Snap General Election called

[Puja]

However, gods only know what the existing Labour candidate for Dover, who was likely a shoo-in, thinks of being asked to stand aside for this utter belter.

Why on earth would he have to stand aside?
Her defecting to labour and standing down as an MP does not mean that the incumbent candidate doesn't get to stand.
Even if she wasn't standing down as an MP, that doesn't mean that the local labour party have to choose her as their candidate over their incumbent.

Generally, though, I agree, she'd absolutely be happier in Reform than Labour.
As for why Kier would allow her in - you mentioned it yourself, to choose that labour is a "safe space" for defecting tories - MPs and voters.

Of course, you and I as leftie snowflakes, are going to be unhappy about this. It would still take a LOT more than this to convince me to vote for whoever is most likely to unseat my local tory twat (and he really is a twat)

I had assumed she was defecting to be the Labour incumbent for Dover - didn't realise she was standing down next election until my edit.

I don't know it does take more than this for me. If the election was on a knife-edge, then maybe my feelings would be different, but the Tories are going out no matter what anyone does, and I just can't vote for Labour right now. What is voting for Labour even for at this point if racist, anti-union, anti-LGBT, anti-women's rights Conservatives are cheerfully welcomed because it's politically savvy? What are they, but an empty suit?

As things stand, I'm voting Green. It will accomplish little to nothing, especially in my area, but I can't countenance supporting the "Power for power's sake" party.

Puja

[Zhivago]

Anyone else utterly confused by Natalie Elphicke crossing the divide to join Labour?

I can sort of understand the desire to put the boot in the Tories, and this is an easy way to do it. These defections might get us an earlier election... The pressure is surely mounting on Sunak.

Strangely enough it reminds me more of the bed hopping in notoriously shite reality TV shows, rather than serious politics. And that's Britain's malaise at the moment, where are the serious politicians??

And there should be a limit on these defections, you can't oust apparent racists on the one hand and then let in racists on the other hand. The integrity of the party will become compromised.

[Donny osmond]

From my point of view, it's disgraceful.

From a neutral point of view, it indicates that Starmer is closer to the far right than the far left, also probably that he's right of centre. The evidence points that way.

So, roll up, right wingers, Labour is no longer a left wing party, it's safe to vote for! (Except that you can't actually believe a word Starmer says.)

It might well be disgraceful but will you please stop with the rest off this shit? It indicates absolutely nothing about Starmers politics. Coming out with crap like this makes me think you would actually prefer a Conservative govt to a Labour one.

[Donny osmond]

However, gods only know what the existing Labour candidate for Dover, who was likely a shoo-in, thinks of being asked to stand aside for this utter belter.

Why on earth would he have to stand aside?
Her defecting to labour and standing down as an MP does not mean that the incumbent candidate doesn't get to stand.
Even if she wasn't standing down as an MP, that doesn't mean that the local labour party have to choose her as their candidate over their incumbent.

Generally, though, I agree, she'd absolutely be happier in Reform than Labour.
As for why Kier would allow her in - you mentioned it yourself, to choose that labour is a "safe space" for defecting tories - MPs and voters.

Of course, you and I as leftie snowflakes, are going to be unhappy about this. It would still take a LOT more than this to convince me to vote for whoever is most likely to unseat my local tory twat (and he really is a twat)

I had assumed she was defecting to be the Labour incumbent for Dover - didn't realise she was standing down next election until my edit.

I don't know it does take more than this for me. If the election was on a knife-edge, then maybe my feelings would be different, but the Tories are going out no matter what anyone does, and I just can't vote for Labour right now. What is voting for Labour even for at this point if racist, anti-union, anti-LGBT, anti-women's rights Conservatives are cheerfully welcomed because it's politically savvy? What are they, but an empty suit?

As things stand, I'm voting Green. It will accomplish little to nothing, especially in my area, but I can't countenance supporting the "Power for power's sake" party.

Puja

You call her an empty suit but then say you can't vote labour because of her? Why do you care about an empty suit? She's being used for a couple of months and then cast aside for a proper labour candidate. It not power for powers sake in the slightest, it's pragmatism.

[Donny osmond]

Why on earth would he have to stand aside?
Her defecting to labour and standing down as an MP does not mean that the incumbent candidate doesn't get to stand.
Even if she wasn't standing down as an MP, that doesn't mean that the local labour party have to choose her as their candidate over their incumbent.

