Labour and Lib-Dems sign a non-aggression pact

It's difficult to see what benefits this brings to the Labour Party. The Lib Dems have 11 seats. Even if there are 30 marginal seats out there and the alliance sticks it won't give them enough seats for a change of government.

What makes you think Angela Rayner is suitable wwm? Other world leaders tend to have had an education and not call one another ‘scum’. She’s an embarrassment as soon as she opens her mouth - or ‘gob’ as she would probably say.

The reported pact may help get the Tories out and dispose of BJ for good but it still needs a sea change in voting. And I hope the LibDems don't rat and go into coalition with the Tories after the Election. If they had not been so power hungry under Clegg (now pursuing a well paid PR career in the US) we would never have had Cameron and his poor decisions.

Germanshepherdsmum

Be careful what you wish for. Can anyone imagine the likes of Angela Rayner representing the country on the world stage?

Yes I can, and I would be happier with Angela Rayner than Liz Truss.

Completely agree.

That’s a really odd comment trisher, why do you think there are only 30 marginal seats?

Germanshepherdsmum

What makes you think Angela Rayner is suitable wwm? Other world leaders tend to have had an education and not call one another ‘scum’. She’s an embarrassment as soon as she opens her mouth - or ‘gob’ as she would probably say.

Completely agree gsm.

I am delighted by this sensible approach, I live in a very safe Tory seat, and this may give those of us who are very unhappy with having a liar as PM, a chance to have our opinion registered. Bring it on, I will vote for the ABT candidate (anyone but Tory). I just cannot understand how decent, intelligent people can think that this disgusting shower currently in charge are in any way deserving of a second chance. Stands back and waits for the usual tirade of complaints about Ms Rayner calling Tories 'Scum'......maybe a few posts about Corbyn.....and then the usual ill informed nonsense about Labour economic policy. Anyone who votes for a government headed by the liar Johnson who said in the HoC 'Fu*k business' cannot complain about Angela Rayner's comments, which were to a closed, side meeting.

Good, but even better if they’d step back from the blacklisting of words like woman, mother, breastfeeding.

And maybe even admit that sex (as distinct from gender, as the word is used nowadays) is a biological fact.
This would not in any way make anyone transphobic.

IMO they are going to lose a lot of women’s votes on this issue. Even Tony Blair (in a Sunday Times mag interview a week or so ago) said Labour’s stance on this will be widely seen by voters as ‘bonkers’ and it’s time for Labour to get real on this issue.

Germanshepherdsmum

What makes you think Angela Rayner is suitable wwm? Other world leaders tend to have had an education and not call one another ‘scum’. She’s an embarrassment as soon as she opens her mouth - or ‘gob’ as she would probably say.

I did not say that I think she is, I am merely interested in your comments and you brought her up.

I now understand your reasons for thinking she is unsuitable.

I’m interested to know which of the other Labour or Lib Dem shadow front benchers you think are ‘the likes of’ Angela Rayner, GSM - and crucially if you think they would be worse than what we have now? I can think of better candidates from all three parties than the current cabinet.

Well for starters let’s look at the shadow chancellor. I can really imagine her at the G7.

Casdon

That’s a really odd comment trisher, why do you think there are only 30 marginal seats?

There were 36 seats with a less than 2% majority in 2019 Casdon 141 seats with less than 20% but 20+ of those were in Scotland. Some of the marginals won't have had Lib Dem candidates, some may sway to the right. That means the number has to be somewhere between 30 and 120 I chose the lower figure because the bigger the majority the harder it is to unseat someone.
commonslibrary.parliament.uk/general-election-2019-marginality/
Even if all 120 of those seats could throw out a Tory (and lets remember that some of them will be marginal Labour seats) that will still not mean a Labour government.

Germanshepherdsmum

Well for starters let’s look at the shadow chancellor. I can really imagine her at the G7.

I feel uneasy when I see Liz Truss walking around doing her Margaret Thatcher impersonation on the world stage. But, credit to her, she is State educated, I wonder if those who think that only the independently educated are fit to rule are aware of this?

The headline in the FT is "Labour and Lib Dems in informal ‘non-aggression’ pact ahead of next UK election". I can't see the word "signed" and "informal" suggests it is ... well, informal.

What Starmer has said is that Labour must "ruthlessly focus" resources on its target seats in the GE. The LP leadership points out that none of Labour's top target seats is in the LD top 30 target seats list.

Whatever Labour do nothing will stop you from having a choice. Candidates will stand and you will be able to vote for them. I imagine, before the next election, you will also be able to go online to find out who is best bet as an "Anyone but a Tory" candidate in your constituency. Whether you chose to or not will be up to you. That's democracy.

Labour want to win outright but the challenge is huge. The recent boundary changes haven't helped either. No one is talking about a Lib/Lab pact. It is far more likely to be a co-operation agreement as they have in Wales. They will look at where they agree and work on getting those Bills through in that parliament. I agree that this is a very rational way to go and we could do with some rational thinking, imo.

I wouldn't say that the majority of the UK are centre-left. I would say the vast majority are a little to one side or the other of centre with minorities on either extreme. They haven't had their choice as we have a government voted in by a minority. Most centrists will tolerate either a centre-left or centre-right government if it doesn't, as this Tory government has, move to the extreme.

Germanshepherdsmum

Well for starters let’s look at the shadow chancellor. I can really imagine her at the G7.

I can. She studied at Oxford and the LSE after a state school education.

Well said DaisyAnne.

Good post daisy anne

I know about her education but that’s not what it’s all about is it. You can’t wax lyrical about her education whilst lambasting Conservatives with excellent academic achievements. She doesn’t inspire me in the slightest. Nor does anyone sitting on Starmer’s front bench.

I couldn't care less about anyone's academic record. I know some people with great qualifications who are absolute shits. I do care about their committment to caring for the less fortunate and helping the poorest in our society. For some reason that seems to be found far less in the privately educated I can't imagine why...

This is the best political news for ages. I am so pleased.

Germanshepherdsmum

I know about her education but that’s not what it’s all about is it. You can’t wax lyrical about her education whilst lambasting Conservatives with excellent academic achievements. She doesn’t inspire me in the slightest. Nor does anyone sitting on Starmer’s front bench.

That's your problem! If you're inspired by the Conservative front bench, you have a huge problem!

FWIW, and it may not be in the spirit of Gnet, but I think that Gsm's comments are based on snobbery and prejudice.

Rachel Reeves has a degree in economics and worked as an economist at the BoE. Which makes her decidedly better qualified than the current Chancellor, who seems to have no understanding of how the economy works at all.

Not that I think that any of the parties has a chancellor or shadow chancellor who has a real understanding of how a national economy 'works', but then, you all know that I have a rather less than conventional view of national economies than the general public...

trisher

I couldn't care less about anyone's academic record. I know some people with great qualifications who are absolute shits. I do care about their committment to caring for the less fortunate and helping the poorest in our society. For some reason that seems to be found far less in the privately educated I can't imagine why...

Neither am I, but it seems people just can't be pleased. They criticise people for having no educational qualifications and for having Oxford and LSE degrees.

Maizie I'm not a huge fan of Rachel Reeves either, but I agree she has a better understanding of macro-economics than Sunak. I don't think she'd be an embarrassment on the world stage - at least, she wouldn't think it clever to talk about Peppa Pig!