NEW Old Labour Party Launch

Going about as well as that Roman Candle I tried to light one bonfire night in the pissing rain whilst the kids watched through the windows - a non-event
 
jimharri said:
Not sure what Corbyn expects to achieve. Labour were unelectable when he was the leader. Look at the 2019 election. The conservatives were deeply unpopular, with civil war within the party due to Brexit. Yet Boris lead them to a landslide win; an 80 seat majority. The electorate just didn't seem to trust Labour with Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbot etc etc in the higher positions in the party. Plus, he's 76 now; well and truly in FOC territory. Time for the pipe, slippers and Werther's originals Jezza.
Click to expand...
To be fair some of Corbyns policies were quite popular but it was all just a bit too much. Many people also wanted Brexit which Corbyn himself wanted however he didn't know how to implement it. The 0.1% Labour membership then took over and well Boris won a huge majority.

Whilst it's awful, the vast majority of the population are not interested in voting based upon what's happening in Gaza nor are they going to vote on a sectarian basis to enact similar protest issues.

An alternative Labour left could be strong if they were willing to brush off the student protest image. This party will just take some of the socialist left out of Labour however they won't get enough to win anything and Labour itself will land with even less votes. It paves the way for a return to the right that's for sure.
 
jimharri said:
But way less seats than Starmer. Labour won nearly two thirds of the seats last year (one year ago today, actually) with one third of the vote. Which is utter madness. But that's the system that's used in the UK (the "first past the post" system). Until some form of PR is introduced, you'll continue to get these freak statistics.
Click to expand...
So are they Governing with a publicly approved manifesto when only 36% (I think) of the public voted for them? Difficult one to square off that one.
 
Obviously any MP's that were elected on Kier's manifesto will go back to the electorate with their new principles.
 
jimharri said:
But way less seats than Starmer. Labour won nearly two thirds of the seats last year (one year ago today, actually) with one third of the vote. Which is utter madness. But that's the system that's used in the UK (the "first past the post" system). Until some form of PR is introduced, you'll continue to get these freak statistics.
Click to expand...
But PR also has risks attached to it.

You often don't get strong government as it's based around finding common ground among a coalition. Or, as in Israel currently, where the PM is reliant on the religious right and some very unpleasant far-right entities to maintain power.
 
ganganvince said:
Obviously any MP's that were elected on Kier's manifesto will go back to the electorate with their new principles.
Click to expand...
I think the problem here is that Starmer is operating outside his manifesto.... Employers NIC, WFA and Disability allowances for example. I guess they find it hard to sell this amendment to their constituents especially when there are very many "wafer thin" margins.
 
ganganvince said:
Obviously any MP's that were elected on Kier's manifesto will go back to the electorate with their new principles.
Click to expand...
I'm not expecting big numbers. Most of jezzers boot lickers have gone or are independent. It's does have a very amateur ish vibe as well. Farage, having been trying to carve a chunk out of the tories for decades, has a better set up (as in looks more professional to the untrained eye).
 
ganganvince said:
That's 34% of those who voted i believe it was nearer to 20% of the total registered to vote.
Click to expand...
That makes it even worse! To be fair, the "no-shows" would have hit all the parties. Whether proportionately or not, I'm not sure. For instance, would Conservative voters not have bothered; "what's the point, we're going to get annihilated anyway"?
 
jimharri said:
That makes it even worse! To be fair, the "no-shows" would have hit all the parties. Whether proportionately or not, I'm not sure. For instance, would Conservative voters not have bothered; "what's the point, we're going to get annihilated anyway"?
Click to expand...
However you look at it 80% of those entitled to vote didn't vote for the winners.
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
Wait a minute, did the Blair institute actually take part in developing a ‘Gaza Riviera’?
Click to expand...

2 of their over 900 staff were invited onto a single video meeting where BCG and their partners discussed the plan, were put in email chains/group chats.

No one has claimed they had any part of contributing or authoring the plan, at worst they might have been aware of it before it was published. At one point one of the 2 wrote an internal document summarising the BCG and other proposals.

The only reason it's a news story at all is because Blair's name in a headline is all it takes for the likes of @Don Karleone to be frothing at the mouth again. If you read the FT article it makes all of this clear, but they headlined it to get the reaction they wanted, and it worked.
 
Last edited:
jimharri said:
It seems to show a disenchantment with the body politic as a whole. Less than one in five felt compelled to vote. It's pretty damning.
Click to expand...

Maybe everyone has realised no one has the answers, each party will just create different types of problems. Plus if your in certain seats there often isn't much point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top