What is the point of Labour ?

[houston_bud]

4 hours ago, Leith Green said:

Starmer is just another opportunist politician who could easily be in Tory blue [bif the circumstances had been different[/b] - I struggle to believe a word he says and have done for a long time.

What circumstances do you think would've had him join the Conservative Party?

[Alert Mongoose]

23 minutes ago, houston_bud said:

What circumstances do you think would've had him join the Conservative Party?

If it looked like they were going to win the next election?

[houston_bud]

2 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said:

If it looked like they were going to win the next election?

I have no idea when Starmer joined the Labour Party, but he became an MP in 2015. If he'd switch to the Tories because they were going to win an election, then he's had ample opportunity.

[KirkieRR]

10 hours ago, Jedi2 said:

Couldn't be more different in approach  and that's without even taking the Rwanda madness into account.

Errm, I think they could be differenter and you know it.

As I recall the Labour argument against Rwanda is that it wouldn't work, not that it's bonkers and inhumane.

[Alert Mongoose]

4 minutes ago, houston_bud said:

I have no idea when Starmer joined the Labour Party, but he became an MP in 2015. If he'd switch to the Tories because they were going to win an election, then he's had ample opportunity.

If it looked like they were going to win the 2024 election, he would defect. His views and policies are indecipherable from the tories.

Edited December 5, 2023 by Alert Mongoose

[houston_bud]

19 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said:

If it looked like they were going to win the 2024 election, he would defect. His views and policies are indecipherable from the tories.

 Fair play

Edited December 5, 2023 by houston_bud

[Salt n Vinegar]

We must keep in mind two things when discussing political matters on the internet -

1) 98.347653% of all statistics seen on the internet are untrue, and 

2) any politician who claims to have a vision is more likely to be suffering from a hallucination. Starmer's hallucination is that he will change Britain. 

All he will be doing is keeping the Westminster seat warm for the next Tory.

[Leith Green]

1 hour ago, houston_bud said:

What circumstances do you think would've had him join the Conservative Party?

 

51 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said:

If it looked like they were going to win the next election?

Yeah, he reminds me a lot of T Blair, in that he is not really a natural "Labour" politician in the sense of being a Union supporting socialist.

Had Blair joined the Tory party, when you think back to the rampant capitalism his govt encouraged, then his period in power might not have been that different - except for the rosette colour.

I know Starmer isnt the same person as Blair, different background etc, but Labour? Nah, not for me.

[oneteaminglasgow]

2 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

I know Starmer isnt the same person as Blair, different background etc, but Labour? Nah, not for me.

Aye, Starmer hasn’t had the chance to be a war criminal mass murderer yet. Give him time though, I’m sure he can manage. 

[aDONisSheep]

1 hour ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

Aye, Starmer hasn’t had the chance to be a war criminal mass murderer yet. Give him time though, I’m sure he can manage. 

In fairness, he's doing more than his fair share of lifting for Israeli war crimes!

[oneteaminglasgow]

@Highlandmagar your love for Tony Blair has been noted and filed in my book marked ‘petty grudges’ 

[houston_bud]

1 hour ago, Leith Green said:

Yeah, he reminds me a lot of T Blair, in that he is not really a natural "Labour" politician in the sense of being a Union supporting socialist.

Had Blair joined the Tory party, when you think back to the rampant capitalism his govt encouraged, then his period in power might not have been that different - except for the rosette colour.

I know Starmer isnt the same person as Blair, different background etc, but Labour? Nah, not for me.

What is a 'natural' Labour politician? 

The Labour Party has always swung between more centrist 'pragmatic' politicians and those further to the left who see themselves as more ideological pure. 

If you considered all Labour leaders, I don't think Starmer is particularly an outlier.

[Billy Jean King]

12 hours ago, Jedi2 said:

More clear water between Tory and Labour proposals on immigration.

