kaosmark2
-
Posts
20,537 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
42
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by kaosmark2
-
-
1 hour ago, Neil said:
he made vsome cracking saves from the highlights i saw.
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.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Neil said:
its not the voting system that bring about tory govt, its the voters, it'll be the same voters wanting the same outcome if a different voting system is used.
interesting take on the by-elections by laura K
changing the voting system to try to gerrymander a different result, makes that different result less likely.
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.
-
10 minutes ago, steviewevie said:
yes agreed...so maybe don't write off Starmer when he's still just leader of opposition. At moment he is just trying to win. Blair was offering f**k all before the 97 election...it was all 3rd way mush stick to tory spending plans....and then eventually this...
Imagine if that happened to Starmer now...people would go megashit.
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.
-
2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:
I much prefer Starmer to Blair... although Blair a much better politician and better at media. Starmer just seems more decent imo, but is leader in a much more volatile, fragile and polarised world. Starmer does seem naive in many ways though, and is just following whatever part of party is advising him more, Blair was a wiser politician who'd been an MP a lot longer.
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.
-
5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:
Hopefully better for Iraqis though.
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.
-
1 minute ago, Ozanne said:
That doesn’t really make much sense. Starmer has said from the start his first priority was getting Labour into government and that’s what he’s doing. You don’t need to completely trust him beside you cant completely trust anyone
I honestly think that Starmer is a good man and wants the best for this country that’s why I support him so much.
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.
-
1 hour ago, charlierc said:
Didn't know Pope was once at the Shots.
Granted, 5 games in Aldershot in a one month spell in 2013 is slightly fewer appearances than making over 50 Premier League appearances for Newcastle and the genuine truth that since he dislocated a shoulder in December, we've stopped being able to defend.
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.
-
13 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:
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 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.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Ozanne said:
I don’t think you can completely trust the Lib Dem’s, at the moment they say they want to get the Tories out if they feel they can get something out of it then they’ll get into bed with the Tories as seen in 2010.
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.
-
14 minutes ago, Ozanne said:
It’s also on the MPs themselves and if they want to risk another Tory government. It’s essentially what Labour would do as a minority government, daring opposition parties to vote down a Kings Speech.
Thats my point though, it’s all a risk and at this time I don’t think the country needs that.
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.
-
17 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:
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.
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.
-
12 minutes ago, Ozanne said:
Thats what I mean though, it’s a risk of relying on Lib Dem votes and if that doesn’t work then it could collapse the government triggering an election and letting the Tories back in. It is a big risk especially when the country is in such a bad state as it is now.
The SCG are still in the party and probably would love to cause a Labour government some grief if they can.
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.
-
36 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:
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.
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.
-
33 minutes ago, Ozanne said:
I found the last hung-Parliament thoroughly entertaining but they can be less stable especially if the size of the majority is very small and the MPs on the fringes are likely to cause issues. I think we can all agree the country has massive issues that need sorting and a stable Labour government is the best way of dealing with that. It is a big risk of a the Tories coming back in with a hung-Parliament and one we shouldn’t need to deal with.
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.
-
4 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:
Well given one of the last 2 seats ceases to exist at the next GE that one at least really was meaningless.
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.
-
8 minutes ago, Ozanne said:
You could argue a slim Labour majority runs the risk of the Tories coming back in too. For the sake of good governance you’d probably need a majority of 30+
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.
-
3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:
By elections can be kind of meaningless in terms of general election I guess, mid term and all that. But we're not really mid term now
I'd mostly say that by-elections can be used to try and read trends about similar seats, not about full GE results.
-
6 minutes ago, Ozanne said:
A hung-Parliament runs the risk of the government collapsing and allowing the Tories back in any following election. The best thing for the country would be for Labour to win a majority, sort the issues facing the country and then at the end of the 2nd term enact PR. We can’t run the risk of the Tories getting back in considering how they’ve gutted the country.
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.
-
23 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:
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
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.
-
19 minutes ago, Ozanne said:
Starmer is the most successful by-election Labour leader ever.
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.
UK Politics
in Discussions
Posted
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.