Generally, though, I agree, she'd absolutely be happier in Reform than Labour.
As for why Kier would allow her in - you mentioned it yourself, to choose that labour is a "safe space" for defecting tories - MPs and voters.

Of course, you and I as leftie snowflakes, are going to be unhappy about this. It would still take a LOT more than this to convince me to vote for whoever is most likely to unseat my local tory twat (and he really is a twat)

I had assumed she was defecting to be the Labour incumbent for Dover - didn't realise she was standing down next election until my edit.

I don't know it does take more than this for me. If the election was on a knife-edge, then maybe my feelings would be different, but the Tories are going out no matter what anyone does, and I just can't vote for Labour right now. What is voting for Labour even for at this point if racist, anti-union, anti-LGBT, anti-women's rights Conservatives are cheerfully welcomed because it's politically savvy? What are they, but an empty suit?

As things stand, I'm voting Green. It will accomplish little to nothing, especially in my area, but I can't countenance supporting the "Power for power's sake" party.

Puja

Edited, as I misunderstood your post, sorry.

Look, she's being used for a couple of months and then cast aside for a proper labour candidate. It not power for powers sake in the slightest, it's pragmatism. Labour tried ideological purity under JC and got beaten by.... well, history tells the story. If Labour are going to do good, they need to be in power. To get into power in a country where the media and vested interests are generally set against them means being pragmatic, that's all.

[Donny osmond]

I had assumed she was defecting to be the Labour incumbent for Dover - didn't realise she was standing down next election until my edit.

I don't know it does take more than this for me. If the election was on a knife-edge, then maybe my feelings would be different, but the Tories are going out no matter what anyone does, and I just can't vote for Labour right now. What is voting for Labour even for at this point if racist, anti-union, anti-LGBT, anti-women's rights Conservatives are cheerfully welcomed because it's politically savvy? What are they, but an empty suit?

As things stand, I'm voting Green. It will accomplish little to nothing, especially in my area, but I can't countenance supporting the "Power for power's sake" party.

Puja

Edited, as I misunderstood your post, sorry.

Look, she's being used for a couple of months and then cast aside for a proper labour candidate. It not power for powers sake in the slightest, it's pragmatism. Labour tried ideological purity under JC and got beaten by.... well, history tells the story. If Labour are going to do good, they need to be in power. To get into power in a country where the media and vested interests are generally set against them means being pragmatic, that's all.

[Puja]

I had assumed she was defecting to be the Labour incumbent for Dover - didn't realise she was standing down next election until my edit.

I don't know it does take more than this for me. If the election was on a knife-edge, then maybe my feelings would be different, but the Tories are going out no matter what anyone does, and I just can't vote for Labour right now. What is voting for Labour even for at this point if racist, anti-union, anti-LGBT, anti-women's rights Conservatives are cheerfully welcomed because it's politically savvy? What are they, but an empty suit?

As things stand, I'm voting Green. It will accomplish little to nothing, especially in my area, but I can't countenance supporting the "Power for power's sake" party.

Puja

Edited, as I misunderstood your post, sorry.

Look, she's being used for a couple of months and then cast aside for a proper labour candidate. It not power for powers sake in the slightest, it's pragmatism. Labour tried ideological purity under JC and got beaten by.... well, history tells the story. If Labour are going to do good, they need to be in power. To get into power in a country where the media and vested interests are generally set against them means being pragmatic, that's all.

I get pragmatism, even as I despise Starmer promising one thing to win the Labour leadership and abandoning those promises once he'd acquired it. This seems to go a way beyond that.

And for what? Will it really expand his 20 point lead in the polls?

I don't want ideological purity for purity's sake. I get that doing good requires being in power. I would like to have some faith that he actually does plan on doing good, rather than just "not as bad as Rishi et al".

Puja

[Which Tyler]

I don't know it does take more than this for me. If the election was on a knife-edge, then maybe my feelings would be different, but the Tories are going out no matter what anyone does, and I just can't vote for Labour right now. What is voting for Labour even for at this point if racist, anti-union, anti-LGBT, anti-women's rights Conservatives are cheerfully welcomed because it's politically savvy? What are they, but an empty suit?

As things stand, I'm voting Green. It will accomplish little to nothing, especially in my area, but I can't countenance supporting the "Power for power's sake" party.

