The Labour Party

[blueinsa]

Like I keep saying, they are all the same!

 

[TinFoilHat]

Like I keep saying, they are all the same!

Until we get PR they still will be.

However, turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Best I can hope for is a hung parliament and Lib Dems using a referendum on it as the deal-breaker.

 

[hilts]

Like I keep saying, they are all the same!

Harsh that fella Sunak would beat you to death with a baseball bat but Keir would just hold his coat.

 

[bluenova]

Austerity Reeves saying Labour wont introduce further taxes on the rich.

Whats the fucking point of them, apart from being "slightly better" than the shitshow running the country?

It's absolute rubbish that they're all the same.

I worked providing legal advice in one of the poorest areas of the UK for a decade, either side of the 1997 election.

It might not have been the revolution many want, and it wasn't the society I'd create in an ideal world, but the differences in employment rights, benefits etc., were huge. I met people who were being paid £1 an hour, when the first minimum wage was introduced, and others who unbelievably had never had a holiday allowance! Pensioner poverty was a stain on this country, but was turned around to such an extent that people now debate whether state pensions are too generous.

Given that people used to laugh at teachers for being poor when I was growing up, compared with the improvements under Labour, and the huge increase in support/special needs staff, I suspect most people working in schools would say the same. And you only have to look at the recent FT analysis of NHS waiting times over the decades, showing steady increases under the Tories, and a massive drop from 1997 to 2010, to see that there were big differences in the health service.

I know the current Ming vase strategy of Labour (desperately avoiding committing to anything at all that might dent their poll lead) might be frustrating, but they are not the Tories in any shape or form.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

It's absolute rubbish that they're all the same.

I worked providing legal advice in one of the poorest areas of the UK for a decade, either side of the 1997 election.

It might not have been the revolution many want, and it wasn't the society I'd create in an ideal world, but the differences in employment rights, benefits etc., were huge. I met people who were being paid £1 an hour, when the first minimum wage was introduced, and others who unbelievably had never had a holiday allowance! Pensioner poverty was a stain on this country, but was turned around to such an extent that people now debate whether state pensions are too generous.

Given that people used to laugh at teachers for being poor when I was growing up, compared with the improvements under Labour, and the huge increase in support/special needs staff, I suspect most people working in schools would say the same. And you only have to look at the recent FT analysis of NHS waiting times over the decades, showing steady increases under the Tories, and a massive drop from 1997 to 2010, to see that there were big differences in the health service.

I know the current Ming vase strategy of Labour (desperately avoiding committing to anything at all that might dent their poll lead) might be frustrating, but they are not the Tories in any shape or form.

This ‘All the same’ talk seems to be from Tory supporters, Starmer haters, or those that don’t really take an interest in politics.

If Labour get in then they should be judged on what they actually achieve.

The question is, do people want to carry on with the Tories in the seat?

 

[Vic]

This ‘All the same’ talk seems to be from Tory supporters, Starmer haters, or those that don’t really take an interest in politics.

If Labour get in then they should be judged on what they actually achieve.

The question is, do people want to carry on with the Tories in the seat?

Two issues.

Why are Starmer/Reeves excluding possible sources of revenue that no-one but the really rich wouid care about (and not all of them)? Especially if they are still promising a council tax freeze - unless they expect councils to carry on cutting.

And I think we're near peak rump Tory. If peoole are still firm Tory, I don't think anything is now likely to budge them. If I get someone on the doorstep who says they'll vote Tory, I just say "Still?"

 

[bluenova]

Two issues.

Why are Starmer/Reeves excluding possible sources of revenue that no-one but the really rich wouid care about (and not all of them)? Especially if they are still promising a council tax freeze - unless they expect councils to carry on cutting.

And I think we're near peak rump Tory. If peoole are still firm Tory, I don't think anything is now likely to budge them. If I get someone on the doorstep who says they'll vote Tory, I just say "Still?"

If you're local, then I do suspect that a lot of the seats around here than went Tory will go back to Labour, but the lead could still be more fragile than it appears.

Most of the polls have a large part of the Tory 2019 vote saying they "don't know". It's much larger than the other parties, and the suggestion is that they're "unhappy", but are not going to switch, and may well vote Tory at an election.

I noticed just this week that some of the popular "left-wing" posters on twitter were sharing a video of someone who looks like Starmer (but isn't) being hugged by Jimmy Savile. Doing the Tories job for them, and you know that things like that will be pushed all over social media, along with millions of unofficial attack ads that most of us will never see.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Two issues.

Why are Starmer/Reeves excluding possible sources of revenue that no-one but the really rich wouid care about (and not all of them)? Especially if they are still promising a council tax freeze - unless they expect councils to carry on cutting.

And I think we're near peak rump Tory. If peoole are still firm Tory, I don't think anything is now likely to budge them. If I get someone on the doorstep who says they'll vote Tory, I just say "Still?"

Well, I can look at the first issue like this. I’ve just had a backdated pay rise and over half of that went to the taxman. I’m not rich and still support the family as they’re finding their way through life. With all the other taxes, I’d be pissed if Labour said that they were raising the top limit unless they’re talking about the top 5%. A real issue that could lose Labour the GE.

On the second, there’s those that will vote Tory, no matter what, even those who are not well off but align because they want to be thought of as being in a certain class. It’s the middle England that Labour are looking at, and without them, again, the lose the GE.

The hard-left and right aren’t the issue, they’re probably 20% of the electorate, everybody in the middle is where they are fighting for.

 

[Postman Pep]

It's absolute rubbish that they're all the same.

Tbf he said slightly better not they're all the same.

I know the current Ming vase strategy of Labour (desperately avoiding committing to anything at all that might dent their poll lead) might be frustrating, but they are not the Tories in any shape or form.

Again he appeared to be questioning their commitment to austerity not their avoidance. Seems pretty unequivocal to me.




I suppose it comes down to people's perceptions of what the ming vase contains. Ken will be happy you will continue to pretend.

 

[Postman Pep]

Well, I can look at the first issue like this. I’ve just had a backdated pay rise and over half of that went to the taxman. I’m not rich and still support the family as they’re finding their way through life. With all the other taxes, I’d be pissed if Labour said that they were raising the top limit unless they’re talking about the top 5%. A real issue that could lose Labour the GE.