Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

UK Politics


kalifire

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

Maybe you ought to study political history as there have been plenty of them under Labour and other parties too all elected under FPTP.

PR will give consensus and working together for the good of the nation - not for the good of the party and it's electoral future as FPTP gives under both Labour and the Tories.................... and the  ore scared of PR people who blindly support one of those parties are the more I know PR is the best for all apart from those parties.

It is fact that FPTP in this country brings about more Tory governments so when I say it gives mainly Tory governments I am correct. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

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. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

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.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

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.

For the many, not the few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kaosmark2 said:

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.

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...

The Sun newspaper backs Tony Blair in March 1997.

Imagine if that happened to Starmer now...people would go megashit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

The Sun newspaper backs Tony Blair in March 1997.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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...

The Sun newspaper backs Tony Blair in March 1997.

Imagine if that happened to Starmer now...people would go megashit.

Tony Blair is very sexy.  If that happened to Starmer I would die. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ozanne said:

It is fact that FPTP in this country brings about more Tory governments so when I say it gives mainly Tory governments I am correct. 

FPTP gives mainly Labour OR Tory Govs as the 2 largest parties. Within that, of the 2 there are more Tory govs cause they usually get more votes than labour and win more seats, not cause FPTP generally benefits them more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

FPTP gives mainly Labour OR Tory Govs as the 2 largest parties. Within that, of the 2 there are more Tory govs cause they usually get more votes than labour and win more seats, not cause FPTP generally benefits them more.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Is anything said we need to be aware of?
    • Just listened to the new Madonna album, it would be a catastrophe if that isn't played on the pyramid!
    • Restore getting more than Lib Dems is not good.
    • https://x.com/amirtibon/status/2083054470871535853   Some thoughts on the Gaza agreement announced overnight, which despite my reservations and concerns, I hope will be implemented. 1. Donald Trump is trying to collect "wins" and "achievements" ahead of the midterm elections. His party is entering that election at a disadvantage, but because Democrats may choose weak and unpopular candidates in specific states, much like Republicans did in 2022, there's a reason for Trump to at least try achieving a surprising result like the one Biden secured four years ago.   2. The will to provide Trump such a "win" was an important motivation for all sides involved in this agreement: Hamas, Netanyahu, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Turkey. All of them hope, each for their own reasons, that the transactional president will remember their role in the agreement and the positive media coverage it has generated and will continue to generate. You can like it or not, but that's the nature of diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, under Trump.   3. Netanyahu and his band of liars in the Israeli media (and the last few suckers in the American media still buying his spin) are already trying to oversell the agreement and present it in terms that contradict the Board of Peace statements and briefings. Of course, the October 7 Prime Minister can't just say the truth on this one, which goes something like: "I'm trying to stay on good terms with Trump ahead of an election here in Israel that will determine my personal fate and whether or not I go to jail in 2027."   4. For Hamas, the agreement is a way to buy time and survive, which is basically the organization's overarching goal since October 7. They lost most of their leadership and thousands of their fighters; they will also, I believe, give up some of their weapons to the new Gaza-based Palestinian government, which is a good thing. But at the bottom of all their decisions is a simple calculation: being able to say, "we committed the most deadly and humiliating attack against Israel since the start of the conflict, and survived as a movement and an organization to tell about it."   5. Hamas was able to say that yesterday, before the agreement was signed, and it can also say that today, after the conclusion of the negotiations. So in that regard, the agreement is preferable to the murky post-war reality that preceded it, in which Hamas was recruiting again thousands of young fighters, holding on to all its weapons, and controlling 99% of Gaza's population, making money off people buying fuel and cigarettes. Changing even a part of that terrible reality, by collecting some of the weapons and allowing progress on reconstruction under a non-Hamas government, is better. It means coming to terms with the fact that Israel under this government failed to dismantle Hamas and allowed its survival even before this agreement was signed.   6. Do I think the agreement will be fully implemented over the next 300 days, as I understand the timeline? I'm highly skeptical. But I'm also asking: what are the alternatives? Netanyahu, in his quest for political survival at all costs, ignored David Ben-Gurion's national security strategy of seeking short and decisive wars, which was based on Israel's unique internal and external challenges that make it dangerous for this country to have long wars of attrition. The result is an Israel that is hated, isolated and denounced around the world like never before, and is totally reliant on the support of one man (TRUMP) to avoid crushing international sanctions. Going to war in Gaza once again based on the same promise of "finishing Hamas," which this government failed to achieve after three long years, would have been suicidal unless Trump promised his full backing. And Trump, for good reasons, can't give such a commitment after his bitter experience with Netanyahu in Iran and Lebanon.   7. For me and my family, these are all very personal, not only political, questions. My six-year-old daughter will start school on the Gaza border in exactly one month, as we rebuild our life in the same home where Hamas tried to murder us on October 7. We've learned over the years to be highly skeptical of premature victory announcements and diplomatic celebrations. When these things collapse under the cynical realities of the conflict, most of those announcing them are not around to face the consequences. Still, I don't see a better alternative to the 20-Point Plan that Trump presented last year, at least not with Israel's current position of isolation and exhaustion under this government. So I have some hope that the agreement will succeed, even partially, and deliver a period of quiet. For us on the border, that would be significant after three years of war and trauma. And maybe in the long run, with different Israeli and Palestinian leadership, this will become a first step in a broader positive change for the region.
    • Until they're through the first round of votes there's no point believing any reports about who'll win.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...