Trouble is, this is what happens. You take the victory for granted and vote in objection to both parties, it's way closer than you expect (the right rallies around, the left fragments), and it's a hung parliament, potentially even with conservative as the largest party.

For me (and surely for any leftie) the most pressing issue is getting the conservatives out, and putting them down as much as humanly possible.
For me, an empty suit to score a cheap political point doesn't change that. I'm happy to vote Labour, Lib Dem or Green, whoever stands the best chance of ending Lawrence's political career.

I get feeling disenfranchised by labour (hell, I've never felt enfranchised by any party), I get hating the idea of "the lesser of 2 evils". I've spent almost all of my adult life posting a spoiled ballot for "none of the above" (and still think it should be a genuine option to express dissatisfaction).
But faced with the current tory party, I'll hold my nose and vote for whoever - yes, even Galloway's lot if he was the best bet here.

[Puja]

I don't know it does take more than this for me. If the election was on a knife-edge, then maybe my feelings would be different, but the Tories are going out no matter what anyone does, and I just can't vote for Labour right now. What is voting for Labour even for at this point if racist, anti-union, anti-LGBT, anti-women's rights Conservatives are cheerfully welcomed because it's politically savvy? What are they, but an empty suit?

As things stand, I'm voting Green. It will accomplish little to nothing, especially in my area, but I can't countenance supporting the "Power for power's sake" party.

Trouble is, this is what happens. You take the victory for granted and vote in objection to both parties, it's way closer than you expect (the right rallies around, the left fragments), and it's a hung parliament, potentially even with conservative as the largest party.

For me (and surely for any leftie) the most pressing issue is getting the conservatives out, and putting them down as much as humanly possible.
For me, an empty suit to score a cheap political point doesn't change that. I'm happy to vote Labour, Lib Dem or Green, whoever stands the best chance of ending Lawrence's political career.

I get feeling disenfranchised by labour (hell, I've never felt enfranchised by any party), I get hating the idea of "the lesser of 2 evils". I've spent almost all of my adult life posting a spoiled ballot for "none of the above" (and still think it should be a genuine option to express dissatisfaction).
But faced with the current tory party, I'll hold my nose and vote for whoever - yes, even Galloway's lot if he was the best bet here.

Or the alternative happens and everything falls as per every by-election, council vote, and poll has been suggesting - Starmer wins a landslide, with the lesson learned that the only votes in play (and thus the only ones worth tailoring policy to) are the ones to be gained by going further right.

I'm not actually a Labour supporter, so I've got no personal feelings of betrayal or disenfranchisement - my issue is with the Overton window continually sliding to the right and, if I don't vote against that, I've got no cause to complain when it keeps happening because nobody votes against it. If I don't make my vote conditional, I can't be surprised if no-one gives a crap about earning it.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Anyone else utterly confused by Natalie Elphicke crossing the divide to join Labour?

I can sort of understand the desire to put the boot in the Tories, and this is an easy way to do it. These defections might get us an earlier election... The pressure is surely mounting on Sunak.

Strangely enough it reminds me more of the bed hopping in notoriously shite reality TV shows, rather than serious politics. And that's Britain's malaise at the moment, where are the serious politicians??

And there should be a limit on these defections, you can't oust apparent racists on the one hand and then let in racists on the other hand. The integrity of the party will become compromised.

I assume that's Starmer's calculation.

[Sandydragon]

I had assumed she was defecting to be the Labour incumbent for Dover - didn't realise she was standing down next election until my edit.

I don't know it does take more than this for me. If the election was on a knife-edge, then maybe my feelings would be different, but the Tories are going out no matter what anyone does, and I just can't vote for Labour right now. What is voting for Labour even for at this point if racist, anti-union, anti-LGBT, anti-women's rights Conservatives are cheerfully welcomed because it's politically savvy? What are they, but an empty suit?

As things stand, I'm voting Green. It will accomplish little to nothing, especially in my area, but I can't countenance supporting the "Power for power's sake" party.

Puja

Edited, as I misunderstood your post, sorry.

Look, she's being used for a couple of months and then cast aside for a proper labour candidate. It not power for powers sake in the slightest, it's pragmatism. Labour tried ideological purity under JC and got beaten by.... well, history tells the story. If Labour are going to do good, they need to be in power. To get into power in a country where the media and vested interests are generally set against them means being pragmatic, that's all.

