Can anyone say that would be preferable to KS?

Glorianny

DAR if Starmer could keep the promises he made in order to be elected as leader of the LP that would be a start.
But find it increasingly strange that I am castigated for not trusting Starmer, when no one has posted any policies or ideas he is firmly committed to.
The idea seems to be that any government is better than this one, so everyone must support Starmer.

Everything you write is both angry and negative. People get fed up with other people's ire. You do not put forward anything positive or even answer others' questions. You seem to want to be angry, tell others what they are thinking and then tell them they are wrong.

We know the current team in Labour is committed to winning. We know the Conservatives want to win as many seats as possible and, if they could find any way of doing it, would aim to win outright whatever it took.

If this seems, in both cases, to be holding back policy announcements and undermining some moral concerns, this is not the fault of our politicians; it is how our political campaigns work. They have little transparency or openness and no manifesto until about six weeks before voting in a GE. Even then, they will both be extremely vague.

After all this, governments often don't follow manifestos. This, in a two-party system with FPTP, is inevitable. Has it got worse? Probably not if we look back at Rotten Boroughs and the buying of votes.

What has been put forward by Labour are policies that do not cost a lot of money. They know that if they are to win, the leadership must be seen as fiscally trustworthy outside natural Labour voters. So they have promised planning reform leading to more house building, education reforms, and labour market reforms, including the scrapping of zero-hour contracts and sector-wide bargaining. All cost little and can have a dramatic effect. This is much like the Wilson government did in the '60s and New Labour when they took over. Labour changes at this point for little cost.

We all know that beyond this level, there may have to be a rethink fiscally. The Conservatives are already set to break their own fiscal rules if they get back in. There is every chance many will feel worse before we feel better under either party. It is inevitable, because of where we are now, that whatever government we get, they will have to raise taxes, increase borrowing or cut spending.

All you can bet on is the direction a party would take in doing that.

Oh I have criticisms of Starmer, I also have criticisms of the Tories, There are posters on this thread whose only purpose for being on here seems to be to undermine the Labour Party. I absolutely am going to keep pointing that out.

nightowl

I’m sick to death of posters telling those of us who dare to criticise Starmer that we are playing into the hands of the Tories or implying that we are just frustrated lefties. Or indeed, that we will be responsible if Labour do not win the next election. You have no idea how we will vote, indeed some of us have said repeatedly we will vote for Labour because of course we want to get rid of this Tory government, but that is ignored.

I am not playing ‘purity politics’, believe it or not I’m as pragmatic as the next person, but I have very real concerns about Starmer’s actions (couldn’t really care less about his motives, or how ‘left’ he is, the actions speak for themselves) and I care enough about the Labour Party to want integrity and fairness to be central to its future. And if we are not allowed to make valid criticisms of a leader or the direction we feel a party is taking then we are not living in a democracy.

And in the words of Forrest Gump, that’s all I have to say about that.

We are never going to agree, but it’s always the left who start this anti Starmer rhetoric nightowl, in fact 9 times out of 10 it’s one of two posters, whether it’s not it has any relevance to the thread. I’m sick to death of it too, although from the opposite perspective to you. I suspect we aren’t the only ones either.

I’m sick to death of posters telling those of us who dare to criticise Starmer that we are playing into the hands of the Tories or implying that we are just frustrated lefties. Or indeed, that we will be responsible if Labour do not win the next election. You have no idea how we will vote, indeed some of us have said repeatedly we will vote for Labour because of course we want to get rid of this Tory government, but that is ignored.

I am not playing ‘purity politics’, believe it or not I’m as pragmatic as the next person, but I have very real concerns about Starmer’s actions (couldn’t really care less about his motives, or how ‘left’ he is, the actions speak for themselves) and I care enough about the Labour Party to want integrity and fairness to be central to its future. And if we are not allowed to make valid criticisms of a leader or the direction we feel a party is taking then we are not living in a democracy.

And in the words of Forrest Gump, that’s all I have to say about that.

