Damn those centrist politicians and their sensible reasoning and realistic prospects of winning.
What we really need is a load of far left anti semitic protesters in opposition to another Conservative government next year.
Every local council in Greater Manchester is coping with hundreds of millions of pounds less than they'd have had if Labour's funding had continued. Just Manchester's council reckon they've lost three billion since the Tories came into power.The answer for me is to not vote. Not voting should be an option in any democracy. Voting sometimes is just rubber-stamping a continuation of the same old. The major political parties don't care who you vote for as long as it's them and they take advantage of the identity politics where most blindly vote Labour or Tory anyway.
Look at the way things are now. We see the energy put into discussions on this forum but the fact is we're going to get a Labour government next time. Nobody however talks about the Labour policies because nobody cares, they just want the Tories out and that's where all of the energy goes.
So the Tories will be booted out but then we'll get stuck with a government which is stuck in the mud because it has a weak policy base and no real policy mandate from the country. Labour can't even cobble together a policy mandate amongst its own members. That'll all fall apart in 6 years and then of course we'll get the Tories again and the carousel continues.
For me Westminster politics is irrelevant to us. It is local government that can make a difference and the irony is far less people participate in local politics. Just for example, Andy Burnham will do far more for Manchester than any central government whether that is Labour or the Tories. That's because he's in Manchester and living for Manchester whereas Labour and the Tories are living for themselves.
If someone like Burnham was given the power and resources to sort out the local impact of countrywide issues such as what's happening on the railways then it would get sorted. I'd be massively in favour of that, let Westminster fight amongst itself over headlines and polls whilst powers and resources are devolved to local governments to get stuff done.
The lack of political education does not help. I read here and people misinterpret Marxism and Fascism for instanceThe answer for me is to not vote. Not voting should be an option in any democracy. Voting sometimes is just rubber-stamping a continuation of the same old. The major political parties don't care who you vote for as long as it's them and they take advantage of the identity politics where most blindly vote Labour or Tory anyway.
MaybeLook at the way things are now. We see the energy put into discussions on this forum but the fact is we're going to get a Labour government next time.
I do think people want the Tories out, not because Labour are better and I do not think they are but change gives hope.Nobody however talks about the Labour policies because nobody cares, they just want the Tories out and that's where all of the energy goes.
Plus ca ChangeSo the Tories will be booted out but then we'll get stuck with a government which is stuck in the mud because it has a weak policy base and no real policy mandate from the country. Labour can't even cobble together a policy mandate amongst its own members. That'll all fall apart in 6 years and then of course we'll get the Tories again and the carousel continues.
100% agree, devolution is the way forward, local people making decisions on local issues. I do not want London telling Manchester what to do.For me Westminster politics is irrelevant to us. It is local government that can make a difference and the irony is far less people participate in local politics. Just for example, Andy Burnham will do far more for Manchester than any central government whether that is Labour or the Tories. That's because he's in Manchester and living for Manchester whereas Labour and the Tories are living for themselves.
Your best post on this forum by farIf someone like Burnham was given the power and resources to sort out the local impact of countrywide issues such as what's happening on the railways then it would get sorted. I'd be massively in favour of that, let Westminster fight amongst itself over headlines and polls whilst powers and resources are devolved to local governments to get stuff done.
The answer for me is to not vote. Not voting should be an option in any democracy. Voting sometimes is just rubber-stamping a continuation of the same old. The major political parties don't care who you vote for as long as it's them and they take advantage of the identity politics where most blindly vote Labour or Tory anyway.
Look at the way things are now. We see the energy put into discussions on this forum but the fact is we're going to get a Labour government next time. Nobody however talks about the Labour policies because nobody cares, they just want the Tories out and that's where all of the energy goes.
So the Tories will be booted out but then we'll get stuck with a government which is stuck in the mud because it has a weak policy base and no real policy mandate from the country. Labour can't even cobble together a policy mandate amongst its own members. That'll all fall apart in 6 years and then of course we'll get the Tories again and the carousel continues.
For me Westminster politics is irrelevant to us. It is local government that can make a difference and the irony is far less people participate in local politics. Just for example, Andy Burnham will do far more for Manchester than any central government whether that is Labour or the Tories. That's because he's in Manchester and living for Manchester whereas Labour and the Tories are living for themselves.