With Cleverly targeting vulnerable people yet again by trying to penalise essential workers by raising the salary threshold for 'entry' from £26200 to £38700 and restricted access to NHS services by £624 to £1035, as well as banning health and care workers bringing family dependents to the UK, Labour, by contrast would have no such 'salary' requirement, but rather ensure that people doing the jobs are paid a fair and proper wage,  would work to ensure that workers can be reunited with family members, focus on the criminal gangs exploiting people rather than the vulnerable themselves and strike a deal with the EU to take a fair quota of asylum seekers.

Couldn't be more different in approach  and that's without even taking the Rwanda madness into account.

So Labour will rip up any "deal" with Rwanda  ???

[Highlandmagar]

40 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

@Highlandmagar your love for Tony Blair has been noted and filed in my book marked ‘petty grudges’ 

Idiot.

[Jedi2]

There would appear to be 2 broad narratives applied to the Labour Party by its opponents, dependent on who the leader is:

Either they are simply a 'joke' and unelectable when under clear left wing proposals such as Corbyn's or they are exactly the same as the Tories when it's Blair, Milliband or Starmer.

With Blair in 97, same as now, we heard pre-election that public spending would be tight and indeed in line with Tory fiscal policies. 

Fast forward a couple of years and that period saw a significant increase in public spending particularly on the NHS, Education and Social Services.

Fundamentally any Labour govt will always look to fund the public sector and will borrow to do so.

The Tories, by contrast and instinct, will always look to cut taxes and reduce public spending as far as possible.

Doesn't matter who the leader of both parties is, their govts will broadly follow that outlook.

As far as 'career' politicians go, is Humza in it for his love of public service or is he maybe, just maybe, an opportunist as well?

[welshbairn]

2 hours ago, Billy Jean King said:

So Labour will rip up any "deal" with Rwanda  ???

Given the huge costs of shipping people to Rwanda, including the £150 million odd already paid, the sensible thing would be to offer asylum seekers a wee treat if they don't appeal to the courts.

[Highlandmagar]

19 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

There would appear to be 2 broad narratives applied to the Labour Party by its opponents, dependent on who the leader is:

Either they are simply a 'joke' and unelectable when under clear left wing proposals such as Corbyn's or they are exactly the same as the Tories when it's Blair, Milliband or Starmer.

With Blair in 97, same as now, we heard pre-election that public spending would be tight and indeed in line with Tory fiscal policies. 

Fast forward a couple of years and that period saw a significant increase in public spending particularly on the NHS, Education and Social Services.

Fundamentally any Labour govt will always look to fund the public sector and will borrow to do so.

The Tories, by contrast and instinct, will always look to cut taxes and reduce public spending as far as possible.

Doesn't matter who the leader of both parties is, their govts will broadly follow that outlook.

As far as 'career' politicians go, is Humza in it for his love of public service or is he maybe, just maybe, an opportunist as well?

And that 2 year freeze kn public spending was only to get right wing press on side . There was absolutely no need to put a freeze on spending as is now publicly acknowledged. 

[O'Kelly Isley III]

5 hours ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

Aye, Starmer hasn’t had the chance to be a war criminal mass murderer yet. Give him time though, I’m sure he can manage. 

I read this almost 20 years ago and it still resonates today.  Anyone preparing to vote Labour and perhaps naively hoping a Starmer Government may deviate even slightly from the US/Nato worldview on any geopolitical issue, but most especially Israel and the Palestinians, could do worse than read it for some interesting and at times quite disturbing content.

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Blair_s_Wars/U4xti2TmG6UC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover

Edited December 5, 2023 by O'Kelly Isley III

[Jedi2]

3 hours ago, Highlandmagar said:

And that 2 year freeze kn public spending was only to get right wing press on side . There was absolutely no need to put a freeze on spending as is now publicly acknowledged. 

Freeze on public spending...where else so we hear that? Council Tax per chance?

[Salvo Montalbano]

6 hours ago, Jedi2 said:

Fundamentally any Labour govt will always look to fund the public sector and will borrow to do so.

The Tories, by contrast and instinct, will always look to cut taxes and reduce public spending as far as possible.

Apart from this one you mean? High tax burden, increased public debt... up is down and down is up.