Glorianny

DAR if Starmer could keep the promises he made in order to be elected as leader of the LP that would be a start.
But find it increasingly strange that I am castigated for not trusting Starmer, when no one has posted any policies or ideas he is firmly committed to.
The idea seems to be that any government is better than this one, so everyone must support Starmer.

I don’t think anybody is under any illusion about you not trusting Starmer Glorianny. Why do you keep trying to ram your beliefs down everybody else’s throats though, even on threads where it’s irrelevant to the question posed in the thread? You know what Labour’s missions are, you know that he (rightly in my opinion) has learned a lot about what the electorate want in his time as leader and has recognised that for Labour to be elected some of his original promises have to be tempered with a dose of reality. You know why he isn’t making firm policies yet - he is not stupid. You also know that if for whatever reason he wasn’t in post, that the party will continue in like vein. The left aren’t going to gain the ascendancy because painful though it is for you, what’s being done now is working. You can vote Green, leave the party, or remain griping on the sidelines, the choice is yours.

Fleurpepper

Grany

Agree Glorianny
Could be Starmer is being avasive he's good at that. We are talking about the Conservative government being no good, but Labour are following same polices under Starmer so no change.

So you would actually, as a result of the above opinion-

either vote Conservative = Tories in power

or

abstain = same result?

Do vote tactically if it makes any sense in your Constituency. I certainly will. But otherwise- sabotaging Starmer = Tories again. Bravo - NOT!

Of course could try and get a new Leader from far left of party- which would fit in better with your wishes. Fine, I'd get that. And yet, Corbyn or Foot, or any from Momentum = Tories again. Really what you would prefer?

I'll probably vote Green if we have a candidate.

I'd like someone who is able to keep their word. Who reunites the party inviting back into it all the Jews and left wingers Starmer threw out.

The papers may be forecasting a victory for Starmer, but I don't think it will be necessarily a triumph, and seats we should have won will be lost.

It's generally not about winning elections, it's about being politically pure. Gets us nowhere of course but for the people who play purity politics it wont generally impact their lives, they dont need a labour government.

DAR if Starmer could keep the promises he made in order to be elected as leader of the LP that would be a start.
But find it increasingly strange that I am castigated for not trusting Starmer, when no one has posted any policies or ideas he is firmly committed to.
The idea seems to be that any government is better than this one, so everyone must support Starmer.

Grany

Agree Glorianny
Could be Starmer is being avasive he's good at that. We are talking about the Conservative government being no good, but Labour are following same polices under Starmer so no change.

So you would actually, as a result of the above opinion-

either vote Conservative = Tories in power

or

abstain = same result?

Do vote tactically if it makes any sense in your Constituency. I certainly will. But otherwise- sabotaging Starmer = Tories again. Bravo - NOT!

Of course could try and get a new Leader from far left of party- which would fit in better with your wishes. Fine, I'd get that. And yet, Corbyn or Foot, or any from Momentum = Tories again. Really what you would prefer?

So you want an "absence" of the leader of the Labour Party, Glorianny. I don't actually care why you want that but you really need to tell the rest of us ...

Then what?

Just stop talking about the hole you want to create and tell us how the absence of someone who is being seen, to quote Marr (New Statesman) "as effectively the candidate Prime Minister" is going to help the country or, what I presume is your party, Labour.

Or do you despise democracy so much, are you so far to the left, that you expect to be one of the selectorate of the leader of what would then be the beginnings of a Marxist-Leninist party?

It would be really great if you stopped just destroying or attempting to destroy, and for once said something positive backed by a reasonable suggestion of a programme about how your ideas for policies could be carried out.

Casdon

Glorianny

DaisyAnneReturns

Casdon

I can’t be bothered to keep on finding answers to your ever more desperate attempts to split hairs Glorianny, why not look for yourself? Remember that you were the one who said the CCRC didn’t get many letters when they do?
I swear if there was a way you could find him at fault for the colour of his eyes you’d do it.