Entirely right. There's some student union level politics being played out in the media at the moment about Starmer's values. Starmer is the leader of the opposition, his job is to try and win the next election. If he needs to assure the centre ground and even soft right that Labour wont shaft them then good on him, he understands that its not just about the noisier members of his party.

[Sandydragon]

I don't know it does take more than this for me. If the election was on a knife-edge, then maybe my feelings would be different, but the Tories are going out no matter what anyone does, and I just can't vote for Labour right now. What is voting for Labour even for at this point if racist, anti-union, anti-LGBT, anti-women's rights Conservatives are cheerfully welcomed because it's politically savvy? What are they, but an empty suit?

As things stand, I'm voting Green. It will accomplish little to nothing, especially in my area, but I can't countenance supporting the "Power for power's sake" party.

Trouble is, this is what happens. You take the victory for granted and vote in objection to both parties, it's way closer than you expect (the right rallies around, the left fragments), and it's a hung parliament, potentially even with conservative as the largest party.

For me (and surely for any leftie) the most pressing issue is getting the conservatives out, and putting them down as much as humanly possible.
For me, an empty suit to score a cheap political point doesn't change that. I'm happy to vote Labour, Lib Dem or Green, whoever stands the best chance of ending Lawrence's political career.

I get feeling disenfranchised by labour (hell, I've never felt enfranchised by any party), I get hating the idea of "the lesser of 2 evils". I've spent almost all of my adult life posting a spoiled ballot for "none of the above" (and still think it should be a genuine option to express dissatisfaction).
But faced with the current tory party, I'll hold my nose and vote for whoever - yes, even Galloway's lot if he was the best bet here.

I make the same argument regarding Trump. You might not agree with Biden on an issue, but consider the alternative.

The Conservatives have turned a long way to the right and are no longer a competent government. Change means Starmer and as someone who has never voted Labour in my life, I will happily do so in order to vote tactically and try to get the local conservative out. Time to look at the bigger picture. This country needs competent government and to stop being a laughing stock. If that means some compromise then I'm all for it, provided we get this zombie government out. I regard that as being more important than being dogmatic about ideology.

[Zhivago]

I don't know it does take more than this for me. If the election was on a knife-edge, then maybe my feelings would be different, but the Tories are going out no matter what anyone does, and I just can't vote for Labour right now. What is voting for Labour even for at this point if racist, anti-union, anti-LGBT, anti-women's rights Conservatives are cheerfully welcomed because it's politically savvy? What are they, but an empty suit?

As things stand, I'm voting Green. It will accomplish little to nothing, especially in my area, but I can't countenance supporting the "Power for power's sake" party.

Trouble is, this is what happens. You take the victory for granted and vote in objection to both parties, it's way closer than you expect (the right rallies around, the left fragments), and it's a hung parliament, potentially even with conservative as the largest party.

For me (and surely for any leftie) the most pressing issue is getting the conservatives out, and putting them down as much as humanly possible.
For me, an empty suit to score a cheap political point doesn't change that. I'm happy to vote Labour, Lib Dem or Green, whoever stands the best chance of ending Lawrence's political career.

I get feeling disenfranchised by labour (hell, I've never felt enfranchised by any party), I get hating the idea of "the lesser of 2 evils". I've spent almost all of my adult life posting a spoiled ballot for "none of the above" (and still think it should be a genuine option to express dissatisfaction).
But faced with the current tory party, I'll hold my nose and vote for whoever - yes, even Galloway's lot if he was the best bet here.

I make the same argument regarding Trump. You might not agree with Biden on an issue, but consider the alternative.

The Conservatives have turned a long way to the right and are no longer a competent government. Change means Starmer and as someone who has never voted Labour in my life, I will happily do so in order to vote tactically and try to get the local conservative out. Time to look at the bigger picture. This country needs competent government and to stop being a laughing stock. If that means some compromise then I'm all for it, provided we get this zombie government out. I regard that as being more important than being dogmatic about ideology.

What really hit me was how Cameron - who I considered incompetent when he was PM - looks so professional and competent in comparison to the current Tory ministers. The party really lost all of their serious politicians over the last 15 years. And because they're not serious politicians, they're jumping ship en masse now.

[Which Tyler]

They fired them all with BJ's purity test in 2019

[Son of Mathonwy]

From my point of view, it's disgraceful.

From a neutral point of view, it indicates that Starmer is closer to the far right than the far left, also probably that he's right of centre. The evidence points that way.

