RugbyRebels

Yiz are going to have to nationalise the water providers/treatment? Looks like is getting rapidly worse with no sign of a change. Toothless enforcement

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 4:13 pm Starmer's no more popular than Kinnock was when he lost, and only slightly more popular than Milliband. The difference is the Tories are so unpopular right now. But this is a very weak foundation for a Labour government.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... s-analysis

Damn liars and statistics.

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 6:12 pm There is an argument to be made (and I'm sure his strategists will agree) that one of the reasons that the Tories are so unpopular right now is because he's a milquetoast, unthreatening, non-entity and so the Conservative vote isn't feeling pressured that they have to vote Blue or face the instantiation of the USSUK (or whatever fever-dreams the Telegraph are having about The Red Menace).

Still, it's damning. Practically no-one is voting *for* him at all.

Puja

I'm not there, but all I see is that the "swing" voters are pretty universally Tory nowadays, and so keeping them home, or not mobilizing them is going to be key. I'm sure they've seen that.

I, for one, feel like this kind of politics is doomed for long-term failure, but then again, I feel like the values of the Labour party have been undermined so badly over the past 20 years that it's almost unrecognisable anyway...

There is an interesting parallel to be drawn, though, to over here.

Far worse situation, as the government aren't just incompetent, they're actively fascist, but the "left" have failed to activate anyone other than their base for a decade. And as I personally know some of them, it's incredible how naive they are when it comes to politics: they have no clue. Activation for them literally means activating their core, they have no idea about how to reach swing voters.

So suddenly, a new guy has appeared, and he's said all of the soundbites I was telling my friends for years.

And suddenly most of the country love him and he has a good chance of winning the election next year if he manages to get a party together in time.

Some of the key things he's done are:

Going after another opposition politician and former PM first, as he's toxic to many voters. His continued presence is a big problem that successive oppositions have failed to deal with. He's gone for the jugular.

Calling out specific "rotten apples" in the government who are indefensible, allowing a number of Fidesz voters to agree with him, and opening the way for them to vote for him.

Calling out the base of what Fidesz stood for, and how that's different from what they are now. Again, see any parallels here?



Starmer hasn't gone the same cult of personality way that Peter Magyar has over here, but he's playing by the same playbook.

Stom wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 10:02 pm Starmer hasn't gone the same cult of personality way that Peter Magyar has over here, but he's playing by the same playbook.

I mean, it's not possible to build a cult of personality if you don't have a personality, so Starmer's options are more limited, but it's interesting to see the parallels. Is Magyar a decent human being or does it look to be more of an "out of the frying pan" situation?

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 10:23 pm

Stom wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 10:02 pm Starmer hasn't gone the same cult of personality way that Peter Magyar has over here, but he's playing by the same playbook.

I mean, it's not possible to build a cult of personality if you don't have a personality, so Starmer's options are more limited, but it's interesting to see the parallels. Is Magyar a decent human being or does it look to be more of an "out of the frying pan" situation?

Puja

Well it can’t be an out of the frying pan…as there’s not really much opportunity for worse.

Hard to know, but he’s a bit too far to the right for me. Not actively fascist, but he was a fidesz insider until too recently for him to be actively a nice person…

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 2:51 pm

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 2:11 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2024 7:22 pm

Is the rising number of people signed off with mental health because the government has spent the last 14 years steadily making this country a shittier and shittier place to be? Or because of continually slashed mental health budgets and services making it near impossible to get any help or treatment?

No, of course not, it's the pesky GPs who "over-medicalise" and sign off people who are "feeling a little bit depressed." Those monsters!

Coincidentally, this is also the solution to the problem that doesn't require any review of public spending.

Puja

As always it’s a mix for sure. Some people with genuine needs won’t be able to get help and return to work. Some will take the piss and find a friendly GP to sign them off. Politicians will pick whatever example suits their agenda best.

I don't even think it's particularly much of a mix tbh. Yes, there will always be chancers and slackers who will look to malinger, but the vast majority of the rise in mental health issues is a combination of this country getting steadily shittier and harder to live in, alongside the annihilation of any hope of mental health support on the NHS. The latter is the main problem to my mind - small issues that could be treated with preventative care are now left to metastasize into larger problems requiring time off work.

Puja

Maybe the increase is due to recent stresses, but the fraud isnt a new thing. Stress and bad backs are the easiest things to get a sick note for.

But to be clear Im not supportive of anything that would lump genuinely ill people with scroungers.

Puja wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 10:23 pm

Stom wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 10:02 pm Starmer hasn't gone the same cult of personality way that Peter Magyar has over here, but he's playing by the same playbook.

I mean, it's not possible to build a cult of personality if you don't have a personality, so Starmer's options are more limited, but it's interesting to see the parallels. Is Magyar a decent human being or does it look to be more of an "out of the frying pan" situation?

Puja

Part of the point of Starmer is that he isnt a personality, but is competent. an anti-Boris

Johnson provides us with more comedy gold:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/art ... -elections

As of this moment in time, Conservatives (74 councillors) are in 3rd place, behind Labour (230) and Lib Dem (79)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng ... or-england



Of course, it's after 24/107 councils have declared, but still...

