What is the point of labour ?

[Thane of Cawdor]

1 hour ago, sparky88 said:

Nathalie Elphicke joining Labour isn't going to make a single person not want to GTTO who did before. Its an entirely pragmatic decision on thr part of Starmer. 

I think the first bit is true. However, there are other options than Starmer's Labour e,g, Liberal Democrats who may despise Elphicke's politics. And I can't see her apparent endorsement of Starmer as a vote winner for Labour in any context.

[scottsdad]

Taking a wee step back, this is both very weird and very good for Labour in England.

Weird because she should have gone to Reform. They only have to put up with her till the election (she is not standing again) but she is really not Labour in any sense. She is utterly out of place.

Good because the morons who actually decide elections, those right wingers across England but have three brain cells to rub together, will read into this "our woman, gone Labour" and might actually not slavishly vote for the blue rosette this time.

[MazzyStar]

57 minutes ago, HTG said:

Blair's party still had room for Tam Dalyell, Robin Cook and of course Jeremy Corbyn. They look positively socialist compared to Starmer and his right wing coalition. 

This is revisionism I’m afraid. 

[KirkieRR]

Seems her main point is that Labour are more likely to 'stop the boats'. Again this dehumanising of the victims. Boats not people.

Mind you, Labour's main criticism of the Rwanda farce is that it'll be an expensive flop (true: probably already is), not that it's inhuman.

[Buzz Killington]

Starmer just has to be a Tory plant.  I can't think of another plausible explanation. 

 

The more Labour move to the right surely at some point the left leaning Labour voters are going to just stop voting Labour. Although what their alternative is if they stop voting Labour, other than simply not voting, I'm not sure. 

[invergowrie arab]

2 hours ago, JS_FFC said:

The devil’s advocate view. 

 

Putting aside that Labour are already looking at a 200 majority, this is a horrible but probably fair take when Starmer's Labour are essentially a firm bidding for the contract of running the country.

It suddenly seems very archaic that the Labour Party would actually stand on a set of beliefs rather than just respond to the electorate with no thought or care as to how the electorate came to their conclusions in the absence of political leadership from Labour and the ceeding of the Overton window to libertarian interest groups.

[Granny Danger]

And it gets worse.

David Lammy tells US Republicans he can find ‘common cause’ with Trump

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/08/david-lammy-tells-us-republicans-he-can-find-common-cause-with-donald-trump

[BFTD]

3 hours ago, Thane of Cawdor said:

None of this makes sense to me. A net gain of two votes in a dying Parliament, so what? What does it say about the principles of Labour to welcome a right-wing Tory in to their ranks? How will this play with Labour's committed base?

Why is she joining a party that shares virtually no common ground (theoretically) with her own politics. And why, if she's so unhappy with Sunak's policies, didn't she head for her natural home in Reform UK?

• It indicates to the electorate in England that they'll be the Conservatives in all but name, which will win them the election.
• It says that there's very little difference between the two parties, if any.
• The party doesn't care about the traditional Labour base, and hasn't done for decades, as they're confident that they'll all vote Labour to get rid of the Tories because they've no alternative.
• She's joining Labour to avoid losing her job in a few months.
• She didn't go to REFUK because she would have lost her job in a few months.

It's all perfectly cromulent. We may not like it, but it makes sense.

[JS_FFC]

Just now, BFTD said:

• It indicates to the electorate in England that they'll be the Conservatives in all but name, which will win them the election.
• It says that there's very little difference between the two parties, if any.
• The party doesn't care about the traditional Labour base, and hasn't done for decades, as they're confident that they'll all vote Labour to get rid of the Tories because they've no alternative.
• She's joining Labour to avoid losing her job in a few months.
• She didn't go to REFUK because she would have lost her job in a few months.

It's all perfectly cromulent. We may not like it, but it makes sense.

She isn’t standing 

[BFTD]

2 minutes ago, JS_FFC said:

She isn’t standing 

I don't believe her.

[Freedom Farter]

13 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

And it gets worse.

 

David Lammy tells US Republicans he can find ‘common cause’ with Trump

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/08/david-lammy-tells-us-republicans-he-can-find-common-cause-with-donald-trump

In fairness, you have no choice there or USA punish you, especially Republican presidents. Bush put a tariff on EU steel imports which affected UK at the time. Trump put a tariff on whisky imports, obviously impacting us here in Scotland.

