| No smoke without fire: on 10:44 - Nov 12 with 829 views | MattinLondon |
| No smoke without fire: on 10:16 - Nov 12 by GlasgowBlue |
I knew my post was guaranteed to upset th right people. I even got a downvote from our "new" poster. |
You do know that when posters downvote they tend not to be upset with the post itself. It’s just a shorthand for disagreeing with the content of it. |  | |  |
| No smoke without fire: on 10:53 - Nov 12 with 808 views | TNBlue |
Starmer's main failings are some of the awful people he's put around himself. Clueless Lammy. Fake CV Reeves, Tax dodger Rayner, Epstein pal Mandelson [Post edited 12 Nov 10:54]
|  | | |
| No smoke without fire: on 10:57 - Nov 12 with 791 views | Herbivore |
| No smoke without fire: on 10:16 - Nov 12 by GlasgowBlue |
I knew my post was guaranteed to upset th right people. I even got a downvote from our "new" poster. |
The whole "upsetting the right people" boll0cks is a large part of why politics, and society more generally, is in such a worrying state. But you do you. |  |
| |
| No smoke without fire: on 10:58 - Nov 12 with 783 views | Herbivore |
| No smoke without fire: on 10:29 - Nov 12 by lowhouseblue |
politics and democracy summarised in two sentences. after all this time there are people who still don't understand that their views are in a minority and they can only win elections by compromising with people who have different views. but that's the essence of politics. if it wasn't for the need to win votes and deal with real world economic constraints they'd have all the answers. |
And how is Labour offering no real alternative to the Tories working out for you and them? | |
| |
| No smoke without fire: on 11:05 - Nov 12 with 755 views | Clapham_Junction |
| No smoke without fire: on 08:18 - Nov 12 by GlasgowBlue |
Labour won the last election because people like me ,who are not traditional Labour voters, voted for them. That’s his winning elections work mate. |
Labour becoming appealing to people like yourself meant they lost nearly 600,000 voters compared to the previous election when apparently they had their worst leader ever.
The main reason Labour won the last election (with 34% of the vote) was because the right was completely divided. |  | | |
| No smoke without fire: on 11:13 - Nov 12 with 730 views | Herbivore |
| No smoke without fire: on 11:05 - Nov 12 by Clapham_Junction |
Labour becoming appealing to people like yourself meant they lost nearly 600,000 voters compared to the previous election when apparently they had their worst leader ever.
The main reason Labour won the last election (with 34% of the vote) was because the right was completely divided. |
Indeed, and most of their decrease in polling since the 2024 election is accounted for by those who no longer know who to vote for or those defecting to the Greens or Lib Dems: https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/uncategorized/looking-for-labours-lost-vote
The idea that trying to appeal to the right is a good electoral strategy for Labour is for the birds. They won a big majority last year but not a big share of the vote. They aren't popular and aren't offering anything that is going to make them more popular currently. | |
| |
| No smoke without fire: on 11:16 - Nov 12 with 723 views | MattinLondon |
| No smoke without fire: on 11:05 - Nov 12 by Clapham_Junction |
Labour becoming appealing to people like yourself meant they lost nearly 600,000 voters compared to the previous election when apparently they had their worst leader ever.
The main reason Labour won the last election (with 34% of the vote) was because the right was completely divided. |
That could well be true but I still think that at the time a lot of people wanted Starmer to become more radical and to be more aggressive in his liberalism. But instead, he’s just became more anxious not to upset Reform types whilst alienating traditional Labour or left thinking people.
Starmer has done some good - hospital waiting lists are down. To me, he’s the right man but at the wrong time. | | | |
| No smoke without fire: on 11:16 - Nov 12 with 717 views | GlasgowBlue |
| No smoke without fire: on 11:05 - Nov 12 by Clapham_Junction |
Labour becoming appealing to people like yourself meant they lost nearly 600,000 voters compared to the previous election when apparently they had their worst leader ever.
The main reason Labour won the last election (with 34% of the vote) was because the right was completely divided. |
Whereas the Tories lost nearly 7 million. Many going to labour. The right plit didn't matter as Reform only increased their vote by 3 1/2 million. And some of those votes came from Labour voters.
I repeat, that is how elections are won. You have to compromise, so you may lose some of your supporters. But you gain many more votes from other parties. [Post edited 12 Nov 11:22]
|  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| No smoke without fire: on 11:20 - Nov 12 with 703 views | Clapham_Junction |
| No smoke without fire: on 11:16 - Nov 12 by GlasgowBlue |
Whereas the Tories lost nearly 7 million. Many going to labour. The right plit didn't matter as Reform only increased their vote by 3 1/2 million. And some of those votes came from Labour voters.
