I can hardly contain my apathy.

I can name 5/8 of them: Angela Rayner, dunno, Keir, dunno, Hilary Benn, Rachel Reeves, gimp features, and the fabulously-named Thanggam Debonaire. So I can confidently spell the names of 3/8 of them.

Emily Thornberry is arguably the most fuckable member of the Labour shadow cabinet, which is quite disappointing IMO. Are lefties all munters, or do I have a bigot fetish?

>>97918

I'm curious who exactly you find that much more attractive on the opposite side of the house.

Except Are Suella, obviously, but that doesn't count because it's not really attraction, it's just a mummy dom fetish. It's like that lass I almost dated for a bit who looked like a goblin but gave me a right stonk on because she said she liked to piss on lad's faces.

looks like any given line-up for The Apprentice
Could even be Come Dine With Me
Roll on a government run exclusively by Jeremy Kyle Show participants

>>97918
Those green shoes belong to Liz Kendall.

>>97919

Obviously we all want Suella to stamp on our balls, but Penny Mordaunt is an absolute 11/10 goddess.

I'd let her hold my sword for nearly an hour IYKWIM.

>>97922

Speak for yourself, lad.

>>97923

I see you're a Priti Patel man. No shame in that.

>>97924

>I see you're a Priti Patel man.


No, lad.

Just no.

Fuck no.

>>97924
>>97925

In fairness I meant Piri Piri Patel in the first place when I brought up Braverman. Getting my sexy Indian dommes mixed up again like the racist pig I am. That's right, I deserve all of it, god, all of it. Make me suffer for what my ancestors did to your stinking brown shithole and then let me do it to yours too. Phwoooar.

Where's Ed Davey in your picture?

>>97927
Is he still the leader of the Lib Dems? I can't remember the last time I saw them in the news.

Where's Streeting? I thought he was being primed as a possible leadership contender.

>>97929
A group of nine is borderline Marxism. It's bad optics.

>>97930
There's nine people in the picture.

>>97931
The backless green shoes with the pointed toe are obviously Ed's.

>>97931
Serves me right for doing a head count.

>>97915
I didn't know Catherine Tate got into politics

>>97934
Rayner is essentially what Hannah Fry would be like if she was lobotomised.

>>97934>>97935
Well done for noticing that two different women you wank over photos of in your shed both have red hair. I really don't think you can comment on another's intelligence when you reflexively bleat childlike guff at the drop of a hat.

>>97936
Hair isn't exactly the only resemblance between Rayner and Fry. Rayner could easily pass as her mongy sister.

>>97915
Well, Thangam isn't, because the Greens are going to turf her out gloriously.

>>97938

I imagine she's worried. She's sitting on a razor-thin majority of 28,000.

Do you think Labour will be the one to cancel HS2?

>>97940
They've said they won't, but then they've said a lot of things they've backtracked on.

>>97940
How? Just build 10% of it and then have it lying around as a monument to when the country gave up? A national level primed but never painted Warhammer army? The question you're asking would have been legitimate a decade ago, but HS2 is currently being built, you can go and look at it, albeit in it's phoetal state. I don't think HS2, as envisioned, was a terribly good idea, but cancelling it at this stage would be even worse. The Chilturn Tunnels are bigger than the Channel Tunnel and are being bored as we speak.

However, it's understandable how many people are under the misapprehension that it's still in the planning phase. Most news stories are a question of where exactly it's going to end up, or if it will be used as the mic drop in yet another austerity budget.

>>97942

Abandon the high speed element and finish it off as a standard 125mph line. We still get most of the hypothecated economic benefits (through increased capacity) but we can greatly reduce construction costs and use standard signalling technology.

>>97942
I'm guessing you've missed the news this week with the government now refusing to guarantee HS2 will reach Manchester.

>>97943
I thought the problem was a mixture of rampant NIMBYism and every irrelevant provincial village wanting a station?

>>97944
I can see the logic in what the civil servants have been proposing. We pause construction until the cost of borrowing decreases and hope we don't have a world war like last time we tried to build infrastructure.

It's always been a bit daft that a grand rail line connecting the North terminates at Manchester anyway.

>>97945

>I thought the problem was a mixture of rampant NIMBYism and every irrelevant provincial village wanting a station?

Building rail in this country is expensive. Building a high-speed line is really expensive, because it needs to be very straight, very flat and have very sophisticated signalling. Reducing the top speed allows you to literally wiggle around a lot of the NIMBY problems and tricky geography. It also means you can signal to trains using coloured lights on a pole controlled by a bloke in a shed, rather than a big complicated computer system of the type that our government is notoriously terrible at procuring.

>>97942

It's not even primed and unpainted, with HS2 it's more like when somebody buys five grand of Imperial Guard, and then they give up as soon as they've glued together one box of Catachans. Then they opened all the other boxes and cut random bits off the sprues leaving it worthless for resale.

It was worthless as soon as they scrapped the Leeds leg frankly. I don't say that just as a bitter Loiner but really, what would have made the project worthwhile is giving the country what is, essentially, a high speed rail equivalent of the motorway network. You need to link up all the country's major cities, give every region of the country at least reasonable access and links to it. As it is under these plans, the entire northeast remains cut off, with only the piss poor (Leeds to Sheffield is about 20 minutes, Leeds to Manchester is more like an hour. Same distance, just shite rail.) transpennine rail links to connect to the system.

>>97939
She should be. The last time she faced the Greens under a non-Corbyn leader that majority was 5,600.

Why is everything so shit compared to other countries?

>>97960
Because you're here.

Tuesday:

>Angela Rayner has given a “cast iron guarantee” that Labour would bring in a new bill to ban zero-hours contracts and repeal anti-strike laws within 100 days of a new government.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/12/angela-rayner-gives-cast-iron-promise-of-bill-banning-zero-hour-contracts

Saturday:

>There is a ban proposed only for "exploitative" zero-hours contracts - if workers welcome flexibility themselves, this would not prevented

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66824786

I know Labour under Starmer have form for walking back on pledges they've made, but four days must be a record.

>Labour drops plan to strip public schools of charitable status

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66942985

More flip-flopping!

>>97963
So what is it Labour are doing now? Just the same half-arsed "net zero" policies the Tories had until a fortnight ago? Imagine door knocking for these arseholes?

Are Labour making a comeback in Scotland?

>>98012
It's more that the SNP has been in decline for over three years.

>>98013
That, also the internet isn't real life, and despite the protestations of online lefty types, voters mostly kind of like Labour right now, even if they don't exactly love them.

>>98015
>despite the protestations of online lefty types
Listen, right. Fuck actual Nazi Keith (LOL) Stormfront for not pledging to personally fund my five-a-day courgettes-in-my-arsehole habit. What, they're ending tax breaks for private schools? Well how much of that is going into my pockets? All of this illegally sourced oestrogen won't pay for itself!

Giving the far-left free reign over the internet has made me much less tolerant of political extremism than even the mental racists that actually got voted in a decade ago. Personally I hope they fund research into time travel so we can send these belligerent little windbags to fascist Spain on a gap year.

>>98012
>>98013
Other than "Ayr's nice" I don't know much about Scotland, so it's interesting to see just how badly the Tories have done. Is it Unionist support going over wholesale to Labour?

>>98015
I don't know what "online lefty types" are saying, but I doubt they're making out like Labour aren't popular. What I will say is that they might well be fumbling a unique opportunity to not just beat the Tories, but utterly crush them in the next GE. The Conservatives are edging further and further rightwards, so I would consider a small majority over them in parliament to still be an existential threat to the country. I might sound overwrought, but they're now anouncing policies based on COVID conspiracies and giddily attacking trans people. Combined with their austerity addiction I can't abide the idea of them ever seeing power again.

It would be fair to say Stamer's unpopular, I think. Owing to his propensity for mealy mouthedness and fence sitting. It gives the Tories a legitimate attack vector and now when Starmer says perfectly sensible things, for example: "I can't commit to HS2 phase 2b because the Tories just blew it up", he looks like he's trying to string people along. But he was right to say this, because the following day the land purchased for the Birmingham to Manchester leg was already being sold off. This could be mitigated by three rock solid, flagship policies that he and Reeves won't undermine week after week until they're rendered meaningless, or sugery to make his voice less stupid. Hopefully the membership push one of these options the upcoming party conference.