[sparky88]

41 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

Putting aside that Labour are already looking at a 200 majority, this is a horrible but probably fair take when Starmer's Labour are essentially a firm bidding for the contract of running the country.

It suddenly seems very archaic that the Labour Party would actually stand on a set of beliefs rather than just respond to the electorate with no thought or care as to how the electorate came to their conclusions in the absence of political leadership from Labour and the ceeding of the Overton window to libertarian interest groups.

All political parties do this. 

[carpetmonster]

24 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

And it gets worse.

 

David Lammy tells US Republicans he can find ‘common cause’ with Trump

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/08/david-lammy-tells-us-republicans-he-can-find-common-cause-with-donald-trump

Asked about his own remarks in 2017 that Trump was a “racist Ku Klux Klan and Nazi sympathiser”, and that he vowed to “chain myself to the door of No 10” if the UK welcomed the US president on a state visit to the UK, Lammy said he had made those remarks as a backbencher.

 

If anyone can find a bookie that’ll take a bet on Lammy going ‘uh, yes sir, that’s me sir’ in a vaguely Southern accent when Trump mistakes him for Tim Scott, give me a shout. 

Edited May 8 by carpetmonster

[Cheese]

Yup, nothing is real except whatever is beneficial to them on any given day. Absolutely nothing that can't be triangulated or completely 180'd or 360'd whenever it suits. Just a great big purple blob of 600 odd interchangeable empty suits, cretins and spivs.

At least they're kinda honest about that now tbf.

[Granny Danger]

29 minutes ago, Freedom Farter said:

In fairness, you have no choice there or USA punish you, especially Republican presidents. Bush put a tariff on EU steel imports which affected UK at the time. Trump put a tariff on whisky imports, obviously impacting us here in Scotland.

A Labour government working with whoever is the US President is a given.  No need to subjugate yourself prior to it.

 

[BFTD]

58 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

Asked about his own remarks in 2017 that Trump was a “racist Ku Klux Klan and Nazi sympathiser”, and that he vowed to “chain myself to the door of No 10” if the UK welcomed the US president on a state visit to the UK, Lammy said he had made those remarks as a backbencher.

What on Earth does this actually mean? Before I thought I might actually end up in government, I just said any old shit I thought might be popular and didn't mean a word of it? Or I used to tell the truth when I was a nobody, but now I have a career to protect?

[SlipperyP]

Time to merge this thread with the Tory one.

[BFTD]

4 minutes ago, SlipperyP said:

Time to merge this thread with the Tory one.

The Tory one's handy for pointing out the evil they do now, and the even more abhorrent things they're chomping at the bit to do in the future.

Labour haven't had the chance yet, but give them time. They'll get pretty desperate to sate the public's bloodlust in 2029, with Patel/Braverman/Badenoch promising lynchings in the street for being unBRITTISH!

[Maniakes]

For all the people playing devils advocate:

Such an attitude is a major reason. As to why the country is in its current bes**ttied state.

Having distinct and different political parties. Who have distinct idealogical tendancies, policies and a measure of integrity. Is vital for any functional democratic government.

Else you just have a factional elective oligarchy. 

That's how democracy dies "lesser evils" and sullen resignation.

Kicker is, Starmer could dig up and stand on Michael Foot's manifesto from the 80's. Actually mean it, whilst shunning all public appearances.

He'd still win because the tories are such despised f**k ups, at this point.

So yeah, all this awful Labour shite is because they want to do it. Not because they need to.

No excuses are acceptable nor applicable here.

 

Edited May 9 by Maniakes

[JS_FFC]

There are a few ways to interpret the current state of the Labour party

 

1) Starmer is just a power hungry populist who is going to tell the swing voters what they want to hear now and will do the same in government to maximise his chance of a second term.

 

2) Starmer is ideologically centre-right and none of what he’s doing now is a tactic, he just genuinely believes that these Tory lite policies are what the country needs.

 

3) The whole thing is a facade to get elected and once in government Starmer will pursue more centre-left type policies.

 

1 and 2 aren’t really mutually exclusive and there’s no practical difference between them. I think many of us are hoping for 3 but it seems highly unlikely at this point.