I often wish I remembered that it is not worth talking to extremists - on either side or in the centre, about their extreme thinking Casdon. (They are probably quite nice people otherwise.)

We hear so much about what the complainers don't want. However, we hear so little about what they do want. Just as with the anti-EU voters and particularly the Conservative MPs, and those who voted and supported the hardest of "leaves" - a "no-deal Brexit" - the position they take is not, to paraphrase Rory Stewart, voting for or wanting "something", but voting for or wanting the absence of something.

This approach makes for a very bleak and dying country.

I think a far more dangerous concept is the idea that because one party has proved such a liability in government we must necessarily support whoever leads the other party.
Much was hurled at anyone who supported Corbyn about them being unthinking and blinkered. It seems that Starmer supporters will put up with anything from him, and regard any criticism as unacceptable.
Is it too much to ask that the Labour party be led by someone who has shown a commitment to Labour values, who is capable of making and keeping promises and who understands (as even Tony Blair did) that the party is made up of people whose views are politically widespread, but who share a common purpose, and that throwing people out of it helps no one?

That, as my mum would say, is a load of eyewash. Corbyn’s supporters still think he walked on water, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Starmer has tuned in to what voters want, rather than what the diehard left of the Labour Party wants, and it leaves you disenfranchised, while a major part of the country is breathing a sigh of relief that at last we will have a competent, moderate government. I certainly don’t think Starmer is without fault - but on the whole he has less fault that all those trying to discredit him. You need to get over yourselves and accept that what you want doesn’t fit with what the electorate wants.

Oh really! So can you tell me one policy that you are absolutely certain Starmer will follow when he comes to government?
As fo the electorate Starmer has been proved inadequate already. U.xbridge showed that. A Labour candidate parachuted in by head office lost

Ministers and Permanent Secretaries no longer resign over errors made by their junior staff and neither should Starmer. That belongs to the mores of pre-1950s' Britain. Under many years of mainly Tory governments public mores have changed and that is understandable given the size of government departments (tens of thousands of staff) and the increased complexity of legislation which worsens decision making. And nowadays even minor issues are blown out of all proportion by the foghorn press.

Justin Schlosberg
@jrschlosberg

Just in case anyone was still in ny doubt over what
@ukLabour
actually now stand for, and who they stand for.

Andrew Feinstein
@andrewfeinstein

Arms makers, fossil fuel companies & a spyware firm r among those sponsoring events at this year’s Labour Party conference. Boeing, Babcock & Palantir, a controversial spyware firm funded by the CIA, will sponsor fringe events hosted by the New Statesman.
opendemocracy.net/en/labour-party-conference-greenwashing-weapons-boeing-palantir-babcock/?utm_source=oD%20Daily%20SEGMENT&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Labour%20conference%27s%20surprising%20sponsors&_kx=ZMNdAajsBpbT8qYESPQbM0w6ahcq_IaIabdVWeOzTUY%3D.YjCYwm?utm_source=tw

Starmer is not popular

We probably have more than a year to the next GE I see no point in Starmer spelling out all Labour's policies because that would leave the LP open to constant attack from the Tories and the right wing media.

Glorianny

DaisyAnneReturns

Casdon

I can’t be bothered to keep on finding answers to your ever more desperate attempts to split hairs Glorianny, why not look for yourself? Remember that you were the one who said the CCRC didn’t get many letters when they do?
I swear if there was a way you could find him at fault for the colour of his eyes you’d do it.

I often wish I remembered that it is not worth talking to extremists - on either side or in the centre, about their extreme thinking Casdon. (They are probably quite nice people otherwise.)

We hear so much about what the complainers don't want. However, we hear so little about what they do want. Just as with the anti-EU voters and particularly the Conservative MPs, and those who voted and supported the hardest of "leaves" - a "no-deal Brexit" - the position they take is not, to paraphrase Rory Stewart, voting for or wanting "something", but voting for or wanting the absence of something.

This approach makes for a very bleak and dying country.