>>98013
Couldn't you also say that the rise of the SNP in the first place was due to the decline of Labour in Scotland over many years?

>>98018
Yes.

>>98017

>Is it Unionist support going over wholesale to Labour?

It's looking like there's some swing, but also discouraged turnout. We saw it in '97 - a lot of loyal Tories couldn't stomach voting for Blair, but also didn't want to vote for Major, so they just stayed at home.

>The Conservatives are edging further and further rightwards, so I would consider a small majority over them in parliament to still be an existential threat to the country.

The Tories have forgotten that there's a third party in England. There are a surprisingly large number of close CON/LIB marginals - leafy, wealthy suburban seats like Cheltenham, Cheadle and Guildford that tend to be economically conservative but socially liberal. Going into the next election on a populist platform might help the Tories to keep a few Red Wall seats, but it'll cost them dearly in the home counties.

Even with a fairly small nominal majority, Labour would be in a relatively comfortable position, because the left-leaning minority parties should have about 80 seats between them. The SNP might need some persuading to go into the voting lobbies with Labour, but they absolutely cannot allow themselves to be seen as aiding the Tories. There's a meaningful centre-left bloc in parliament that could usefully function as a coalition even without any formal agreements. Conversely, the Tories are deeply divided in a way that's only going to get worse after an election defeat.

>>98018

>Couldn't you also say that the rise of the SNP in the first place was due to the decline of Labour in Scotland over many years?

Only in part. Scottish voters were disaffected from Labour, but they were also energised and mobilised by the SNP. A lot of Scottish seats (particularly in the central belt) saw a big boost in turnout between 2010 and 2015, with people who previously hadn't voted showing up for the SNP. That boost had been gradually fading, but is likely to be much greater at the next election because the SNP are mired in scandal and are losing their reputation as the alternative to politics as usual.

>>98017
>I don't know what "online lefty types" are saying, but I doubt they're making out like Labour aren't popular.
Maybe it's just the circles I move in, but every time Sur Keef says something, or even doesn't say something, the response is something along the lines of "Labour are throwing it away" or "that's it, they're over" or "ok now I'm done with Labour" (typically after multiple times of previously being "done with Labour" already). He has, of course, ruined the party's chances dozens of times over the past couple of years, which is why they're [checks notes] bossing by-elections and still polling over 40%.

>Labour is currently on course to win a landslide victory on the scale of 1997, according to dramatic new modelling that points to the Conservatives losing every red wall seat secured at the last election.
>The Tories could also lose more than 20 constituencies in its southern blue wall strongholds and achieve a record-low number of seats, according to a constituency-by-constituency model seen by the Observer. Deputy prime minister Oliver Dowden, defence secretary Grant Shapps and leadership contender Penny Mordaunt are among those facing defeat.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/07/poll-predicts-landslide-labour-election-victory-with-12-cabinet-ministers-losing-their-seats

Surprising how we've gone from Starmer trying the party from implosion to him being likely to win the next general election. How do you reckon Labour will scupper their chances next week?

>Labour is currently on course to win a landslide victory on the scale of 1997, according to dramatic new modelling that points to the Conservatives losing every red wall seat secured at the last election.
>The Tories could also lose more than 20 constituencies in its southern blue wall strongholds and achieve a record-low number of seats, according to a constituency-by-constituency model seen by the Observer. Deputy prime minister Oliver Dowden, defence secretary Grant Shapps and leadership contender Penny Mordaunt are among those facing defeat.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/07/poll-predicts-landslide-labour-election-victory-with-12-cabinet-ministers-losing-their-seats

We've gone from Starmer trying to save the party from implosion to him being likely to win the next general election. How do you reckon Labour will scupper their chances next week?

>>98028

>How do you reckon Labour will scupper their chances next week?

If I was on the Tory campaign team and tasked with finding a chink in Labour's armour, I'd try to unearth a sex scandal. Failing that, embezzlement or favouritism. Throw mud on the wall till something sticks.

It's worth noting that Labour aren't in the lead because everybody suddenly loves Labour so much. It's because people are tired of the Conservatives and the clusterfuck that has been their last few years in power. There's a saying in politics that you don't vote in good oppositions, but you vote out bad governments. So it goes both ways. If a government is popular and the people like their leaders and trust them, then the opposition can pretty much try as it may, they will not win an election, even with their best people. On the other hand, if people have had enough of an incumbent government and are fed up with it, then even a shit opposition has a chance of taking the crown.

>>98027
>How do you reckon Labour will scupper their chances next week?

The right-wing press will be able to get plenty of mileage out of Hamas and Israel. It can't be that long before one of their Muslim MPs (or Corbyn) put their foot in it.

>>98029
>If I was on the Tory campaign team and tasked with finding a chink in Labour's armour
...they'd claim they were a Chinese agent.

I couldn't resist.

>>98030

The media discipline has been very tight so far. David Lammy is doing an impressive job as point man.

>>98027
I've probably said this before but I want to say it again. You don't have to read it if you don't want. But the Conservatives have ruined themselves by doing too well in the previous election. So many Labour constituencies voted Conservative in 2019 that a large cohort of the Tory party is now representing Labour voters. Whenever the leadership suggests a Conservative policy, those Labour voters still oppose it because that's why they always voted Labour in the past. And local backbench MPs are generally okay; they represent their constituents fairly honourably. So the battle between Conservatives and Labour is now taking place inside the Conservative Party, and that's why nothing gets done.

Even worse, they won their landslide on a three-word slogan: Get Brexit Done. And they got Brexit done within a couple of months, as was always going to happen. So now they have nothing else to really talk about. They've delivered on the only policy of their that anyone could name, and now we've got four years and ten months of waiting around for another government to do something else. There's a lesson in all this: if you win an election, don't actually deliver on your promises. What a terrible lesson that is. No wonder Labour aren't offering anything at all. Look what happens when you promise to do something and then you actually do it.

>>98033
I forgot to add my final paragraph and conclusion: This was all 4D chess from JCorbz to annihilate the Conservative Party once and for all.

>>98033

>There's a lesson in all this: if you win an election, don't actually deliver on your promises

Or don't deliver too soon, so that voters will have forgotten about it by the next election. Timing is often crucial in politics.

Should we reclassify the environment as the high street? That way it would receive unanimous bipartisan support and the squirrels could get loans to open posh new commercial properties so long as they close at a reasonable hour and only serve alcohol as part of a food menu.

I don't know, I get that businesses are struggling but I'm starting to wonder if the high street is actually profitable.

Glad to hear my new look UKIP Britain First Labour membership card will be with me in a few weeks. Without a flag on it, people must assume I secretly hate the UK and that I want to shaft the country with a Labour government, who I hope will do bad things, not good things. I have an IQ of 4, when will I get to be general secretary of the party?

I know one of you are going have a pop at me for saying that, but it's so fucking patronising. I don't need to look at a little flag to know I like Britain, I live in this shithole.

>>98036
High streets can thrive, but they aren't going to be like how they were in 2008 ever again. If they have things to do, places to eat and the stuff you can't get online, like shoe repair and accountancy, then high streets do fine. However, no matter how much you cut, sorry, make "fairer", business rates, Woolworths and Wilkos aren't coming back to life. Meanwhile Amazon continues to opperate de-facto tax free and warehouse workers get treated worse than dogs.

>>98037
Normal people don't join political parties.

>>98037
What I've never got is why nobody ever thought to copy the LibDems in providing members with a choice of membership card. I bet the tribal nature of Labour's politics would love it.

>>98039
Who would seriously want Kirsty Williams on their membership card? Not Kirsty Williams, that's for sure.

>>98038
Where did I say I was "too normal" for a political party? If you're looking to have a pop at me just say it, don't be all snide about it, arsehole.

>>98039
>>98040
It's the Cleggheads that want sectioning. And I like Ashdown, the black and gold colouring on that card does make it look like it's a members card for an exclusive swingers club. Hell, for all I know in LibDem circles it is that, like a hanky code kind of thing. It would explain why you can get one with feet on.

>>98041
I would definitely get a Paddy Ashdown card. I used to live in Yeovil, which was his constituency, plus he was in the SBS so he's basically Andy McNab with a snorkel. Some of the others might be nearly as cool, but I don't recognise half of them and I'm definitely not having the feet card.

>>98040

She's the pengest of a very un-peng bunch.