So, roll up, right wingers, Labour is no longer a left wing party, it's safe to vote for! (Except that you can't actually believe a word Starmer says.)

It might well be disgraceful but will you please stop with the rest off this shit? It indicates absolutely nothing about Starmers politics. Coming out with crap like this makes me think you would actually prefer a Conservative govt to a Labour one.

Calm down, buddy.

It indicates either that Starmer is more comfortable with the far right than the far left, or that he has little in the way of political convictions (or both). Either of these options is worrying.

Ignoring what this says about Starmer's politics, in the short-term, he presumably thinks this will gain him more in right of centre reporting & votes than he will lose in left of centre reporing and votes. Who knows if this is the short-term vote maximiser? It will cut both ways. I'm not sure any prospective centre-right voters will really believe it . . . and anyway if they like Elphicke's views, they're probably further to the right and unlikely to shift from Tory or Reform UK. It will lose some centre-left and maybe centre votes to the Greens and the LibDems. Overall effect - who knows? And in an election where the outcome is not really in doubt at this stage.

It's the longer-term price to be paid for this potential short-term gain that worries me. It (together with many other positions) will erode the Labour voting base. I don't honestly think it will gain much from the right of centre voters because they will always go back to the Tories, if not Reform UK. But what it does to the whole political scene is worrying. It legitimises Elphicke's views, which is the last thing we need. And it looks weak, optimistic and unprincipled - which is not a good look. Is there no one the Labour party wouldn't take on?

[Stom]

From my point of view, it's disgraceful.

From a neutral point of view, it indicates that Starmer is closer to the far right than the far left, also probably that he's right of centre. The evidence points that way.

So, roll up, right wingers, Labour is no longer a left wing party, it's safe to vote for! (Except that you can't actually believe a word Starmer says.)

It might well be disgraceful but will you please stop with the rest off this shit? It indicates absolutely nothing about Starmers politics. Coming out with crap like this makes me think you would actually prefer a Conservative govt to a Labour one.

Calm down, buddy.

It indicates either that Starmer is more comfortable with the far right than the far left, or that he has little in the way of political convictions (or both). Either of these options is worrying.

Ignoring what this says about Starmer's politics, in the short-term, he presumably thinks this will gain him more in right of centre reporting & votes than he will lose in left of centre reporing and votes. Who knows if this is the short-term vote maximiser? It will cut both ways. I'm not sure any prospective centre-right voters will really believe it . . . and anyway if they like Elphicke's views, they're probably further to the right and unlikely to shift from Tory or Reform UK. It will lose some centre-left and maybe centre votes to the Greens and the LibDems. Overall effect - who knows? And in an election where the outcome is not really in doubt at this stage.

It's the longer-term price to be paid for this potential short-term gain that worries me. It (together with many other positions) will erode the Labour voting base. I don't honestly think it will gain much from the right of centre voters because they will always go back to the Tories, if not Reform UK. But what it does to the whole political scene is worrying. It legitimises Elphicke's views, which is the last thing we need. And it looks weak, optimistic and unprincipled - which is not a good look. Is there no one the Labour party wouldn't take on?

Two things.

1) Why does it mean Starmer is negative thing or negative thing? Why can't it be that he's actually simply competent at being a politician?

2) I was speaking to two politician friends of mine, and I told them quite clearly that they're pretty terrible politicians...and they agreed with me.

And the reason for that is the same thing you're doing here: this isn't a protest vote. This is about getting into power and THEN enacting change. It's no good saying all the "right" things if you don't get in. We can't base Starmer's politics on his actions when he is simply trying to win an election IF he is a competent politician. Instead, we can look to everything he has said and done previously in his life.

Also remember something important... "liberals" are not Labour's core vote. Never have been. Working class voters are. And that's who Starmer is appealing to. Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's not Labour's core vote. If Labour can take Brexit Britain votes back from the Tories after we had years of intellectual liberal Labour leaders doing sweet FA, he's going to destroy the Tory party as it is. Because the Tories have lost a huge portion of their core vote thanks to Covid, Brexit, and the shrinking of the middle classes. Take away that traditional Labour voter who went blue for Brexit and...damn.

So, no, I don't think this means much at all. Starmer is playing a very clear and very understandable game. It's just that you're not his target audience.