I think a far more dangerous concept is the idea that because one party has proved such a liability in government we must necessarily support whoever leads the other party.
Much was hurled at anyone who supported Corbyn about them being unthinking and blinkered. It seems that Starmer supporters will put up with anything from him, and regard any criticism as unacceptable.
Is it too much to ask that the Labour party be led by someone who has shown a commitment to Labour values, who is capable of making and keeping promises and who understands (as even Tony Blair did) that the party is made up of people whose views are politically widespread, but who share a common purpose, and that throwing people out of it helps no one?

That, as my mum would say, is a load of eyewash. Corbyn’s supporters still think he walked on water, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Starmer has tuned in to what voters want, rather than what the diehard left of the Labour Party wants, and it leaves you disenfranchised, while a major part of the country is breathing a sigh of relief that at last we will have a competent, moderate government. I certainly don’t think Starmer is without fault - but on the whole he has less fault that all those trying to discredit him. You need to get over yourselves and accept that what you want doesn’t fit with what the electorate wants.

DaisyAnneReturns

Casdon

I can’t be bothered to keep on finding answers to your ever more desperate attempts to split hairs Glorianny, why not look for yourself? Remember that you were the one who said the CCRC didn’t get many letters when they do?
I swear if there was a way you could find him at fault for the colour of his eyes you’d do it.

I often wish I remembered that it is not worth talking to extremists - on either side or in the centre, about their extreme thinking Casdon. (They are probably quite nice people otherwise.)

We hear so much about what the complainers don't want. However, we hear so little about what they do want. Just as with the anti-EU voters and particularly the Conservative MPs, and those who voted and supported the hardest of "leaves" - a "no-deal Brexit" - the position they take is not, to paraphrase Rory Stewart, voting for or wanting "something", but voting for or wanting the absence of something.

This approach makes for a very bleak and dying country.

I think a far more dangerous concept is the idea that because one party has proved such a liability in government we must necessarily support whoever leads the other party.
Much was hurled at anyone who supported Corbyn about them being unthinking and blinkered. It seems that Starmer supporters will put up with anything from him, and regard any criticism as unacceptable.
Is it too much to ask that the Labour party be led by someone who has shown a commitment to Labour values, who is capable of making and keeping promises and who understands (as even Tony Blair did) that the party is made up of people whose views are politically widespread, but who share a common purpose, and that throwing people out of it helps no one?

Casdon

I can’t be bothered to keep on finding answers to your ever more desperate attempts to split hairs Glorianny, why not look for yourself? Remember that you were the one who said the CCRC didn’t get many letters when they do?
I swear if there was a way you could find him at fault for the colour of his eyes you’d do it.

I often wish I remembered that it is not worth talking to extremists - on either side or in the centre, about their extreme thinking Casdon. (They are probably quite nice people otherwise.)

We hear so much about what the complainers don't want. However, we hear so little about what they do want. Just as with the anti-EU voters and particularly the Conservative MPs, and those who voted and supported the hardest of "leaves" - a "no-deal Brexit" - the position they take is not, to paraphrase Rory Stewart, voting for or wanting "something", but voting for or wanting the absence of something.

This approach makes for a very bleak and dying country.

Declassified has previously shown that the UK Home Office deployed eight staff on the secret operation to seize Assange from his asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. This was a highly irregular move as Ecuador is a friendly country and asylum is a right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The CPS’s lack of disclosure of documents related to Assange may raise suspicions of a cover-up. While Starmer was still in charge, in April 2013, the CPS rejected Assange’s request for the personal data it had on him “because of the live matters still pending”.
Even GCHQ, the UK’s largest spy agency, had granted Assange’s request for the personal information it held on him, which revealed one of its intelligence officers calling the Swedish case a “fit-up”.
Keir Starmer did not respond to a request for comment.

A KINGLY PROPOSAL: LETTER FROM JULIAN ASSANGE TO KING CHARLES III

declassifieduk.org/a-kingly-proposal-letter-from-julian-assange-to-king-charles-iii/

Starmers fault Assange in prison, could be extradited to America for writing about American war crimes.