>>98042
I got the black Churchill and Lloyd George card to confuse historically ignorant people. Unfortunately nobody commented on my choice which is owed at least in part as I never showed anyone it. The end.

>>98044
Well, you wouldn't, would you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FErfyZuhjzA

Lads, help me crunch some sums here: if Starmer's big tentpole figure for his whole campaign is 1.5 million homes and we currently have a backlog of 4.3 million compared to the average European country. How fucked are we? If we all just collective vote labour 4 times next year how much will house prices go down by?

>>98046
I thought he looked better with the glitter suit on.

>>98046
They said on the news he was protesting for a new electoral system. It really didn't come across from what he was yelling. He's absolutely right but he's shit at protesting.

>>98048
It took a relatively long time for security to haul him away, I don't think he'd actually planned on having so much time to say something.

In the Mid-Bedfordshire by-election, Reform UK got 1,487 votes. Just one short of the magic Nazi number. They must be furious.

>>98056
>English Democrats
>Putting England first
>Antonio Vitiello

Proper traditional English name, that. Same with "Alberto" Thomas of the Heritage Party. These silly bastards really don't get that politicking is 90% optics these days.

>>98057
It's humorous, but if we're being serious modern racism isn't about anti-Italian sentiment. I don't think many people would know what you meant if you tried calling someone a "wop".

Besides, Reform putting up a bloke called Dave Holland is the real slap in the face to English pride. I do not forget the raid on the Medway so easily.

>>98056
It's interesting how no one seems to give a shit about Reform. UKIP were the right-wing boogeymen for years, constantly threatening to snatch the tens-of-millions of voting white ven men away from both the Tories and Labour, both of whom were the ven mens's traditional party. But despite this, and the fact that the party leader Richard Tice has his own telly show or something, Reform are about as popular as clogs at the Second Anglo-Dutch War veterans association.

I guess it doesn't help them much that the Conservatives are just UKIP now.

>>98058

>I don't think many people would know what you meant if you tried calling someone a "wop".

BRING BACK PROPER RACISM LIKE WE HAD IN THE GOOD OLD DAYS.

>>98058
Why would I give a shit about a party that can maybe field one or two MPs? FPTP or whatever, reality is that "dissident" parties like Reform are great at drumming up media attention but by design pretty inefrfective at achieving meaningful change. At a local level it works if the constituents are wealthy enough, but actual (and in my view reactionary and media pandering) change of the kind Reform proposes is a grift.

Hey, I can make a new party:
- Britain for the British
- Fund the NHS
- Points based immigration, deport the rest
- No money for scroungers
- Wood burners for everyone over 65
- Wood industry subsidies to fire the burner

Easy, isn't it? No how do I make this work? That's where Reform, UKIP, BNP, etc. are stuck. They grift in the existing political system, if they wanted actual change they'd be on the streets.

>>98060
>Easy, isn't it? No[w] how do I make this work?
How is that different from the mainstream parties? They offer unworkable promises all the time ("Get Brexit Done") and conveniently hide their explanations for how they will do these things if the explanation would be unpopular (=taxes, every time).

>>98061
Do Labour or the Lib Dems have any unworkable promises? I don't really know what either of them stand for these days.

>>98060

UKIP took a lot of votes from the Tories, which forced the Tories to shift to the right to squeeze them out. Cameron couldn't just camp out on the middle ground, because his share of the vote was being attacked from both sides. There's a direct line between UKIP winning 12.6% of the vote in the 2015 General Election and the referendum a year later.

The same threat is happening now with Reform, albeit manifested slightly differently because of the Tories being much weaker in the polls. If the Tories had won the 1,487 votes that went to Reform in Mid Beds, they would have held on to the seat. If Reform stand candidates in all of the key Tory marginals and win only a small proportion of the vote, it could cost the Tories dozens of seats; that is obviously going to shape Tory messaging and policy on issues like immigration and our relationship with the EU.

>>98056

I mean I think the part to pay attention here is that the votes for Reform were enough that they'd have swung it from Labour to the Tories. When people wonder why the Conservatives are pandering to far right rhetoric, here is your answer. When people wonder why Kieth Anti-Trans Literal Worse Than Hitler Starmer won't come out and say he likes lady penises and make his manifesto pledge free puberty blockers for all 12 year olds, this is why.

The Tories created a monster with their constant "muh migrants, muh dolescum" type rhetoric. The gambit was that they could control the media narrative and it wouldn't ever make a difference what the reality actually was. They thought they would always be able to position themselves as the ones who were "solving" the problem while the muzzie loving globohomo leftie wet wipes in Labour are the ones who want to open the valve and make your daughter shag a darkie. The problem is they never expected these voters to become self aware, they were supposed to be easily controlled Daily Mail drones.

The trouble is that the leash slipped out of their hand, but by now there's no way of putting the genie back in the bottle. If it was possible to dismiss it all as dogwhistling and xenophobia to be a BNP voter back in 2007 when we first started getting the Poles over, it really isn't any more. Not even the most ardent Europhile Graun reading Lib-Dem posho can deny, our services are straining, the housing supply has flat out dried up, and people are directly feeling negative impacts of overcrowding. We've got so many Slavs over here I've been shagging exclusively Eastern Europeans for about the last 3 years, and even THEY will tell you in their own words, that there are too many of them. They wouldn't put up with this level of influx to their own countries- Even they are voting to stop more of their own coming over behind them, let alone more brown-eyed people.

It's been the perfect storm of conditions that has in a very real sense pushed the Overton window of our politics further to the right than it has been in years, at least in terms of social issues.

Labour's the name, imploding is the game.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67432393

If things on the economic side continue to look better in 2024 we might not actually see a Labour government.

>>98157

It's only an implosion if Starmer bottles it. If he makes good on his word, removes the cabinet ministers who voted against the whip and makes it very clear to the back benchers that anyone who crosses the line is looking at deselection or loss of the whip, it's just a purge of troublemakers. Sacking a load of people pour encourager les autres is generally seen in a very favourable light by the electorate if it's wrapped in rhetoric about common sense and getting the job done.

>>98157

Honestly I don't get how this lot haven't learned their lesson after what happened to Corbyn. It's just not worth the hassle of speaking up about it. My heart bleeds over what is happening as much as the next lefty, but you know damn fucking well you will never be elected in this country unless you pay the Israel lobby its lip service.

But to be extremely cynical it'll probably do them good in the long run, though, because you can put money on all the MPs kicking off over this being either brown or women. How else would the party get away with sacking them.

>>98157

Oh, and

>If things on the economic side continue to look better in 2024

I wouldn't worry about that mate. Nobody in real life is buying "we're all getting poorer a marginally slower rate than last year, hooray!" as a miraculous economic recovery.

Oh no, Labour might have to purge shitheads like Richard Burgon, Dawn Butler, Stella Creasy, Clive Lewis, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Jess Phillips, Naz Shah, Cat Smith, Zarah Sultana, Valerie Vaz and a bunch of others who are only doing it because their seat relies on securing Asian votes. Please don't go, you'll be sorely missed.

>>98159
I don't even know if it counts as lip-service. Israel aren't going to agree to a ceasefire just because the British parliament say they should achieve anything. It's purely performative.

>>98160
If you watch the BBC you'd be forgiven for thinking inflation slowing down means prices are going down, so I imagine other media outlets are similar. Considering loads of people don't understand how marginal rates of tax work don't be surprised if loads of thickos can't comprehend inflation.

The near total acquiescence within parliament to the idea of killing tens-of-thousands of Arabs consequence free is the most racist phenomenon in politics I've witnessed within my lifetime. The fact that taking the same position as the United Nations on this issue is a sacking offense within Labour is repellent, and the hypocrisy after twenty months of, righfully, condemning and actively opposing Russia's attack on Ukraine is shocking. If a 25% lead in the polls isn't enough to have even the bare minimum level of morale courage, then when is?

The actions of the past five weeks, including those of Hamas, have almost totally eroded my personal beliefs in the positive aspects of humanity. I confess they'd already diminished in recent times, but now they're vapor.

>>98164
It's optics. Sunak has looked weak due to Braverman going off the rails, but be did manage to sack her in the end. Starmer also needs to demonstrate that people have to toe the line with him.

When we do have a general election what is going to be the priority for most voters? Will it be their stance on a ceasefire on a different continent or is it more likely to do with the state of the NHS, schools, police, immigration or the economy in general?