If someone like Burnham was given the power and resources to sort out the local impact of countrywide issues such as what's happening on the railways then it would get sorted. I'd be massively in favour of that, let Westminster fight amongst itself over headlines and polls whilst powers and resources are devolved to local governments to get stuff done.
I currently live in the Upper Bann constituency so regardless of who I vote for, they will not be forming the government, and indeed I will exercise I democratic right, though it will probably be another spoiled vote as I will have a choice of two right wing Unionist parties, a right wing nationalist party, a "populist republican party tied to terrorism and a right wing nothing party.The lack of political education does not help. I read here and people misinterpret Marxism and Fascism for instance
Maybe
I do think people want the Tories out, not because Labour are better and I do not think they are but change gives hope.
Plus ca Change
100% agree, devolution is the way forward, local people making decisions on local issues. I do not want London telling Manchester what to do.
Your best post on this forum by far
Chapeau.
I understand that the Labour party might not be as close to your views as you want, but do you genuinely believe they're no different from the Tories?Yeah, I’m coming more and more to your view especially with Labour as it is. But if there was a real alternative to the Tories such as a Corbyn led Labour Party then I’d vote for them.
I’d make voting compulsory but with an option saying “none of the candidates represent my views enough for me to support them”
Locally led solutions are the way forward but how can people like Burnham furnish change without the right amount of money
Economically Labour and Tories are both pro-capital, socially Labour are more liberal than the Tories bus so was Attila the Hun.I understand that the Labour party might not be as close to your views as you want, but do you genuinely believe they're no different from the Tories?
I know there's a strand of Corbyn supporters who seem so angry that they're happy to misrepresent Labour policy seemingly out of spite, but you don't seem to be like that. Many of the high profile Corbynites on social media spend more time talking about Starmer than the Tories, and I note that the Get The Tories Out hashtag has been dropped by most.
Rachael Swindon's ("The Woman Leading Corbyn’s Twitter Army") latest column calls Starmer "A Manipulator, A Liar and an Absolute Hypocrite" because the policy on private schools has changed. Yet, the change is a pretty minor one. The whole point of the policy on private schools was to force them to pay VAT and business rates, and that's not changed. They've simply been advised that it's legally easier and quicker to just change the rules so they pay tax, without trying to strip the schools of charitable status, which is likely to be a longer process and may end up going through the courts. Yet, read some of the left wing press, and you'd believe the whole policy has been scrapped.
That kind of "they're all the same" narrative is really depressing, and it's just doesn't reflect the reality. Someone shared a post on here recently, where a reporter from Joe Politics seemed surprised that Mick Lynch was desperate for Labour to win the next election. It would be astonishing if he didn't, but there seems to be a drip drip narrative, which suggests that because Labour aren't as left wing as they were under Corbyn, there is no point voting for them.
I do hope you'll consider what you want from a government - but I'd also be genuinely interested to hear why you think Labour's policies on schools, health, employment law, climate change etc., aren't an alternative to the current Tory govt.
So instead of policies, you're quoting a single politician's comments from ten and 7 years ago respectively. You just need to watch Suella Braverman's speech happening right now to see that Reeves comments are pretty tame in comparison, and Labour's immigration and asylum policies are much more progressive than the Tories.Economically Labour and Tories are both pro-capital, socially Labour are more liberal than the Tories bus so was Attila the Hun.
After this absolute car crash of a Tory conference Labour actually have a chance to explain how they will be more economically progressive but with Reeves as Shadow Chancellor i can not see it. In 2013, Reeves proposed that anyone unemployed for two years, or one year if under 25 years old, would be required to take a guaranteed job or lose access to benefits. She caused controversy within the Labour Party by stating Labour would be "tougher" than the Conservative Party in cutting the benefits bill. In September 2016, Reeves described her constituency as being "like a tinderbox" that could explode if immigration was not curbed. There is much more if you can be arsed looking.
If it walks like a Duck and all that.
