pink_triangle

This is politics and the speaker is elected by politicians. I think it would be naive to think conversations don’t go on behind closed doors.

The SNP had the chance to speak to labour and put together a wording that both sides could support. Instead they chose to put together a bill to try and pit themselves against Tory’s and labour, giving them something to put on their election material and trying to cause problem for their main rival. They are now sulking because their political game didn’t pay off and it’s hard to have sympathy.

There are non political game responses , but in this case I’m not sure what was available once SNP had intentionally set the wording to cause issues for labour. However as I have said previously for all the political drama yesterday will likely make no impact on Israel/Hamas or the average voter in this country.

You’re right they could have done something behind closed doors. However once SNP decided to play politics, I’m not sure there was a response labour could make without playing politics.

The SNP worded their amendment to try and divide labour so it’s hard to have much sympathy for them. They could have worded it differently, but that is their choice. On this issue they chose to play politics and labour played politics back.

Phillips was the most high profile, but I’m not convinced she is well known by those who don’t follow politics.

Labour have been united, a few ministerial resignations that nobody have heard of, all positive about Starmer. Neither labour or the tories are under pressure from the electorate about this. As I have said many times this issue is high up the ladder on political social media, but low in the real life. At the end of the day even if the PM has influence it’s going to be small. Labour are playing politics, but so are Torys and SNP. I have no doubt that Isreal are paying little attention to what British politicians think about this.

How would the world have been different if he did? Would he be in a better position to use his influence as future PM?

The wording is important in one respect. SNP know they will have no seat at the negotiating table in this, so can effectively say what they want. PM Starmer may have a small amount of influence, so I understand his caution.

I would also argue stress is a serious issue and often down to overwhelming workload. If previously people just got on with it and made themselves worse, I think it’s positive now that many don’t.

I would think that as our understanding of mental health problems has improved (although a long way to go) that more are diagnosed and offered support, where previously they would have been considered awkward and just moved on. I have no doubt this causes increased sick days, but not convinced this is a terrible thing.

I think the trouble with the debate about WFH is people who say it’s only positive or only negative, when the truth is somewhere in the middle. i think working from home is great for some (not all) people with physical or mental health problems who would struggle either to get to an office, or cope with the office environment. I do however worry about some people with mental health issues masking them from home, when colleagues would pick up on issues in person and support could be offered. I have also experienced how newly qualified members of staff have struggled through the distance that WFH creates. When I was a new starter you learned so much from those informal conversations in the kitchen or directly observing a colleague deal with something or take a phone call. We also have found that some people don’t want to get involved with student training as they have to come in the office which to me is detrimental. I know colleagues will say they can save money in childcare (although not convinced everyone is productive looking after kids at the same time as working) and travel but I think at times it can border on selfishness if you aren’t giving others the opportunity and support you had. Overall I favour some kind of hybrid model, but it’s definitely not an all or nothing argument for me.

I would still support PR, but I think supporters of the smaller parties may become disillusioned. One advantage of FPTP for the smaller parties is being able to promise everything without ever having to deliver.

I would like more left wing policies. The calculation they are making is that we can’t afford them and the electorate won’t vote for them. It would be naive to think they are definitely wrong. I think being the leader of the greens or Lib Dem’s is easy knowing you can promise the world and never have to deliver. It’s much harder being the leader of a Labour Party with a chance of power knowing compromise is needed to build that coalition to win power, decisions you make will let people down and you have to sacrifice some people to win over others. I think Starmers heart is in the right place and that’s a good start. I also trust him (compared to the other options) to make things better than they are now. I won’t get everything I want, but something is better than nothing.

I think they have already said they wouldn’t work with the torys. I think they are correct doing this, but it does weaken their hand.

Which promises do you think he has dropped that are popular? Also for the popular policies do you believe the electorate are willing to pay for them? I completely appreciate why you think labour have let you down, the reality is however the average voter has no clue about labour selections, party discipline etc.

They had power because they could play off both sides and agree failed to use it. If labour is the only option then I think their negotiating hand is weaker.

The thing is when Lib Dem’s went in to coalition with the Torys it didn’t really change much apart from the AV referendum, I am not sure Lib Dem’s would change labours direction significantly. The trouble for both Lib Dem’s or the SNP in a hung parliament is if they bring down the government they let in the Tory’s which weakens negotiation position.

I. People will put pressure based on their views, but if these views are at odds with the electorate you risk losing votes and not gaining them. The leadership will have to make that judgement call what you can sell and what you can’t. My view is that in power Starmer will be less risk averse and I guess that is my judgement call when I’m at the ballot box.

I don’t see what you think we would get from a hung parliament. It would probably be working with Lib Dem’s and SNP. I don’t think they would move things in the policy direction you would hope

Who were they then, what will these people do in a general election? At the end of the day if they live in the majority of constituencies in the country it won’t matter if they don’t vote, unfortunately that is the way our political system works. Out of interest if your not a fan of Starmer, who do you think would be doing a better job?

Who could labour pick who would be really popular with the electorate? Maybe a flip flopper like Burnham who flips left to centre when ever it suits him, then what happens when he is on power and he has to let people down. I don’t see Starmer as popular or unpopular, people (in general) are not actively voting against him like they did with Jez. Instead of promising the earth (and letting everyone down) his approach seems to be to give him the opportunity and he will show what he can do in power.

That’s a political calculation though, you may not like (or you may disagree with the calculation) but that is what is in play here. Labour are effectively sacrificing pro Corbyn voters thinking they can get more valuable (either total or in more competitive constituencies) people who voted Tory in 2019. You can definitely make an intellectual argument for this approach , whether it’s effective time will tell.

From my perspective he played the Corbyn situation perfectly in terms of politics, he could have made different choices and ended up like Chuka

I think in the right scenario with the right leader, a more radical labour leader could be successful. The trouble with Corbyn was the messenger as much as the message. A younger, charismatic lefty without the baggage, who has been careful in their social media, then who knows.