>>98165
I quite literally deleted a line in my previous post about how the optics of all this are actually bad, how I didn't care about them in any event, given the direness of the issue, and how you should fucking top yourself if were thinking of lecturing me about that kind of thing. You can shove your game theory, race to the bottom politics up your arse, you patronising fuckwit.

>>98166
Nah, you're right. Labour's stance on Israel is the most important issue facing the country right now and Netanyahu was on record saying he'd agree to a ceasefire if only the opposition party in the UK were given a free vote on it.

>>98167
>You can shove your game theory, race to the bottom politics up your arse, you patronising fuckwit.

>>98168
Rightly or wrongly, Starmer has inherited the situation with the Labour Party where anything with even the faintest whiff of antisemitism will be under the magnifying glass so he's got to he mindful of that.

Similarly, Labour have never been able to shake the tag that they're the party of open borders and mass immigration. If you're in the circles where you encounter the "legimate concerns" of the "silent majority" who voted for Brexit then there has been a lot of disquiet about the ethnicity of the majority of pro-Palestinian protestors, usually leading to pearl clutching about where the country will be heading if they're allowed to outnumber us. As mental as some of these people are, looking like you're pandering to Muslims would not go down well at all when immigration is still a pressing concern.

>>98169
Why are you saying this to me? I already made it clear how racist this all was in my first post on this topic.

>>98170
Because I'm genuinely trying to figure out whether you're on the spectrum or not. You appear to be struggling with the concept that other people think differently to you.

It's a very weird stance you're taking. Starmer has shown time and time again that he'll do or say whatever he thinks will get him elected, going back on numerous campaign pledges. It's weird how Israel is the straw that broke the camel's back for you.

>>98163
>you'd be forgiven for thinking inflation slowing down means prices are going down
Inflation is a year-on-year measure tracked from month to month, so a reduction in inflation may indeed mean prices are going down, especially if it went up in the same period the previous year.

>>98171
>It's weird how Israel is the straw that broke the camel's back for you.
Cute, very cute. When I was 17 I stood in the middle of Manchester arguing with two Communist uni students, half-a-dozen Asian lads and one racist white girl that Israel had a right to exist, and saying otherwise was at best naive, at worst antisemetic. I was doing this because the students were collecting signatures for a petition calling for the dissolution of Israel. I'd stand by every bastard word I said back then. However, the recent level of bloodshed inflicted by the IDF is abhorrant, and even more so when you consider that a significant motivation for the violence is to compensate for the fact that that idiot Netanyahu was overwhelmingly concerned with defending the illegal West Bank settlements, and as such had abandoned the Israel-Gaza border. I have very personal expierences that mean I am actually deeply sympethic to the rage Israelis must feel since the events of October 7th. Those experiences left me a hateful stupour for well over a week, and it was only after I'd acted on them that I realised I needed to change my attitude or face ruin. Now, you, probably, don't have the experience of a friend being on the scene in the immediate aftermath of a daft militant wog attack that killed tens of people and helping to treat the wounded before even the emergency services had arrived, so I wouldn't expect you to have felt the same way. Likewise, the UK's distance from the Hamas attack should allow us a clarity of mind not afforded to those directly effected by it. This clarity should make it abundantly clear that the uncommon and relentless slaughter of Palestian civilians is wholly unacceptable and must stop immediately. I'm not daft enought to think Labour adopting this as it's official stance would magically convince a far-right Israeli government to cease it's assault, but I do have a basic ethical understanding that some things are too important to play politics with. One of those things is human lives, but, according to the great majority of MPs, if those lives belong to lowly sandn!ggers; kill, kill, kill them all. My words might seem harsh, but they are a reflection of the actions of our politicians, and that is why I choose them.

I also want you to know that if you were to imply I was a Jew hater in the real world, you would not be getting a florid speech like the one above. Instead I would beat you so hard you parents would feel it.

>>98175
In other words, "that's not funny: my brother died that way."

You care about this situation because it personally affects you. I don't recall anyone on here having a similar teary about how China are treating the Uyghurs or when ISIS were releasing videos where they were torturing and beheading people. Clearly, some tragedies are more important than others but it's almost always Israel people get obsessively occupied with for some reason I can't put my finger on.

>>98176
I'll be honest, this reply of yours is so devoid of rationality or reason that I'm struggling to engage with it.

>In other words, "that's not funny: my brother died that way."
I find your lack of reading comprehension to be a serious concern, because it was very clear what I said. I said I understand Israel's desire for action at any cost (this is called empathy, if you were curious), but that it's up to people with an emotional distance from the events to behave more rationally. If you have a problem with this take it up with the United States, as it was their sage military and political advice that was allegedly the only reason the IDF weren't storming Gaza the moment southern Israel was cleared of Hamas. "Some tragedies are more important" is such a vile and ignorant thing to say. It's taken the Sudanese civil war seven months to rack up the amount of dead the Hamas-Israel conflict has, the better part for two years for the amount of civilian dead in the Russo-Ukraine war to reach the tens-of-thousands. What has happened in Gaza has been a brutal slaughter, there are no two ways about it. The British government never sent the Fleet Auxillery to assist ISIS or the People's Republic of China nor referred to either organisation as our "allies", and if a vote was held to call for an end to Saudi Arabia's policy of mortar bombing illegal migrants and Labour opposed it, I'd have a similar stregth of feeling on that matter. A great many people were disgusted when stories of ISIS comitting mass rapes, enslavement and videoing their murders of westerners and enemy combatants. I, personally, have never forgotten the name Kayla Mueller. To pretend that there wasn't mass outrage and disgust at the actions of ISIS from the UK is complete bollocks and you know it.

Again you continue to ignore the role race is playing in all this. I don't know if this is because it makes you uncomfortable, or perhaps you simply don't care, or the third option; you are racist and see Arabs as lesser. However, the idea that you could kill 10,000 Europeans in a month and and any amount of leeway would be given is absurd. The Yanks still get shit for killing, I believe, around 300 or 400 people while bombing Belgrade, and that was to actively prevent a genocide.

Lastly, if you want to play "who can name more human tragedies" we can. I look forward to your full throated defence of the Burmese military state, of the Mexican cartles and their de-facto takeover of the entire nation, of cynical and brutal actions of the RSF and the regular Armed Forces in Sudan and of course the Azeri's genocide of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh. I can confidentally assume you support all of this violence, as you haven't made a thread about any of them.

>>98176
Russia has definitely received more criticism than Israel over the bad things they have done to innocent bystanders in recent years. And while nobody is calling for China to stop being a country, that’s because the country wasn’t artificially established in the first place; we are still nevertheless calling for boycotts and sanctions far more often than we are for Israel.

I also have a moronic thought that I would only say anonymously. I was going to put it in that Politics General thread, but I have decided it’s too terrible a thread so I am going to not post there. Anyway: if Israel completely wipes Gaza off the map, as they are clearly trying to do, maybe it’s going to be like nuking Japan instead of doing a ground invasion and it might save more lives in the long run. Would it still be as contentious then?

>>98178
Utilitarianism to justify genocide: yes, in the same way glassing the entire planet would prevent immeasurable suffering in the long run. It might be an unpopular opinion but I don't think that's really what anyone human wants.

Bottom line is Labout can't afford to be seen as anything but turbo-Zionists, because the apparatus of pro-Israel interest groups and their connections have shown exactly what they can do to the party if it doesn't toe the line. I mean, wouldn't it just be terrible if another scandal about how the party is still institutionally anti-semitic came out, right in time for the election next year?

I ask myself what I would have done in Corbyn's shoes. I am a much more pragmatic man- I am completely willing to sell a less important principle out, in order to gain power to implement others. I would have pledged to give Israel full support up to and including nuclear weapons as long as it is used to claim Israeli land from the Palestinian untermensch. Blank cheque.

We'd have nationalised rail and utilities by now put it that way.

>>98178

>if Israel completely wipes Gaza off the map, as they are clearly trying to do

Israel has the capability to completely eradicate the population of Gaza in less than 24 hours, without using their nuclear weapons. If this is a genocide, it's the most incompetent and half-hearted genocide in history.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67327079

>>98181
>it's the most incompetent and half-hearted genocide in history
Nice meme, where'd you get it?