[Puja]

Also remember something important... "liberals" are not Labour's core vote. Never have been. Working class voters are. And that's who Starmer is appealing to. Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's not Labour's core vote. If Labour can take Brexit Britain votes back from the Tories after we had years of intellectual liberal Labour leaders doing sweet FA, he's going to destroy the Tory party as it is. Because the Tories have lost a huge portion of their core vote thanks to Covid, Brexit, and the shrinking of the middle classes. Take away that traditional Labour voter who went blue for Brexit and...damn.

So, no, I don't think this means much at all. Starmer is playing a very clear and very understandable game. It's just that you're not his target audience.

Fair point, but Elphicke is also fairly stridently and openly anti-union and backed P&O's fire and rehire scheme. She's also pro-culture war and anti-abortion, neither of which are issues the working class give a shit about according to recent polling. She's a nasty turd of a human being, whichever way you slice it.

Puja

[Donny osmond]

From my point of view, it's disgraceful.

From a neutral point of view, it indicates that Starmer is closer to the far right than the far left, also probably that he's right of centre. The evidence points that way.

So, roll up, right wingers, Labour is no longer a left wing party, it's safe to vote for! (Except that you can't actually believe a word Starmer says.)

It might well be disgraceful but will you please stop with the rest off this shit? It indicates absolutely nothing about Starmers politics. Coming out with crap like this makes me think you would actually prefer a Conservative govt to a Labour one.

Calm down, buddy.

It indicates either that Starmer is more comfortable with the far right than the far left, or that he has little in the way of political convictions (or both). Either of these options is worrying.

Ignoring what this says about Starmer's politics, in the short-term, he presumably thinks this will gain him more in right of centre reporting & votes than he will lose in left of centre reporing and votes. Who knows if this is the short-term vote maximiser? It will cut both ways. I'm not sure any prospective centre-right voters will really believe it . . . and anyway if they like Elphicke's views, they're probably further to the right and unlikely to shift from Tory or Reform UK. It will lose some centre-left and maybe centre votes to the Greens and the LibDems. Overall effect - who knows? And in an election where the outcome is not really in doubt at this stage.

It's the longer-term price to be paid for this potential short-term gain that worries me. It (together with many other positions) will erode the Labour voting base. I don't honestly think it will gain much from the right of centre voters because they will always go back to the Tories, if not Reform UK. But what it does to the whole political scene is worrying. It legitimises Elphicke's views, which is the last thing we need. And it looks weak, optimistic and unprincipled - which is not a good look. Is there no one the Labour party wouldn't take on?

It indicates absolutely nothing other than he's comfortable in temporarily using a situation to his advantage.

You're overthinking it, projecting wild assumptions based on your own, frankly weird, interpretations and finding Starmers/Labour guilty of stuff they haven't said. Maybe you need to calm down?

[Mellsblue]

Also remember something important... "liberals" are not Labour's core vote. Never have been. Working class voters are. And that's who Starmer is appealing to. Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's not Labour's core vote. If Labour can take Brexit Britain votes back from the Tories after we had years of intellectual liberal Labour leaders doing sweet FA, he's going to destroy the Tory party as it is. Because the Tories have lost a huge portion of their core vote thanks to Covid, Brexit, and the shrinking of the middle classes. Take away that traditional Labour voter who went blue for Brexit and...damn.

This is mostly spot on, imo.

[Son of Mathonwy]

It might well be disgraceful but will you please stop with the rest off this shit? It indicates absolutely nothing about Starmers politics. Coming out with crap like this makes me think you would actually prefer a Conservative govt to a Labour one.

Calm down, buddy.

It indicates either that Starmer is more comfortable with the far right than the far left, or that he has little in the way of political convictions (or both). Either of these options is worrying.

Ignoring what this says about Starmer's politics, in the short-term, he presumably thinks this will gain him more in right of centre reporting & votes than he will lose in left of centre reporing and votes. Who knows if this is the short-term vote maximiser? It will cut both ways. I'm not sure any prospective centre-right voters will really believe it . . . and anyway if they like Elphicke's views, they're probably further to the right and unlikely to shift from Tory or Reform UK. It will lose some centre-left and maybe centre votes to the Greens and the LibDems. Overall effect - who knows? And in an election where the outcome is not really in doubt at this stage.