There are those for who Socialism is basically a doomsday cult. True Socialism can only be achieved through revolution and so, like American far right religious cults, they long for a future that is so bad it triggers an uprising of the people. The suffering that people will have to endure to get to that state is irrelivant because the end justifies the means.I understand that the Labour party might not be as close to your views as you want, but do you genuinely believe they're no different from the Tories?
I know there's a strand of Corbyn supporters who seem so angry that they're happy to misrepresent Labour policy seemingly out of spite, but you don't seem to be like that. Many of the high profile Corbynites on social media spend more time talking about Starmer than the Tories, and I note that the Get The Tories Out hashtag has been dropped by most.
Rachael Swindon's ("The Woman Leading Corbyn’s Twitter Army") latest column calls Starmer "A Manipulator, A Liar and an Absolute Hypocrite" because the policy on private schools has changed. Yet, the change is a pretty minor one. The whole point of the policy on private schools was to force them to pay VAT and business rates, and that's not changed. They've simply been advised that it's legally easier and quicker to just change the rules so they pay tax, without trying to strip the schools of charitable status, which is likely to be a longer process and may end up going through the courts. Yet, read some of the left wing press, and you'd believe the whole policy has been scrapped.
That kind of "they're all the same" narrative is really depressing, and it's just doesn't reflect the reality. Someone shared a post on here recently, where a reporter from Joe Politics seemed surprised that Mick Lynch was desperate for Labour to win the next election. It would be astonishing if he didn't, but there seems to be a drip drip narrative, which suggests that because Labour aren't as left wing as they were under Corbyn, there is no point voting for them.
I do hope you'll consider what you want from a government - but I'd also be genuinely interested to hear why you think Labour's policies on schools, health, employment law, climate change etc., aren't an alternative to the current Tory govt.
Sure - but even a Corbyn/McDonnell government would have been relatively moderate in historical terms. McDonnell spent a lot of time cosying up to business and presenting Labour as the more orthodox party when it came to economics (which was probably true, given the Tories have gone batshit crazy).There are those for who Socialism is basically a doomsday cult. True Socialism can only be achieved through revolution and so, like American far right religious cults, they long for a future that is so bad it triggers an uprising of the people. The suffering that people will have to endure to get to that state is irrelivant because the end justifies the means.
Voting for a moderate Government that will improving peoples everyday lives a bit: reducing evictions, shortening waiting lists, having fewer bad schools etc has no value. In fact it is undesireable as it makes the revolution less likely.
I think it stems from 3 things mainly. Firstly, I voted for Starmer in the leadership election because I believed him and now he has rowed back on most things. So there is that element of feeling betrayed. He could have struck a middle ground to put forward a progressive message without appearing too extreme but he hasn’t, he’s just essentially followed the line that Govts lose elections rather than the opposition winning and of course that’s true to a some extent.I understand that the Labour party might not be as close to your views as you want, but do you genuinely believe they're no different from the Tories?
I know there's a strand of Corbyn supporters who seem so angry that they're happy to misrepresent Labour policy seemingly out of spite, but you don't seem to be like that. Many of the high profile Corbynites on social media spend more time talking about Starmer than the Tories, and I note that the Get The Tories Out hashtag has been dropped by most.
Rachael Swindon's ("The Woman Leading Corbyn’s Twitter Army") latest column calls Starmer "A Manipulator, A Liar and an Absolute Hypocrite" because the policy on private schools has changed. Yet, the change is a pretty minor one. The whole point of the policy on private schools was to force them to pay VAT and business rates, and that's not changed. They've simply been advised that it's legally easier and quicker to just change the rules so they pay tax, without trying to strip the schools of charitable status, which is likely to be a longer process and may end up going through the courts. Yet, read some of the left wing press, and you'd believe the whole policy has been scrapped.
That kind of "they're all the same" narrative is really depressing, and it's just doesn't reflect the reality. Someone shared a post on here recently, where a reporter from Joe Politics seemed surprised that Mick Lynch was desperate for Labour to win the next election. It would be astonishing if he didn't, but there seems to be a drip drip narrative, which suggests that because Labour aren't as left wing as they were under Corbyn, there is no point voting for them.
I do hope you'll consider what you want from a government - but I'd also be genuinely interested to hear why you think Labour's policies on schools, health, employment law, climate change etc., aren't an alternative to the current Tory govt.