>>98181
The Arab countries that surround Israel also have the power to completely eradicate Israel. But they aren't doing, so what's with all the, erm, let's call it "defensive slaughter"? And I assume Israelis think Hamas have the power to completely eradicate them too, given how they're acting towards them.

>If this is a genocide, it's the most incompetent and half-hearted genocide in history.
I can also- no, I won't say it. You'll go apeshit.

>>98181
The problem is they need to do it in a kosha way to make flour for their matzo bread.

>>98183
>The Arab countries that surround Israel also have the power to completely eradicate Israel.

You what.

There's an article in the Graun on Jess Phillips' constituents saying she did the right thing by resigning over Gaza. Four of the five people quoted are Asian. Let's not pretend this was a principled stance being made, rather than primarily being to keep her seat.

>>98185

Proud of our Asian community for also being sick to death of Jess Phillips' shit.

>>98183

>The Arab countries that surround Israel also have the power to completely eradicate Israel.

The Arab countries that surround Israel have repeatedly started wars with Israel - sometimes with the explicit goal of eradicating Israel - and consistently failed in their objectives. Everyone apart from Hamas and Hezbollah learned a long time ago that attacking Israel will bring you nothing but misery, which is why most Arab states now have peace treaties with Israel.

Egypt and Jordan didn't go from opposing the existence of Israel to having a co-operative relationship because of some road to Damascus moment of generosity, or because of some sort of nefarious Zionist manipulation. Their governments slowly and painfully realised that a) the existence of Israel was non-negotiable, b) the Israelis were far more willing to maintain peaceful co-existence with them than the Palestinians and c) they had a common enemy in the form of Iran, who have relentlessly exploited Palestine and Lebanon as proxies in a wider Sunni-Shia conflict.

a pole in brit/pol/ has let it be known that this website is dying.

So does Starmer expect all those Israeli ministers who agreed to a ceasefire to resign now as well?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/nov/26/labour-grassroots-back-starmer-gender-self-identification

I wish it could be a victory for common sense without also being a victory for TERFs.

Reform are close to overtaking the Lib Dems.

>>98192

Liz Truss must be holding the record for the biggest drop in voter support in the shortest amount of time. Some 12 percent in less than two months.

>>98192
And the LibDems are still more popular than they were in the 2019 GE.

>>98193
It really was an incredible time. It's strange to think back to, because I can remember it very clearly, but it's also hard to process. Dreamlike would be the word, I suppose.

>>98194

>It's strange to think back to, because I can remember it very clearly

You can clearly remember political events from just over a year ago. Good on you.

Tory voter support wasn't ARE Liz's only casualty during that time, lest we forget.

>>98195
And then read the rest of the post.

I hope it hurt when Big Liz died. I wish her whole family would blow up.

>>98196

>I hope it hurt when Big Liz died. I wish her whole family would blow up.

Lad.

>>98197
I'm sorry. Which one of her kids is your favourite? The paedophile or the grave robber?

>>98198
1. Anne.
2. Edward.
3. Charles.
4. Andrew

Everyone knows this.

>>98198

What did they ever do to you.

>Keir Starmer has praised Margaret Thatcher for effecting “meaningful change” in Britain in an article directly appealing to Conservative voters to switch to Labour. Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, the Labour leader said Thatcher had “set loose our natural entrepreneurialism” during her time as prime minister.

>“Across Britain, there are people who feel disillusioned, frustrated, angry, worried. Many of them have always voted Conservative but feel that their party has left them,” he said. “I understand that. I saw that with my own party and acted to fix it. But I also understand that many will still be uncertain about Labour. I ask them to take a look at us again.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/02/keir-starmer-praises-margaret-thatcher-for-bringing-meaningful-change-to-uk

>>98201
I can understand why he might say this as a desperate Hail-Mary to win voters. Many people are disillusioned with the moribund economy and the fact that everything is getting worse for everyone except those with the connections to profiteer from it, and Margaret Thatcher got rid of the same 1970s badness that we're feeling now. But she was also an evil psycho bitch who ruined large parts of the country. The "Red Wall" is pretty much everywhere that Margaret Thatcher fucked over, and they might be too thick up there to remember that she was a Conservative, but they definitely still remember what she did to them. Why would you antagonise so many people whose votes you need, in exchange for the votes of a handful of crusty boomers who will just vote Liberal Democrat at the next election anyway, when you are miles ahead in the polls without doing that?

>>98202

Things have changed quite drastically in a very short space of time. People are baying for the blood of privatised utility companies, they want public services putting back on their feet, and they want want corrupt MPs hung in the streets, and Labour is a lumbering beast which has only just got its momentum going toward being the kind of party that might have stood a chance in 2015. Even if it tried to react to the present circumstances we wouldn't see the impact until about 2027.

But in the end I suspect it doesn't really matter what he says, it matters if the papers back him. I remember distinctly thinking one Sunday afternoon listening to the news in my car, that the media seemed to be turning on the Conservatives, and if the media is turning on the Conservatives, they are finished. We are seeing the changing of the guard.

>>98203
>But in the end I suspect it doesn't really matter what he says, it matters if the papers back him.

Do you not think there's a connection between the two? Starmer is signalling that he's a safe pair of hands in the eyes of the media, especially the Murdoch press.

>>98203
>>98204
I think it's much overstated how much influence the traditional press have on public opinion. And for the record by circulation Metro tops the chart as a broadly centre-centre-left newspaper despite being part of the Mail family. Newspaper circulation has collapsed in this country and we even saw at the 2019 election some interesting new attempts to reach people through social media and Boris Johnson having his own lo-fi hip-hop playlist.

Now that doesn't mean that political parties don't still pander to them but they do so out of an irrational holdover from when mass press and mass parties had a symbiotic relationship. These days the largest podcasts pull a similar circulation to newspapers and where Lineker's empire dominates the show with Rory Stewart and Alistair Campbell banging on about Brexit and a view of populism rivalling senators in the last days of the Roman Republic.

The public zeitgeist is on another planet to whatever hardcore Corbyn voters think but it's still decidedly harder than in 2010 for traditional conservative messaging. To top it off the press is still a business and they need to appeal to the viewpoints of their readers where the actual model is them selling their influence to advertisers and investors.

For me I think Starmer is fucking up with this. He's trying too hard to be Tony Blair and it's going to give him problems if Labour's base don't turn out to vote. I think turnout is going to be a decider in this election because neither party can promise anything but extreme pain. The Tories have spent the money Labour would have used to fund it's programme on tax-cuts and even after the mass-watering down of promises and Labour can't back down the tax cuts because the public are screaming for the pressure to come off them.

I'll be voting next year but I know all bloody-too-well that it's going to be a performative exercise for my near-term future. The Tories for their part are leaning on the lessons of the 1992 election and I think Labour are reacting to it to avoid the trap but are as a consequence falling into the mistake of fighting an old war:

>>98205
I didn't notice it at the time but 4:09 is verbatim what the Tory campaign will be. If anything it might be too smart.

>>98205

There's something deeply sinister about the
>Strikes don't work, as we all remember
Line. That's a threat.

>>98205
>The Tories have spent the money Labour would have used to fund its programme on tax-cuts and even after the mass-watering down of promises and Labour can't back down the tax cuts because the public are screaming for the pressure to come off them.
What is the economic consensus on tax cuts? Everyone in politics seems to agree that tax cuts make the economy do better, and yet taxes keep getting cut and the economy just keeps doing worse. Do proper economists have some information that politicians never refer to, that might inform my decision better?

My own theory is that wages are now so low, and the economy is so stagnant, and life is so miserable, that even for the government to recoup the very bare minimum of money that they need to run the country, they need an astronomically high tax rate. The government might want, say, five grand a year out of me to give me roads and schools and hospitals, but if five grand is 20% of my wages, they can't cut taxes below that for me. If I was making £100,000 a year, they could charge 5% tax and still get the requisite £5000, but most people don't make that and that's why taxes keep going up despite economists agreeing that they shouldn't. And cutting taxes might provide "growth" but it won't make wages go up so there's no point in me supporting it as a policy.

>>98208

Taxes aren't actually being cut, the government are just good at convincing us that they are. The tax "cuts" in the recent budget are just undoing tax rises from a couple of years ago. The geeky bit is something called fiscal drag - if you don't raise the thresholds at which people start paying taxes, then more and more people are pulled into those tax brackets due to inflation.

