The Labour Government

Nowt to do with 'sensible'. All to do with getting votes/power
They never offer any solution, just moan about it. Hence Reform are a thing.

They don’t need policies, they just need to tune in on peoples’ sense of despair and blame it on immigrants.

If they did manage to stop all immigration and the JAMs were still JAManaging, they’d pick on the next section of society.
 
What's the deal?

The detail is a little unclear still but it seems like it's either:

Option A: a cost of £9-18 billion to lease them out for the next 99 years for military/strategic purposes

Option B: paying nothing and keeping them as British territory

Every single previous Gov has voted for option B but for some strange reason, Starmer thinks option A is the best. Given we're running a deficit at the moment, we'll also be borrowing money to fund option A so that should keep mortgage rates higher than they need to be for the next few years as well as all the other cutbacks we're having to make at the moment.
 
Seriously, our politicians of today are not capable or competent enough to act in a "best for country" way
That I agree with but there is a rather large element of winner take all. We would very unlikely ever get a single party in power under PR.

If we take the yanks as being the more pro capitalist and the Europeans being more pro socialist(they are all both but lean in different directions) we have tended to be the closer to the Americans than other European countries have.
When you analyse it though we have had a long period of the Tories, this would make sense as they are very much the nearest to the Americans in outlook except the majority of our electorate are to the left of them.

Why do we keep getting a more pro capitalist govt when the actual make up of the country Is not wanting that? (even when we got/get Labour they had to act more Tory like)

You probably have 30% or so that are natural Tories in beliefs and yet they have been shaping our future for decades. It's only because the other parties, the more socialist or the more left if you prefer, are not of one voice.

it's why the Tories get very twitchy when UKIP or now reform start picking up support.

if you only have 40% of the vote you really shouldn't be running the country with a large majority. You ain't exactly popular or worthy especially when that % reduces through non voters which fptp encourages.

Even if you look at the current govt they are obviously unpopular with the Tory vote and other parties but even in their own party they will be moving in a direction that isn't overly liked by the more socialist element of there MPs, members or voters.

So to cut a very long story short there is no legitimacy for a sub section of a 40% vote to have free reign.

Unless you have fucking first past the post that is:-)
 
I know this is a big Labour forum but even some of you guys can't be happy with the amount they're paying to surrender the Chagos Islands.

All the hardship and poverty people are having to endure (predominantly from Labour areas), all the new hospitals (and appointments) cancelled by Streeting, all the tax rises, council and social security cutbacks just so Starmer and Lammy can give away billions to Mauritius for absolutely no reason.

Did anyone vote for the Labour Party so they could spend vast amounts of money on that?
You know, I just wish people would do some proper research and not spout utter tripe fed to them.
 
Yeah, just done a google. Seems, unsurprisingly, that the 'deal' was done by the tories.

It wasn't done by the Tories (some of the background negotiations were) but even if it was, do you not think the deal is an absolutely terrible one?
 
They never offer any solution, just moan about it. Hence Reform are a thing.

They don’t need policies, they just need to tune in on peoples’ sense of despair and blame it on immigrants.

If they did manage to stop all immigration and the JAMs were still JAManaging, they’d pick on the next section of society.

Pensioners and benefit claimants perhaps? :-)

Pmsl.
 
The detail is a little unclear still but it seems like it's either:

Option A: a cost of £9-18 billion to lease them out for the next 99 years for military/strategic purposes

Option B: paying nothing and keeping them as British territory

Every single previous Gov has voted for option B but for some strange reason, Starmer thinks option A is the best. Given we're running a deficit at the moment, we'll also be borrowing money to fund option A so that should keep mortgage rates higher than they need to be for the next few years as well as all the other cutbacks we're having to make at the moment.
Google tells me that the last government negotiated this deal with James Cleverly in charge, took 2 years and the current government is just 'signing it off'
 
Google tells me that the last government negotiated this deal with James Cleverly in charge, took 2 years and the current government is just 'signing it off'

Given how critical Cleverley was of this deal, I highly doubt he negotiated anything like the current terms. But even if he did, you do realise the current Gov't have the power to not just go along with whatever the previous Gov't do?

They've done nothing but rip up the previous Sunak Government deals so why haven't they done the same and/or negotiated a deal that is far worse?

With all the hardship people face in this country, is this really the reason you voted Labour?
 
I know this is a big Labour forum but even some of you guys can't be happy with the amount they're paying to surrender the Chagos Islands.

All the hardship and poverty people are having to endure (predominantly from Labour areas), all the new hospitals (and appointments) cancelled by Streeting, all the tax rises, council and social security cutbacks just so Starmer and Lammy can give away billions to Mauritius for absolutely no reason.

Did anyone vote for the Labour Party so they could spend vast amounts of money on that?
The deal was done by the Tories.

Another trap they set to blame labour.
 
It wasn't done by the Tories (some of the background negotiations were) but even if it was, do you not think the deal is an absolutely terrible one?
Given that you mentioned this deal to slag off labour i think its important to find out which party actually negotiated it. i find it hard to believe labour have come up with this idea, negotiated it, asked daft donald if it's ok then signed it off in their first 6 months in power.
Furthermore, isn't it some sort of military base and part of the 'nuclear deterrent'?
 
Google tells me that the last government negotiated this deal with James Cleverly in charge, took 2 years and the current government is just 'signing it off'
The discussions had been ongoing for years at the time of the election there was no deal source David Lammy
 
Given that you mentioned this deal to slag off labour i think its important to find out which party actually negotiated it. i find it hard to believe labour have come up with this idea, negotiated it, asked daft donald if it's ok then signed it off in their first 6 months in power.
Furthermore, isn't it some sort of military base and part of the 'nuclear deterrent'?

If the Conservative Party negotiated this deal in exactly the same terms, I'd be absolutely as critical of them and would call it an utter waste of money. But we don't know what they negotiated because they never signed anything off. They could have negotiated a deal that was far better or, if that's possible, far worse. So, as much as the Labour fan club on here don't want to admit it and start to have their little tantrums about it, the buck stops with Labour if and when they sign off on this deal.

So my question to the fan club (that no-one has yet answered) is whether the billions spent on the Chagos Islands is worth the hardship people are having to put up with in mainly Labour voting areas?
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top