137 v 140 in the important battle (good guys currently winning)

45/107 declared

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -elections

Absolutely risible of Tom Hunt to attempt to co-opt DEI language to stop people mocking him. "So much for the tolerant left; don't they know I've got dyspraxia?" Firstly, dyspraxia is a physical coordination issue so, unless he fumbled and dropped his passport down the drain, I don't see what that has to do with not being able to find his ID. Secondly, even if he does have a disability relevant to him not finding his passport, it's somewhat rich to be asking for understanding when the party he belongs to and votes with is currently gearing up for an all-out assault on mental health DEI. Thirdly, YOU VOTED FOR THESE MEASURES YOU COLOSSAL TURDBASKET, despite people specifically pointing out how it would impact those with disabilities who may find it harder to jump through this entirely unnecessary hoop.

Fuck off with your "So much for the tolerant left" bullshit - we will mock you as and how we like, not because of any disability that you may have, but because you've been hoist by your own petard and don't even have the dignity not to whine about it.

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 4:14 pm https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -elections

Absolutely risible of Tom Hunt to attempt to co-opt DEI language to stop people mocking him. "So much for the tolerant left; don't they know I've got dyspraxia?" Firstly, dyspraxia is a physical coordination issue so, unless he fumbled and dropped his passport down the drain, I don't see what that has to do with not being able to find his ID. Secondly, even if he does have a disability relevant to him not finding his passport, it's somewhat rich to be asking for understanding when the party he belongs to and votes with is currently gearing up for an all-out assault on mental health DEI. Thirdly, YOU VOTED FOR THESE MEASURES YOU COLOSSAL TURDBASKET, despite people specifically pointing out how it would impact those with disabilities who may find it harder to jump through this entirely unnecessary hoop.

Fuck off with your "So much for the tolerant left" bullshit - we will mock you as and how we like, not because of any disability that you may have, but because you've been hoist by your own petard and don't even have the dignity not to whine about it.

Puje

Disabled or not, all Tories have an equal right to piss extraction for falling foul of their own policy.

On a positive note, it was honest of him to admit that their policy has made voting more difficult for the disabled.

In the important race (outside of London)
102 or 107 councils declared.
Labour: 1,026 councillors
Lib Dem: 500 councillors
Conservative: 468 councillors

Pseudo-officially the 3rd party now.
Brilliant day for the Greens as well, going from 100 to 158

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 8:27 am In the important race (outside of London)
102 or 107 councils declared.
Labour: 1,026 councillors
Lib Dem: 500 councillors
Conservative: 468 councillors

Pseudo-officially the 3rd party now.
Brilliant day for the Greens as well, going from 100 to 158

Nice to see Reform UK causing the Tories problems but winning only 2 seats.

Lib Dems still 8 ahead of the tories, 1 council left to declare.
I was NOT expecting them to actually win that battle (or be particularly close).

Greens still running at better than a 50% increase in councillors.

One wonders* if the Tories will use this electoral kicking to reflect that, just maybe, their descent into politics by right-wing dog-whistle sound-bite is perhaps not the best way to convince voters to follow them?

Nah, it's going to take longer than this to "realise".
They want to spend 5 years sniping from the sidelines, complaining about how labour have failed to right the wrongs of 14 years mis-management (being generous) in 14 weeks, and hoping to come back in in 2029.

If that fails, they'll probably have a few more purity culls, change leader every year, and maybe start thinking about a return to the centre for 2034.

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 9:21 am One wonders* if the Tories will use this electoral kicking to reflect that, just maybe, their descent into politics by right-wing dog-whistle sound-bite is perhaps not the best way to convince voters to follow them?

Haha no, this is clearly evidence that they weren't rightwards enough and they need to go further in order to win back the "silent majority" of secret fascists that apparently make up the population of the UK.

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 12:16 pm

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 9:21 am One wonders* if the Tories will use this electoral kicking to reflect that, just maybe, their descent into politics by right-wing dog-whistle sound-bite is perhaps not the best way to convince voters to follow them?

Haha no, this is clearly evidence that they weren't rightwards enough and they need to go further in order to win back the "silent majority" of secret fascists that apparently make up the population of the UK.

Puja

Latest rumour is that many Tories have basically given up the prospect of winning, and assume that there will be some narrowing of the polls before election day, but not enough to stop the loss of a lot of seats. The idea will be to allow Sunak to own the defeat and then save their energy for the post election leadership bloodletting.

The snag with that is that with Sunak safe in his position, probably, then there’s no incentive for him to go to a GE any time soon. He can just hang on and enjoy being PM (if that’s the right phrase) until he is obliged to dissolve parliament. Maybe something will come along which helps him? But no drive to go early to avoid a leadership coup.

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 2:10 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 12:16 pm

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2024 9:21 am One wonders* if the Tories will use this electoral kicking to reflect that, just maybe, their descent into politics by right-wing dog-whistle sound-bite is perhaps not the best way to convince voters to follow them?

Haha no, this is clearly evidence that they weren't rightwards enough and they need to go further in order to win back the "silent majority" of secret fascists that apparently make up the population of the UK.