The general economic consensus is that high taxes can suppress growth, because they can reduce the incentive to work harder and take risks in business. That can sound a bit like hand-wavy theory, but it's based on really fundamental microeconomic principles. We have high taxes on fags and booze to discourage people from smoking and drinking; likewise, you're a bit less likely to do overtime or take a stressful but high-paying promotion if most of that extra income just goes straight to HMRC. There is a lot of debate over how strong those effects really are and how to strike the right balance.

France has the highest tax-to-GDP ratio of any country at 46%. The US and South Korea have the lowest overall tax take of any rich countries at about 27% of GDP. Ours is low by European standards but high by global standards at ~33%, but that ratio has been creeping upwards and continues to rise. This points to an obvious tradeoff with regards to public services - maintaining European levels of public spending unavoidably requires European levels of taxation.

There are lots of other things we could be doing to stimulate growth, but we're quite hemmed in by high inflation and interest rates. In a conventional recession where demand is low, it makes a great deal of sense for the government to borrow loads of money cheaply and invest it in stuff that'll give good long-term returns; it doesn't really matter if that investment creates inflationary pressure if inflation is near zero. We're stuck in a worst-of-both-worlds situation with low growth and high inflation, which was until quite recently only a theoretical possibility.

>>98208
Let's not get lost in the argument of tax cuts here because we're not really getting one. You will still be paying more because of the tax bands not rising with inflation. The government just realized it was taking in a lot more money than it thought and has decided that the best thing to do would be to balance some of the pain being felt or extend existing cuts. Or to stuff the next Labour government if you want to be cynical.

I think you're right to point to the systematic problem. The quicker we come to terms with that, well it won't do anything but we need to get real on the challenges we face. Something Hunt and Reeves actually agree on, that neither promises any quick solution (in terms of decades) to the pain we feel. The debt burden alone in this country is now 10.4% of revenue, DOUBLE what it was in 2021. And we're not reducing the debt, we're just servicing it. We have a chronic productivity shortfall exacerbated by a lack of skills, access to capital and long-term underinvestment and we're now facing a rising tax rate not seen since the Second World War at a time of real term declining incomes, high-inflation and... the 2020s in general. Probably next comes mass unemployment, climate change and the general age of deglobalisation despite being an island archipelago utterly dependant on international trade.

Oh and we all forgot how to make babies a few decades ago so there's an aging population that means no matter how much we put into the NHS it's never enough to deliver even the service you had the year before. It's not even like the tax burden is making money because in real terms every part of government is now facing austerity conditions owing to the magic of inflation.

But it's not all doom and gloom. Holding the tax rebate on productivity investments is absolutely the right idea and the Mansion House Agreement to get pension funds investing in equities is the right idea (but 15 years too late). The UK has a huge high-skill, low-wage economy that is starting to take things seriously with investors slowly coming around to the idea that we're not a total basket case. I don't think either party will wreck that but at the same time I think the best we can hope for is that our kids will have a better life and we've just got to hold on for dear life.

>>98204

Well that's sort of what I meant, yes. He's not saying that sort of thing for voters, he's saying it so the Sun gets behind him (along with probably slipping a lot of Fleet Street twats big wads of cash I would presume). It might piss off nerds like us who actually pay attention and have principles but we are a drop in the ocean.

>>98205

Whether you want to split hairs over the traditional press vs the internet or whatever, either way, it's pretty difficult to deny the idea that The Media in general has more influence on who people vote for than the politicians themselves or their policies. We have seen it time and time again.

Remember Ed and his bacon buttie, an example that encapsulates it all perfectly. Even Corbyn- The policies he ran on are exactly the policies people are crying out for now, but will anybody remember that? No, because the news said he hated the jews and wanted to hand over all our nukes to Russia.

Starmer is going to run on a campaign even blander than Miliband's but the key difference is this time the media will be backing him. People don't make their own minds up, they just like to think they do.

>>98212

>Remember Ed and his bacon buttie, an example that encapsulates it all perfectly.

Papers might not be as widely read as they once were, but they're still hugely influential in dictating the agenda. To a great extent they determine what's newsworthy, what questions are asked in Today interviews, what gets debated on 5 Live, what gets joked about on Have I Got News For You. Murdoch isn't as dominant as he once was, Labour have a comfortable lead in the polls, but the Tory press can still do a lot of damage in marginal constituencies.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-margaret-thatcher-labour-b2461243.html

Here he is, rowing it back, and even saying words like "fan boy" for't yoof. Wonder where he picked that one up.

>>98217
>“The point I was trying to make in a piece that we penned last week was that there are some political leaders who have a mission, a plan, that they implement,” he told the audience.
>The Labour leader went on to say: “[Clement] Attlee, of course, was one of them, the ‘New Jerusalem’. Thatcher, whether you liked her or you didn’t like her, you couldn’t say she didn’t have a plan, or a mission.”
>Sir Keir added: “You can say someone has a mission and a plan and disagree profoundly with them.”
This is possibly the lamest position he has ever taken. We can all name other politicians and historical figures who "had a mission" but who Keir Starmer will never endorse. The jokes write themselves. I'm not even going to bother.

Rishi Sunak has confirmed a general election will take place next year.

The PM must call a general election by January 2025 and there had been much speculation he would cling onto power until the last moment. But in a speech to journalists at No10, Mr Sunak confirmed next year will definitely be an election year, dashing rumours that an election will be held in January 2025.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-rishi-sunak-confirms-next-31703654

Just think, lads. This time next year Starmer will be PM.

>>98219
>The PM must call a general election by January 2025 and there had been much speculation he would cling onto power until the last moment. But in a speech to journalists at No10, Mr Sunak confirmed next year will definitely be an election year, dashing rumours that an election will be held in January 2025.

What an absolutely Godawful way of phrasing this. Can journalists actually write anymore?

For those of us that speak English and not ChatGPTese, they're trying to say that a general election will happen in 2024, before the expected January 2025.

>>98220
That's what a Cambridge education gets you these days.

https://thetab.com/uk/cambridge/2018/02/14/live-tweeting-my-valentines-day-106888

>>98220
I don't understand how you'd read that any other way.

>>98220
It’s clunky, but look at all those correct spellings. No wrong grammar, no questions without question marks, no informal slang. I don’t think I could have done better myself, which is a rarity these days.

I would probably, if it was me, have written:
>By law, a general election must be called by January 2025. Mr Sunak has confirmed that he will hold the election next year, rather than clinging to power till the last moment as some had feared.

>>98223
>Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has confirmed that a general election will take place next year in 2024, dispelling rumours that he would hold onto power until the legal limit of January 2025.

>>98223
>till

YouGov have Labour's highest lead since Truss was PM.

>>98247
Then it's once again time to retreat even further from any kind of vision for the country and reject any suggestion that we've ever had an opinion on anything!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/19/labour-to-hold-crunch-talks-on-future-of-28bn-green-investment-plan

Seriously, just how are Starmer and Reeves meant to turn the country around if they won't actually do anything? Between this and being pro-genocide for twelve hours becuase it was the vogue thing to be doing, I fucking hate these cunts.

>>98248

To be fair, the evidence is pretty clear that every time he retreats from positions, drops pledges and says nothing, the poll lead goes up. You can't argue with facts, lad.

>>98249
I keep having to point out to angry lefties that the internet is not real life. The cycle of "Keir walks something back, Terminally Online types get indignant, poll lead holds firm" never ceases to be entertaining.

>>98250

Don't get me wrong I would prefer them to offer something, but at any rate getting the current lot out is the first priority.

It's no longer a case of being principled and standing up for proper lefty values because "centrist Labour is no better than the Tories". That was maybe still true ten years ago, but the present day Tories are actively, openly sabotaging the country. It's different. Centrist Labour would be a marked improvement.

Where we go from there is a different question.

>>98247
How we laughed as Reform UK took over as the countries leading opposition. How we laughed.

What I find weird though is that if you look at polls like these there are clearly a majority of voters who do a 180 every few months on which way they'll vote. I don't understand that, surely you're more likely to abstain or go for another party.