It's the longer-term price to be paid for this potential short-term gain that worries me. It (together with many other positions) will erode the Labour voting base. I don't honestly think it will gain much from the right of centre voters because they will always go back to the Tories, if not Reform UK. But what it does to the whole political scene is worrying. It legitimises Elphicke's views, which is the last thing we need. And it looks weak, optimistic and unprincipled - which is not a good look. Is there no one the Labour party wouldn't take on?

Two things.

1) Why does it mean Starmer is negative thing or negative thing? Why can't it be that he's actually simply competent at being a politician?

2) I was speaking to two politician friends of mine, and I told them quite clearly that they're pretty terrible politicians...and they agreed with me.

And the reason for that is the same thing you're doing here: this isn't a protest vote. This is about getting into power and THEN enacting change. It's no good saying all the "right" things if you don't get in. We can't base Starmer's politics on his actions when he is simply trying to win an election IF he is a competent politician. Instead, we can look to everything he has said and done previously in his life.

Also remember something important... "liberals" are not Labour's core vote. Never have been. Working class voters are. And that's who Starmer is appealing to. Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's not Labour's core vote. If Labour can take Brexit Britain votes back from the Tories after we had years of intellectual liberal Labour leaders doing sweet FA, he's going to destroy the Tory party as it is. Because the Tories have lost a huge portion of their core vote thanks to Covid, Brexit, and the shrinking of the middle classes. Take away that traditional Labour voter who went blue for Brexit and...damn.

So, no, I don't think this means much at all. Starmer is playing a very clear and very understandable game. It's just that you're not his target audience.

I think you're using "liberals" in an American sense, which isn't very clear in the UK setting.

Agreed that the "working class" is the traditional core of Labour support. But you seem to be suggesting (?) that Elphicke's views are working class in some way, or particularly attractive to the working class. I don't think that's the case. Nationalistic/anti-immigration/Pro-Brexit views cut across the traditional left and right of politics, which is why they were so disruptive (ie breaking the "red wall") in 2019 (at least when used by an unusual, charismatic, populist leader).

There are pros and cons to Starmer's acceptance of Elphicke, as I gave in my previous post. Obviously, I am not in favour of Elphicke's views, but the pros and cons exist regardless of my position.

[Son of Mathonwy]

It might well be disgraceful but will you please stop with the rest off this shit? It indicates absolutely nothing about Starmers politics. Coming out with crap like this makes me think you would actually prefer a Conservative govt to a Labour one.

Calm down, buddy.

It indicates either that Starmer is more comfortable with the far right than the far left, or that he has little in the way of political convictions (or both). Either of these options is worrying.

Ignoring what this says about Starmer's politics, in the short-term, he presumably thinks this will gain him more in right of centre reporting & votes than he will lose in left of centre reporing and votes. Who knows if this is the short-term vote maximiser? It will cut both ways. I'm not sure any prospective centre-right voters will really believe it . . . and anyway if they like Elphicke's views, they're probably further to the right and unlikely to shift from Tory or Reform UK. It will lose some centre-left and maybe centre votes to the Greens and the LibDems. Overall effect - who knows? And in an election where the outcome is not really in doubt at this stage.

It's the longer-term price to be paid for this potential short-term gain that worries me. It (together with many other positions) will erode the Labour voting base. I don't honestly think it will gain much from the right of centre voters because they will always go back to the Tories, if not Reform UK. But what it does to the whole political scene is worrying. It legitimises Elphicke's views, which is the last thing we need. And it looks weak, optimistic and unprincipled - which is not a good look. Is there no one the Labour party wouldn't take on?

It indicates absolutely nothing other than he's comfortable in temporarily using a situation to his advantage.

You're overthinking it, projecting wild assumptions based on your own, frankly weird, interpretations and finding Starmers/Labour guilty of stuff they haven't said. Maybe you need to calm down?

If you leave out the insults, perhaps we can have a discussion.

[Donny osmond]

Calm down, buddy.

It indicates either that Starmer is more comfortable with the far right than the far left, or that he has little in the way of political convictions (or both). Either of these options is worrying.

Ignoring what this says about Starmer's politics, in the short-term, he presumably thinks this will gain him more in right of centre reporting & votes than he will lose in left of centre reporing and votes. Who knows if this is the short-term vote maximiser? It will cut both ways. I'm not sure any prospective centre-right voters will really believe it . . . and anyway if they like Elphicke's views, they're probably further to the right and unlikely to shift from Tory or Reform UK. It will lose some centre-left and maybe centre votes to the Greens and the LibDems. Overall effect - who knows? And in an election where the outcome is not really in doubt at this stage.