I repeat, that is how elections are won. You have to compromise, so you may lose some of your supporters. But you gain many more votes from other parties. [Post edited 12 Nov 11:22]
|
But they didn't "gain many more votes". They lost votes overall, they just got lucky that the opposition was very divided. | | | |
| No smoke without fire: on 11:23 - Nov 12 with 690 views | GlasgowBlue |
| No smoke without fire: on 11:20 - Nov 12 by Clapham_Junction |
But they didn't "gain many more votes". They lost votes overall, they just got lucky that the opposition was very divided. |
I've edited my post so I'll put the edit here. The right wing split was not why Labour won. The Tories lost 7 million voters. Reform only increased their vote by 3 1/2 million. And some of those votes came from Labour voters. | |
| |
| No smoke without fire: on 11:37 - Nov 12 with 651 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| No smoke without fire: on 10:06 - Nov 12 by J2BLUE |
At the gravest of times we have a clown show going on and all because centrists couldn't bear being wrong.
Just to be clear, is being wrong in this example not supporting Corbyn? |
Why are you making it about personalities rather than political direction again? |  |
| |
| No smoke without fire: on 11:39 - Nov 12 with 647 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| No smoke without fire: on 10:29 - Nov 12 by lowhouseblue |
politics and democracy summarised in two sentences. after all this time there are people who still don't understand that their views are in a minority and they can only win elections by compromising with people who have different views. but that's the essence of politics. if it wasn't for the need to win votes and deal with real world economic constraints they'd have all the answers. |
Loltastic....irony meter off the charts! | |
| |
| No smoke without fire: on 11:52 - Nov 12 with 626 views | Pinewoodblue |
| No smoke without fire: on 11:16 - Nov 12 by GlasgowBlue |
Whereas the Tories lost nearly 7 million. Many going to labour. The right plit didn't matter as Reform only increased their vote by 3 1/2 million. And some of those votes came from Labour voters.
I repeat, that is how elections are won. You have to compromise, so you may lose some of your supporters. But you gain many more votes from other parties. [Post edited 12 Nov 11:22]
|
Each election there is a group of people who just can’t bring themselves to voting. It isn’t the same people every election.
It would be more accurate to say elections are lost when a party fails to encourage their traditional support to go the polling station.
Labour is in hiding to nothing in May, as are the Tories. If Reform come out clear winners it will be for two reasons. Tories voting Reform and Labour support staying at home. |  |
| |
| No smoke without fire: on 12:03 - Nov 12 with 595 views | GlasgowBlue |
| No smoke without fire: on 11:52 - Nov 12 by Pinewoodblue |
Each election there is a group of people who just can’t bring themselves to voting. It isn’t the same people every election.
It would be more accurate to say elections are lost when a party fails to encourage their traditional support to go the polling station.
Labour is in hiding to nothing in May, as are the Tories. If Reform come out clear winners it will be for two reasons. Tories voting Reform and Labour support staying at home. |
The May elections will be a bloodbath for the Tories and Labour. But we are just over a year into what could be a five year parliament. Both parties need to hold their nerve and stick with their current leaders.
I don't think the Tories will though. Jenrick will be Tory leader next summer. | |
| |
| No smoke without fire: on 12:06 - Nov 12 with 588 views | Herbivore |
| No smoke without fire: on 11:23 - Nov 12 by GlasgowBlue |
I've edited my post so I'll put the edit here. The right wing split was not why Labour won. The Tories lost 7 million voters. Reform only increased their vote by 3 1/2 million. And some of those votes came from Labour voters. |
This analysis suggests that Labour didn't pick up a huge share of the Tory vote and that most damage to the Tory vote came from Reform. Labour didn't lose many voters to Reform either, at least not in 2024: https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49978-how-britain-voted-in-the-2024-gener | |
| |
| No smoke without fire: on 12:22 - Nov 12 with 564 views | J2BLUE |
| No smoke without fire: on 11:37 - Nov 12 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Why are you making it about personalities rather than political direction again? |
He mentioned Corbyn. I am asking a question. If he would like to respond I would be interested in what he means about the centre not wanting to admit they were wrong. Wrong about what?
Also, this is not about political direction. This is about the far left wanting a pure left wing utopia which most people have little interest in. Most of you would rather lose with with someone like Corbyn than have a candidate who compromises and moves the needle in your direction.
Usually the classic reply to this is something like why should we compromise when we're right and the electorate is too stupid to see it. |  |
| |
| No smoke without fire: on 12:25 - Nov 12 with 548 views | Herbivore |
| No smoke without fire: on 12:22 - Nov 12 by J2BLUE |
He mentioned Corbyn. I am asking a question. If he would like to respond I would be interested in what he means about the centre not wanting to admit they were wrong. Wrong about what?
Also, this is not about political direction. This is about the far left wanting a pure left wing utopia which most people have little interest in. Most of you would rather lose with with someone like Corbyn than have a candidate who compromises and moves the needle in your direction.
Usually the classic reply to this is something like why should we compromise when we're right and the electorate is too stupid to see it. |
Wanting the kind of moderate social democracy that's fairly common in much of Europe does not make someone "far left". That you think it does is a demonstration of why political discourse in this country is a joke. | |
| |
| No smoke without fire: on 12:31 - Nov 12 with 528 views | J2BLUE |
| No smoke without fire: on 12:25 - Nov 12 by Herbivore |
Wanting the kind of moderate social democracy that's fairly common in much of Europe does not make someone "far left". That you think it does is a demonstration of why political discourse in this country is a joke. |
I was replying to Bankster. Do you think he wants a moderate social democracy?