>>98249
We haven't seen what a more bullish and confident Labour would look like under Starmer. It's unlikely he'd be sitting at 60%, but to be considering backing away from a policy as revolutionary as the green investment plan for no good reason is bonkers. We could have UK produced sustainable energy, a massive expansion of an already very important, and only becoming more so, skilled employment sector and tackle climate change. Besides that, if Reeves is so concerned about the economy, maybe she should consider how much better spent all the money being tossed into the ceaselessly hungry maws of foreign owned companies like Scottish Power, EDF, E.ON and the rest could be. We're still a consumer economy after all.

What I can't abide the idea that Starmer's going to kick the can down the road. The UK's in a crisis, it's not an imminent catastophe, but I tend to agree with those who point out that countries like the UK and the USA are heading towards a Soviet-esque slide into a social, economic and political Hades. As such I would argue that we don't have the luxury of time to playing these clever political games, because at a certain point it doesn't even matter if you're a man of the rare and good character of Gorbachev, it could be too late. And why was it too late? Because the previous twenty-years were wasted by people who were out of touch, didn't think anything needed fixing and considered change was too dangerous anyway.

>>98250
Well then fuck off back to Twitter and argue with them then, because you're the only one who's "terminally online" here. What would you like me to do? Link you to a physical newspaper? I'm also arguing for something that's still Labour Party policy, how exactly does that make me an "angry lefty"?

>A spokesperson for Starmer said: “We are committed to Labour’s green prosperity plan to drive growth and create jobs, including our plan to ramp up to £28bn of annual investment in the second half of the parliament, subject to our fiscal rules.”

I have gut bacteria with more sense than you; they probably smell better too.

>>98252

The headline poll numbers don't include "don't know" "would not vote" and "refused to answer", which represents about a third of the electorate most of the time. People drift in and out of those categories all the time for all sorts of reasons. There's also a margin of error of about 2%, so small variations from week-to-week should really be disregarded as noise. With that said, the British electorate is exceptionally volatile at the moment. The Tories are drifting ever further to the right, Labour have shifted firmly towards the centre ground, the Brexit Party has been replaced with the far more ambiguously-named Reform Party, so a lot of people feel like they've been made politically homeless or just aren't sure which party aligns with their values.

Also a large part of the electorate are grossly uninformed, completely bonkers or both. When you dig into the British Election Study data, you find all sorts of voters with completely inexplicable combinations like "man, 48, Buddhist, strongly supports environmental policies and reintroduction of the death penalty, voted Conservative at the last election, intends to vote Womens Equality Party at the next election". Most people pay very little attention to the news, don't really think about politics much between elections and choose a grab-bag of beliefs that don't really align with any ideology or party.

https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/TheTimes_VI_240103_W.pdf

>>98253
Well done, lad. Just give it a day or so and see how the polling lead hardly moves and the cycle will be complete once again.

>>98255
You're still having arguments with people who aren't here. I never claimed Labour's poll lead was at risk, I'm more concerned about the future of my country.

>>98253

Like it or not, the best strategy for Labour is play it safe. Say as little as possible, give the papers as little as possible to attack you with.

I do hope that they start to show a bit of vision before the election but honestly I do understand why Starmer wouldn't want to threaten his advantage. He's the world's most boring man and that's his strongest asset right now.

The over 70s are the only age group to favour the Tories.

>>98275
I hate the two-party system so much. Keir Starmer's whole tactic is "Red Tories" and he's very open about this, and everyone who hates the Conservative Party is still tripping over themselves to vote for him. What do the Green Party, Liberal Democrats okay so they're even worse now, and "Other" need to do to get a win?

>>98276
Even if they had a realistic chance of winning there's very few compelling reasons to vote Green or Lib Dem, unless you're a hippy.

>>98276
Short of changing the voting system, and thereby abolishing Tory rule forever, they might have a shot if we see a repeat of the first half of the 1920s, during which Labour replaced the Liberals as the dominant second party, but otherwise they're only going to continue winning a block of seats in various places where they have local strength.

>>98275

Fingers crossed for a January election and a harsh winter.

>>98276
How we laughed as Reform UK became king-makers. How we laughed.

>>98277
Labour is packed full of curtain-twitching morons and social engineers as we shall soon all discover.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/01/labour-to-ditch-annual-green-investment-pledge-party-sources-say

>Labour to ditch £28bn annual green investment pledge, party sources say
>Exclusive: Party will keep plan to invest in green infrastructure but will in effect cut green ambitions by about two-thirds

Already seeing people get angry and dismissive online so I guess we're going through the cycle again.

>>98280
>But they do it because they GENUINELY care about stopping racism and homophobia instead of HALF caring at best like the Tories, so it's okay!

That's the attitude I find :/

>>98275
They're also the only ones who actually go out to vote

>Labour has withdrawn support for Rochdale by-election candidate Azhar Ali over comments he apparently made at a meeting. The Daily Mail published a recording apparently of Mr Ali blaming Jewish media figures for fuelling criticism against a pro-Palestinian Labour MP.

>It means Labour will not have a candidate on the ballot sheet as it is too late to replace him. Mr Ali could still be elected as an independent MP.

>Labour had spent days defending Mr Ali as a candidate after the Mail on Sunday published comments from Mr Ali, claiming Israel had "allowed" the Hamas attack. Mr Ali subsequently apologised "to Jewish leaders for my inexcusable comments".

>On Monday evening, the Daily Mail published a second recording, allegedly of Mr Ali, blaming "people in the media from certain Jewish quarters" for the suspension of Andy McDonald from the Labour Party.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68280098

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

>>98290

Selecting him in the first place was an unforced error, but I think they're right to withdraw support. One seat that's up for re-election in a year anyway isn't worth risking another divisive and damaging row. Obviously the prospect of George Galloway winning a seat is stomach-churning, but it won't make much difference at the next general election.

>>98291
>Selecting him in the first place was an unforced error, but I think they're right to withdraw support.

The massive own goal was getting MPs to come out in support of him in between the comments making the news and finally deciding to sack him off.

>>98292

I think it really depends on how much they knew. Personally I would have been inclined to get shot of him at the earliest opportunity, but I think I could have been persuaded to try and front things out if I had received strong assurances that the comment was a one-off and there were no more skeletons in the closet. It isn't an easy call to decide not to stand a candidate in a by-election that should be easy pickings for you.

Whoever released the recordings had obviously carefully planned it to cause Labour as much difficulty as possible, it might have been mis-handled under pressure, but I think the fundamental issue is poor vetting by the party. It's obviously extremely politically incorrect, but poorly-vetted Asian MPs have been a persistent nuisance for Labour.

>>98293
In this instance, Azhar Ali worked for five years as a government adviser under New Labour. If he was from the Corbyn wing of the party they'd have been much more decisive in getting rid.

If New Labour cronyism and a total messaging failure reduce the Tory extermination election to a hung Parliament, I will laugh and laugh and laugh so loudly that no one even notices it's turned into screaming until the blood begins shooting out of my eyes and their hair ignites.

Also local Labour party networks are utterly rotten.

>>98295

I was only ever hoping for a hung parliament because it was all we could realistically expect out of the dead fish that is the Labour party. They have a big poll lead now but I think a lot of it is illusory and should not be taken for granted.

>A second Labour parliamentary candidate has been suspended over comments made about Israel in a private meeting of Labour activists in Lancashire.

>It is understood that the party has suspended Graham Jones, its candidate for Hyndburn, after a recording emerged of him referring to “fucking Israel” and saying that Britons who fight for the Israel Defense Forces should be “locked up”.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/13/labour-suspends-second-parliamentary-candidate-over-israel-comments

>>98297
>Britons who fight for the Israel Defense Forces should be “locked up”.
He's not wrong.

FWIW, traditionally we did indeed lock up people who fought for foreign armies. I vaguely recall the Foreign Office having to issue some pretty specific guidance on the subject when people were shipping out to fight for Ukraine, and you can bet that anyone that went to fight for Russia is going to get locked up if and when they return to the UK.

>>98291
>Obviously the prospect of George Galloway winning a seat is stomach-churning, but it won't make much difference at the next general election.

Apparently Reform UK are making a go of it too. It's the voters in Rochdale you have to feel for in all this.

>>98298

>FWIW, traditionally we did indeed lock up people who fought for foreign armies.

It is illegal under the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 to serve in an army that is at war with a country we are at peace with. It was rarely enforced at the time and nobody has been prosecuted under the act since 1896. Obviously it wouldn't apply to Israel anyway, because HM Government doesn't recognise Palestine as a state.