It's the longer-term price to be paid for this potential short-term gain that worries me. It (together with many other positions) will erode the Labour voting base. I don't honestly think it will gain much from the right of centre voters because they will always go back to the Tories, if not Reform UK. But what it does to the whole political scene is worrying. It legitimises Elphicke's views, which is the last thing we need. And it looks weak, optimistic and unprincipled - which is not a good look. Is there no one the Labour party wouldn't take on?

It indicates absolutely nothing other than he's comfortable in temporarily using a situation to his advantage.

You're overthinking it, projecting wild assumptions based on your own, frankly weird, interpretations and finding Starmers/Labour guilty of stuff they haven't said. Maybe you need to calm down?

If you leave out the insults, perhaps we can have a discussion.

Insults?

Leaving out the hyperbole would go a long way to facilitating discussion.

[Sandydragon]

It might well be disgraceful but will you please stop with the rest off this shit? It indicates absolutely nothing about Starmers politics. Coming out with crap like this makes me think you would actually prefer a Conservative govt to a Labour one.

Calm down, buddy.

It indicates either that Starmer is more comfortable with the far right than the far left, or that he has little in the way of political convictions (or both). Either of these options is worrying.

Ignoring what this says about Starmer's politics, in the short-term, he presumably thinks this will gain him more in right of centre reporting & votes than he will lose in left of centre reporing and votes. Who knows if this is the short-term vote maximiser? It will cut both ways. I'm not sure any prospective centre-right voters will really believe it . . . and anyway if they like Elphicke's views, they're probably further to the right and unlikely to shift from Tory or Reform UK. It will lose some centre-left and maybe centre votes to the Greens and the LibDems. Overall effect - who knows? And in an election where the outcome is not really in doubt at this stage.

It's the longer-term price to be paid for this potential short-term gain that worries me. It (together with many other positions) will erode the Labour voting base. I don't honestly think it will gain much from the right of centre voters because they will always go back to the Tories, if not Reform UK. But what it does to the whole political scene is worrying. It legitimises Elphicke's views, which is the last thing we need. And it looks weak, optimistic and unprincipled - which is not a good look. Is there no one the Labour party wouldn't take on?

Two things.

1) Why does it mean Starmer is negative thing or negative thing? Why can't it be that he's actually simply competent at being a politician?

2) I was speaking to two politician friends of mine, and I told them quite clearly that they're pretty terrible politicians...and they agreed with me.

And the reason for that is the same thing you're doing here: this isn't a protest vote. This is about getting into power and THEN enacting change. It's no good saying all the "right" things if you don't get in. We can't base Starmer's politics on his actions when he is simply trying to win an election IF he is a competent politician. Instead, we can look to everything he has said and done previously in his life.

Also remember something important... "liberals" are not Labour's core vote. Never have been. Working class voters are. And that's who Starmer is appealing to. Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's not Labour's core vote. If Labour can take Brexit Britain votes back from the Tories after we had years of intellectual liberal Labour leaders doing sweet FA, he's going to destroy the Tory party as it is. Because the Tories have lost a huge portion of their core vote thanks to Covid, Brexit, and the shrinking of the middle classes. Take away that traditional Labour voter who went blue for Brexit and...damn.

So, no, I don't think this means much at all. Starmer is playing a very clear and very understandable game. It's just that you're not his target audience.

That tension has been apparent in Labour for a long time. I’d suggest it was even there at the beginning since there have always been middle class liberal types alongside genuine working class. The British working class isn’t unacquainted with views that can be quite right of centre, including anti immigration.

Starmer is desperately trying to reclaim the red wall and not appear too pro immigrant or pro Europe which is probably against his own instincts. As you rightly point out Starmer is being pragmatic and he needs to be to overcome a political system that doesn’t favour him.

[Son of Mathonwy]

It's not looking good for the Tories as the party of law and order - stealthily increasing the early release of prisoners to 70 days, and telling the police to arrest fewer people:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/art ... ector-says
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/arre ... -d95qsbgz9

[Sandydragon]

Something going on potentially.

Cameron recalled from overseas trip early.
Shapps has been cancelling meetings.
Hunt pulled from media event scheduled for this evening.

Could it be a bollocking for a few cabinet members who haven't been supportive of Sunak?

Or could they be debating a July election?