I don't have you in the same group. | |
| |
| No smoke without fire: on 12:35 - Nov 12 with 508 views | J2BLUE |
| No smoke without fire: on 12:03 - Nov 12 by GlasgowBlue |
The May elections will be a bloodbath for the Tories and Labour. But we are just over a year into what could be a five year parliament. Both parties need to hold their nerve and stick with their current leaders.
I don't think the Tories will though. Jenrick will be Tory leader next summer. |
Why change now though? Surely it's better for both to stay with their current leaders until 18 months or so before the next election? Especially Labour. Have a new leader in place by end of September 2027. Two budgets to give away plenty and convince everyone they've changed course. | |
| |
| No smoke without fire: on 12:35 - Nov 12 with 508 views | Herbivore |
| No smoke without fire: on 12:31 - Nov 12 by J2BLUE |
I was replying to Bankster. Do you think he wants a moderate social democracy?
I don't have you in the same group. |
But it's the lumping of Corbyn in with the "far left" as though he's the second coming of Lenin rather than the kind of bog standard social democrat that's common in most other countries that is problematic. We're seeing similar with Polanski now. Anyone proposing anything vaguely progressive and/or genuinely to the left of the centre gets demonised while the far right are welcomed into mainstream political discourse with open arms. | |
| |
| No smoke without fire: on 12:51 - Nov 12 with 474 views | J2BLUE |
| No smoke without fire: on 12:35 - Nov 12 by Herbivore |
But it's the lumping of Corbyn in with the "far left" as though he's the second coming of Lenin rather than the kind of bog standard social democrat that's common in most other countries that is problematic. We're seeing similar with Polanski now. Anyone proposing anything vaguely progressive and/or genuinely to the left of the centre gets demonised while the far right are welcomed into mainstream political discourse with open arms. |
The far right are welcomed by some. Plenty of us genuinely fear a Reform government and would like the likes of Polanski and Corbyn to come out with serious achievable policies. Neither should be anywhere near power but they are probably needed as part of an anti Reform alliance. At least an unofficial alliance between voters.
Corbyn wasn't helped by the media but he was never a serious option anyway. Where is someone with some of these ideas in a fully costed (and reviewed as being realistic) manifesto who doesn't come with the baggage of Corbyn and Polanski?
Rightly or wrong, the majority of the country just doesn't seem to want what many on TWTD's left seem to want. | |
| |
| No smoke without fire: on 12:55 - Nov 12 with 462 views | Herbivore |
| No smoke without fire: on 12:51 - Nov 12 by J2BLUE |
The far right are welcomed by some. Plenty of us genuinely fear a Reform government and would like the likes of Polanski and Corbyn to come out with serious achievable policies. Neither should be anywhere near power but they are probably needed as part of an anti Reform alliance. At least an unofficial alliance between voters.
Corbyn wasn't helped by the media but he was never a serious option anyway. Where is someone with some of these ideas in a fully costed (and reviewed as being realistic) manifesto who doesn't come with the baggage of Corbyn and Polanski?
Rightly or wrong, the majority of the country just doesn't seem to want what many on TWTD's left seem to want. |
Except that left wing policies are consistently popular when put to the public, the public is just then told by the largely right wing media that is owned by multi-millionairres that left wing policies aren't achievable and those proposing them are whack jobs. It's a very effective tactic that also involves distracting people with bogeymen, like immigrants for example.
Edit - I'd also suggest that the centrist dads who advocate more of the same are completely deluded if they think that keeping pushing more of the same is going to tackle Reform. We are where we are because of decades of right of centre politics that only ever tinkers around the edges while primarily perpetuating a status quo that favours the best off in society and leaves many feeling left behind. There have been different flavours of that politics but it's essentially been the same food stuff. Sticking a different rosette on PMs who fundamentally agree on a large proportion of stuff doesn't bring about change and ends up laying the ground for upstarts like Reform when people start to see that nobody is really offering them anything. [Post edited 12 Nov 13:09]
| |
| |
| No smoke without fire: on 13:04 - Nov 12 with 435 views | Swansea_Blue |
| No smoke without fire: on 09:44 - Nov 12 by BanksterDebtSlave |
I was referring to the drift across the whole of Europe. |
That’s very little to do with the EU. It’s a global problem. |  |
| |
| No smoke without fire: on 13:26 - Nov 12 with 380 views | MattinLondon |
| No smoke without fire: on 13:04 - Nov 12 by Swansea_Blue |
That’s very little to do with the EU. It’s a global problem. |
Indeed - but within the EU no leader wants to leave it. Probably seen what has happened to the UK and think best to avoid that situation. | | | |
| No smoke without fire: on 13:49 - Nov 12 with 328 views | StokieBlue |
| No smoke without fire: on 13:26 - Nov 12 by MattinLondon |
Indeed - but within the EU no leader wants to leave it. Probably seen what has happened to the UK and think best to avoid that situation. |
President of Poland was on an independence march in Warsaw yesterday.
Poland does have a strange setup though where the president and prime minister both seem to have executive powers.
SB |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
