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

6 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I think a fair comparison would be by-elections when opposition. To be in charge when PM seems very different.

Don’t worry we’ll get that chance soon enough with Starmer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I mean labour treated a better than expected loss to Theresa May as a victory, politicians will always try and put a positive spin on things.

I agree voters aren’t massively enthusiastic about Starmer, the question I would always ask myself s would they be massively enthusiastic about an alternative. I think they would be less enthusiastic about RLB (who came second in the leadership contest) others may disagree. One thing I think is people won’t actively vote against Starmer as many did Corbyn last time around.

As for wanting something radical, I’m sure that applies to some, my instinct is that there aren’t a load of swing voters screaming out for radical policies, I think incremental change is probably the most realistic. Voters had the opportunity to vote radical in the last 2 elections and chose not to take that option.

History shows us that voters tends to vote for people that incremental, competent change. When given the option in 2017 and 2019 of fairly radical change they chose the opposite on both occasions. Then when the opposition gives them the choice of something less radical it appears the voters are more receptive. 
 

These people that claim the public want this transformational change always fail to ignore the fact that when given that option the public said no and even sided with Theresa May.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I mean labour treated a better than expected loss to Theresa May as a victory, politicians will always try and put a positive spin on things.

I agree voters aren’t massively enthusiastic about Starmer, the question I would always ask myself s would they be massively enthusiastic about an alternative. I think they would be less enthusiastic about RLB (who came second in the leadership contest) others may disagree. One thing I think is people won’t actively vote against Starmer as many did Corbyn last time around.

As for wanting something radical, I’m sure that applies to some, my instinct is that there aren’t a load of swing voters screaming out for radical policies, I think incremental change is probably the most realistic. Voters had the opportunity to vote radical in the last 2 elections and chose not to take that option.

that something radical will be 2029 with Farage leading Reform to power.

Edited by steviewevie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

that something radical will 2029 with Farage leading Reform to power.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

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.

just seen the old fraud on tv saying that a poll of tory members has them wanting him as leader (seemed like him pitching himself for the job to me) - he'd need to get elected first cos only MPs can be tory leader - keeps spaffer out of the picture too, which is good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, fred quimby said:

He has been lucky with the amount he has been able to go for. Obviously due to sh*t mps and folk leaving. 

It's all about local issues and mps though 😉

He is a lucky General that is for sure either that or he’s just so great at this political game 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

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

Yes easy to forget the left took control of alot more of the party machinery than they did under foot. He's completely taken back control of the party before they had a clue what was happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LJS said:

So Starmer has moved Labour so far to the right that the leader of Scottish Labour has to promise to "stand up" to him.

 

image.thumb.png.8179ffa4341906626e61f69356e419a5.pnghttps://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/anas-sarwar-promises-stand-up-32131238

what happened to the last person who said they'd defend Scottish interests? and why are police Scotland so sh*t?? that she's not in jail yet!

turns out scots can rule Scotland as bad as a tory. how come the unstopable indie campaign has stopped.

Honestly, this stuff is comedy gold. But in a winner-takes-all dumb-off with Humza Yousaf’s SNP, it’s way too close to call.

Edited by Neil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LJS said:

So Starmer has moved Labour so far to the right that the leader of Scottish Labour has to promise to "stand up" to him.

 

image.thumb.png.8179ffa4341906626e61f69356e419a5.pnghttps://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/anas-sarwar-promises-stand-up-32131238

Am independence supporter talking about Scotland's best interests comedy gold 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Ozanne said:

He is a lucky General that is for sure either that or he’s just so great at this political game 😉

He has been lucky, but it isn't all luck. It was kind of unlucky that the Israel Hamas thing kicked off just as the party conference was starting.

Thing is with Starmer he isn't popular, he is just less unpopular than Sunak. Maybe that will change when he gets in power, but with the state of everything I very much doubt it. Trust in politicians in general is very low at moment, we're ripe for a populist takeover.

Edited by steviewevie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nobody Interesting said:

It's not the swing voters that want it, it's those that likely will not bother voting as increasing numbers see no point.

if people think starmer is dull, he looks exciting alongside RLB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:

I was responding to a post that you made about about by elections LOL

Still, move the goalposts to fit your narrative.

 

PS Have you admitted yet that the Green pledge from Labour has been watered down/scrapped yet or are you still fixated that Labour are pefect?

I posted that Starmer was the most successful by-election Labour leader then you went and compared the votes from a by-election to a general election, which as you know aren't comparable.

Edited by kaosmark2
please keep the snark out
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

He has been lucky, but it isn't all luck. It was kind of unlucky that the Israel Hamas thing kicked off just as the party conference was starting.

Thing is with Starmer he isn't popular, he is just less unpopular than Sunak. Maybe that will change when he gets in power, but with the state of everything I very much doubt it. Trust in politicians in general is very low at moment, we're ripe for a populist takeover.

There is an element of luck but you have to have that to win in politics but yeah I agree it's not all luck. He has done wonders to get the Labour to the position it is in.

 

Some polls show he is moderately popular but yeah he isn't the most popular politician ever but you don't need to be you just need to beat the person/party in front of you.

We've had our populist, that was Johnson and didn't work out very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:

It's not the swing voters that want it, it's those that likely will not bother voting as increasing numbers see no point.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

He has been lucky, but it isn't all luck. It was kind of unlucky that the Israel Hamas thing kicked off just as the party conference was starting.

Thing is with Starmer he isn't popular, he is just less unpopular than Sunak. Maybe that will change when he gets in power, but with the state of everything I very much doubt it. Trust in politicians in general is very low at moment, we're ripe for a populist takeover.

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.

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...

  • Latest Activity

    • 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.
    • David Byrne’s obviously got a few hits to play, but he’s not cheesy enough for the Legend Slot. Other headliner perhaps?
    • Too good for the legends slot 
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...