kaosmark2

Yeah exactly. And on top of that, the Tories are the ones that most typically are fighting to placate their own rebels. I think there's just a lot of crazy short-termist thinking when it comes to opposing electoral reform. If we get the correct system, it should actually stop the alternation of red/blue clicking the undo button on what the other did.

He's always been a strong shot-stopper, but his command of the box is pretty weak.

I find it crazy how people talk about how dangerous coalitions are, when in fact the Tory and Labour parties are in themselves coalitions of a huge range of views, so they can govern in FPTP.

I'm not entirely sure Laura K is exactly providing an unbiased political reasoning. I don't agree with gerrymandering but the Tories tried to adjust the upcoming boundary reforms in their favour, over that of what the electoral commission recommended. I don't think it's anywhere near the state of what the American parties do (and I would say both the major US parties do it), but I think you can point fingers.

I haven't written off Starmer doing good. I'm just sceptical. I'm too young to remember Blair's campaign, only the wave of excitement running up to the election. I'd also say that wrt The Sun, the influence:toxicity ratio has definitely shifted since then. Probably mostly on its influence declining, but it isn't the same as back then.

It's gonna be impossible to make a fair judgement until after Starmer has been PM and no longer is. Blair did huge amounts to reduce child poverty in this country, including a lot of positive schemes and methods, he lifted up the average quality of life for people in this country. The problem is that ways he did these things perpetuated inequality, and made it fairly easy for the Tories to gut the positive schemes and grow the inequality even more afterwards. Blair was also coming into power in an easier situation. I do think Starmer will do less for child poverty and QoL for British citizens, but I'm hoping that what he will do will be as permanent as the minimum wage, not as permanent as Sure Start etc.

The Iraq war was a horrendous decision, but I don't know if I trust Starmer to make a better one? I don't think his messaging around the Israel-Palestine mess has been great, and I'd also say that for all the valid "warmonger" criticism of Blair, I think the intervention in Kosovo was very important and it shouldn't be forgotten that Britain going in then did stop a genocide.

4 years ago I thought he was a good man. Now I have a lot of doubts. I think he'll be less positive for the country than Blair.

I was surprised at us signing Pope, as I'd thought Dubravka was a perfectly decent keeper, but while Dubravka's shot-stopping is decent, Pope's leadership and command of the defense has been sorely missing.

I agree with your first two paragraphs however... I don't trust Starmer at all. As far as I'm concerned he's enabled abuse against: Chinese people, Muslims, immigrants, unions, protestors, asylum-seekers, trans people, gay people, lawyers. A Labour leader who won't stand up for "minorities" is not one I trust or value - quote marks because the people he won't stand up for outnumber those who do.

Except I don't "completely trust" Starmer either? Or trust him much at all, therefore I'd prefer two groups I don't trust tempering each other instead of one I don't trust with a lot of power.

But this is the thing, the Lib Dems want PR, the Lib Dems want to prove that they can work with another party and it not come across as the same nonsense we had under Cameron. They're just starting to come back in after decimating their party in those years, and they'll just want to be quietly effective, showing themselves as a positive and constructive influence, and justify PR. As long as Labour + Lib Dems combined have 30 clear, then that should justify a better electoral system long-term, and hopefully be a better government than what Starmer is promising.

Nationalising rail and "the green new deal" or however they're framing it now, along with a windfall tax on energy companies. I think with re-nationalising public services, no the electorate aren't really willing to pay for that, but I have a great sense that Labour have backtracked so much that they're no longer offering anything positive to the electorate, not just to me.

If Labour being a fraction short of a majority can't get a policy through, then Starmer's failed to convince both his own party and every else other than Tories, and therefore that policy is probably a little bit sh*t. If Labour return over 300 MPs and can't govern then that's entirely on Starmer, not the problems of minority government.

So my view is that Starmer has welcomed a violent racist back as a Labour MP. Simultaneously, he's made a whole swathe of promises, many of which were popular, and he's gone back on them not due to the electorate, but due to our right-wing media and lobbyists.

Except a large part of the issue is that the Tory fringes are extremists. If we're to believe Starmer, he's kicked out the racist extremists, certainly from MPs. Also, if Labour are short say, 10 votes or similar for a sensible policy, and the far-left end of Labour is opposing it, you'd generally expect the Lib Dems to back it, not just because it should align with their own beliefs, but also that'll help justify some form of PR longer-term for their interests that way.

It's a little interesting for the seats it'll be absorbed into. Rees-Mogg's seat of North Somerset is going to take in about 1/3 of Kingswood and lose about 1/3 of its posh rural bits, which means it's an indication there's a much larger possibility that that tosspot could lose his seat! Bristol East is safe Labour anyway so I don't think the other 2/3 matters.

A slim Labour majority or a large Labour minority actually gives the best chance of shutting the Tories out long-term. Governing effectively without a large majority will show the public that they don't need to be scared of hung-parliaments being indecisive.

I'd mostly say that by-elections can be used to try and read trends about similar seats, not about full GE results.

I'd say if Labour have a single digit majority, or are single digits off a majority, then all their sensible policies that will help sort the country out will pass anyway, and it'll be an important check on Labour as well as effectively making PR a requirement of a 2nd-term manifesto.

How do you think people should apply pressure to Labour to actually stand for something though? I see Starmer as about as left/right as Cameron, albeit he won't have a chancellor that's anywhere near as right-wing as Gideon. But I see Starmer enabling, whether passively or actively, abuse against minorities that includes myself and my loved ones, while also having a general set of policies that to me reads as right-of Blair.

Locking the thread for one hour so people will cool down.

This could also be framed as the Tories are in utter shambles and Starmer is winning by-elections by default.

Always applicable:

Reform, like with UKIP before them, will have higher numbers in by-elections to try and scare Tories into behaving as they want them to. I wouldn't be surprised if they're high, but I still don't believe they'll get seats. Might be a bigger deal in the red wall.