Puja

Latest rumour is that many Tories have basically given up the prospect of winning, and assume that there will be some narrowing of the polls before election day, but not enough to stop the loss of a lot of seats. The idea will be to allow Sunak to own the defeat and then save their energy for the post election leadership bloodletting.

The snag with that is that with Sunak safe in his position, probably, then there’s no incentive for him to go to a GE any time soon. He can just hang on and enjoy being PM (if that’s the right phrase) until he is obliged to dissolve parliament. Maybe something will come along which helps him? But no drive to go early to avoid a leadership coup.

I'm hopeful that a lot of the plotters will be unpleasantly surprised, when their assumption that their personal charisma, brand, and right-wing credentials will make them the exception ends up being spectacularly wrong. I think Bravermann in particular thinks that, since the reason the Tories aren't winning is because they're not right wing enough, she personally will be fine because she's as right wing as it gets.

Puja

Anyone else utterly confused by Natalie Elphicke crossing the divide to join Labour? I mean, I get it from a her perspective as a self-preservation tactic, but she's a hard-right nutter whom I'd've expected to defect to Reform before Labour. Her statement even boldly says that she believes in the Conservative values espoused in the 2019 election and is only leaving because "The elected Prime Minister was ousted in a coup led by the unelected Rishi Sunak" - she's literally a Boris Johnson stan.

Why on earth is Starmer entertaining her? I mean, I know why, because he wants the short-term boost of nicking another MP, and the long-term boost of showing himself to be "safe to vote for" to Telegraph and Sun readers because he's so moderate that even right wingers will join him. 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. Surely she'll just defect back once the election is done and Sunak is ousted?


Edited to add: It appears she's not going to stand in the next election regardless, which does make it slightly less wild for Starmer to bring her in. However, it is startling that Diane Abbott is persona non-grata, while this is welcomed with open arms:


Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 2:04 pm Anyone else utterly confused by Natalie Elphicke crossing the divide to join Labour? I mean, I get it from a her perspective as a self-preservation tactic, but she's a hard-right nutter whom I'd've expected to defect to Reform before Labour. Her statement even boldly says that she believes in the Conservative values espoused in the 2019 election and is only leaving because "The elected Prime Minister was ousted in a coup led by the unelected Rishi Sunak" - she's literally a Boris Johnson stan.

Why on earth is Starmer entertaining her? I mean, I know why, because he wants the short-term boost of nicking another MP, and the long-term boost of showing himself to be "safe to vote for" to Telegraph and Sun readers because he's so moderate that even right wingers will join him. 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. Surely she'll just defect back once the election is done and Sunak is ousted?


Edited to add: It appears she's not going to stand in the next election regardless, which does make it slightly less wild for Starmer to bring her in. However, it is startling that Diane Abbott is persona non-grata, while this is welcomed with open arms:

Puja

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.)

Puja wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 2:04 pm Anyone else utterly confused by Natalie Elphicke crossing the divide to join Labour? I mean, I get it from a her perspective as a self-preservation tactic, but she's a hard-right nutter whom I'd've expected to defect to Reform before Labour. Her statement even boldly says that she believes in the Conservative values espoused in the 2019 election and is only leaving because "The elected Prime Minister was ousted in a coup led by the unelected Rishi Sunak" - she's literally a Boris Johnson stan.

Why on earth is Starmer entertaining her? I mean, I know why, because he wants the short-term boost of nicking another MP, and the long-term boost of showing himself to be "safe to vote for" to Telegraph and Sun readers because he's so moderate that even right wingers will join him. 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. Surely she'll just defect back once the election is done and Sunak is ousted?


Edited to add: It appears she's not going to stand in the next election regardless, which does make it slightly less wild for Starmer to bring her in. However, it is startling that Diane Abbott is persona non-grata, while this is welcomed with open arms:

Puja

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.)

Puja wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 2:04 pm 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)

Puja wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2024 2:04 pm Anyone else utterly confused by Natalie Elphicke crossing the divide to join Labour? I mean, I get it from a her perspective as a self-preservation tactic, but she's a hard-right nutter whom I'd've expected to defect to Reform before Labour. Her statement even boldly says that she believes in the Conservative values espoused in the 2019 election and is only leaving because "The elected Prime Minister was ousted in a coup led by the unelected Rishi Sunak" - she's literally a Boris Johnson stan.

Why on earth is Starmer entertaining her? I mean, I know why, because he wants the short-term boost of nicking another MP, and the long-term boost of showing himself to be "safe to vote for" to Telegraph and Sun readers because he's so moderate that even right wingers will join him. 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. Surely she'll just defect back once the election is done and Sunak is ousted?


Edited to add: It appears she's not going to stand in the next election regardless, which does make it slightly less wild for Starmer to bring her in. However, it is startling that Diane Abbott is persona non-grata, while this is welcomed with open arms:


Puja

Just listened to Sopel and Maitliss discussing this on their podcast. Apparently she won’t be seeking reelection and the Labour candidate will be able to compete for the adjusted Dover seat at the next election.

Which makes this utterly pointless. It’s just an angry gesture and a means to give Sunak more grief.