Officially, UK nationals are strongly discouraged from participating in foreign conflicts, but that's primarily for diplomatic reasons in the event that you're captured - the Foreign Office doesn't want to get involved in negotiations over your release. Dual-nationals routinely do military service in a foreign country (although more usually in peacetime)

Less officially, we have a thriving private military contracting industry and there are large numbers of former British servicemen providing "security and intelligence services" in various warzones. The US DoD employed a lot of those people in Iraq and Afghanistan via Aegis Defence Services and we employed a lot of foreign military contractors, because neither country is a signatory to the UN Mercenary Convention.

>>98299
Would Reform be worse than the Tories? Presumably they'd push for electoral reform.

>>98299
>>98301
Their candidate in Rochdale is the seat's former Labour MP Simon Danczuk, who was kicked out of the party for sexting with a teenager.

Make of that what you will.

I was once chatting with a lass on a dating app from Rochdale, but I'm pretty sure she was either a grooming catfish or police honeypot profile, because if she was real she was a right wrong 'un.

I don't think Rochdale needs an MP, it needs nuking.

>>98302

BRITISH JOBS FOR BRITISH carpet-baggerS.

>Rachel Reeves accepted £10,100 from a climate sceptic just days before Labour abandoned its flagship £28bn green energy spending pledge.

>Bernard Donoughue, a Labour peer who previously told Parliament that the climate change debate suffers from “scaremongering” and “exaggeration”, donated to the shadow chancellor’s office late last month. Labour formally ditched its spending plan less than three weeks later, when Sir Keir Starmer and Ms Reeves announced they would spend just £4.7bn a year on clean energy policies.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/02/14/rachel-reeves-accepted-donation-climate-sceptic-28bn-pledge/

Just so you know in advance, Polly Toynbeelad, if Labour cock this up I will be going back through all the old /pol/itics threads and reposting the screencaps to show how wrong you were. Maybe consider volunteering now so as to try to save yourself the embarrassment.

>>98305
It's not exactly a smoking gun. You see, Reeves and that dullard Pat McFadden had been attempting to get the incredibly popular, economically necessary and envirmentally friendly green investment comittment binned for months now.

Whatever, the British public can just work in supermarkets and call centres until the Gulf Stream shuts down and we all freeze to death anyway. Skilled jobs in a modern economy with power that isn't immediately taken overseas to be sold? Sounds like Trotskyism to me, pal.

The BBC News channel seems to be trying their hardest to downplay Labour winning the by-elections yesterday.

>>98334
They’re the Man City of politics. When they win, it’s like nobody wins. They’re a winning machine with no personality. And that makes them very dull to report on.

>>98306
What happens when Labour doesn't cock this up?

>>98337
The unrelenting void where their ambition should be continues to lead us down the path of "Soviet-esque decline". As such I'm still right and we're all still doomed.

>>98338
Say what you like about it, it's evidently popular enough with the voters that the 20-point lead still isn't shifting.

>>98338
See, what you should have done is argue that antisemitism doesn't matter and that the reason Labour is going to win falls down to Johnson and Truss breaking the back of the Conservative Party. Like how Corbyn won second place in 2015 when May forgot how old people work.

Going by the opposition policy costing the ones we have for the moment are Warm Homes and Oil and Gas Levy that both seem a little nutty for different reasons.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/opposition-policy-costings-2024

Very brave of Labour to come out against an IDF offensive in Rafah several days after every other government and supragovernmental organisation in the West has already done so. It's true leadership.

>>98341

>the 20-point lead still isn't shifting.

This, pretty much. And Sunak will slowly be running out of time.

>>98359

This man is going to be MP for Rochdale for about eleven months and it's going to be fucking disgusting.

>>98361
Do you think he's built up enough of a lead to win at the next GE? I imagine Labour will take it much more seriously then.

>>98362
Rachel Dolezal would blush reading this shite.

>>98362

Not likely. Rochdale is a weird seat and this was an incredibly weird by-election, but Labour should comfortably win at the GE if they can avoid another massive fuck-up. Galloway's only real hope is for David Tully to keep building momentum and split the white vote, but I think Labour can easily counter that if they're able to run a proper campaign.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

>>98363

Galloway's continuing refusal to confirm or deny whether he's a Muslim is fascinating.

>>98361
If anything will accelerate the announcement of the upcoming general election, it’s having to share a parliament with George Galloway. The Conservatives must surely now recognise that enough is enough. The general election will be this month. We will finally be saved, thanks to a politician I really can’t stand but nevertheless begrudgingly respect but enough about Keir Starmer.

>>98362
My question on this is why he hasn't just written the letter in Arabic. Can the people he targeted read standard Arabic well? Would variations in language show in the written script?

Also, for fucks sake, how does someone even go out and vote for Galloway. I don't want him to close down .gs for listing accusations but, fucking hell.

>>98365
The Government still needs to announce another round of tax cuts and cuts to public services next week with the spring budget. Although who knows, maybe they will raise taxes and spending to give Labour a nice time when they get into office.

>>98366
>Also, for fucks sake, how does someone even go out and vote for Galloway. I don't want him to close down .gs for listing accusations but, fucking hell.

His supporters tend to be of a particular persuasion.

>>98366
>Also, for fucks sake, how does someone even go out and vote for Galloway. I don't want him to close down .gs for listing accusations but, fucking hell.
All I need is a rigged cup game and I could convince about half of the British laplanderstani population that was I a literal djinn. Once your head's chock full of religious bollocks, who's to say Golloway isn't campaigning in good faith on behalf of your community?

>>98366

>Can the people he targeted read standard Arabic well?

No. Only the most religiously devout men are likely to have a reasonable grasp of Arabic. The national language of laplanderstan is Urdu, but less than 60% of people in laplanderstan can read. laplanderstan is linguistically diverse, with dozens of regional languages; a large proportion of British laplanderstanis don't speak Urdu at home, even if they're fluent in the language. Most laplanderstanis in Rochdale would speak Kashmiri or Punjabi. British-born laplanderstanis generally have limited literacy in the language of their parents or grandparents, because they were educated in English.

Written Urdu is often confused for Arabic, because they use broadly similar alphabets.

What exactly is the deal with George Galloway anyway, who and what exactly is he, and why is he such a polarising figure?

Well, I mean I can figure out for myself that he's "polarising" in terms of the media because he says a lot of very spicy things about poor old hard done by Israel, but why do even proper card carrying socialist lefties who usually share those views hate him too?

The best I can tell is he's essentially Barry from the Four Lions, an otherwise unremarkable white bloke LARPing as a muslim jihadist of some sort.

>>98370
Because he's very obviously only in it to line his own pockets. inb4 "yeah, but they all are", sure but he, literally, gets carried around by Muslims chanting "glory to Allah", despite being an, apparently, faithless Scot far more interested in hosting programmes on foreign propaganda networks for hundreds of thousands of pounds. In many ways he walked so the GB News massive could run, not that they'd ever give him credit for it.

He's also always wearing a stupid fucking hate for some reason. Look at this one >>98367 it doesn't even go with his suit.

>>98371

Standard identity politics grifter, just with a more niche angle than the usual, then. Got it.

>>98370

>What exactly is the deal with George Galloway anyway, who and what exactly is he, and why is he such a polarising figure?

He was a Labour MP until 2003, when he was kicked out of the party. He has been extremely chummy with a number of middle-eastern dictators, most notoriously Saddam Hussein but also Bashar al-Assad and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. He has a lot of connections to dodgy charities and lobby groups, the details of which I won't go into because he is extremely litigious. He has been a paid employee of both the Russian and Iranian governments. He refuses to talk to anyone with an Israeli passport. He once gave a JD Sports bag full of cash to a Hamas leader in front of a cheering crowd.

>>98373
He defended Julian Assange from rape on the grounds that if someone you've previously had sex with falls asleep they don't need to be woken up "prior to each insertion". He pretended to be a cat on national television. He is openly transphobic. He said Humza Yousaf is "not a Celt" like he is.

>>98372
No, not really. Please pay attention. Adding to what >>98373 >>98374 have said he's also very pally with Jimmy Savile.

>>98375

Pardon me, I often forget that being transphobic and doing weird things on telly is far worse than associating yourself with unabummers and dictators out of nothing but personal greed.

If we're bringing the Assange up though, I remain convinced he never did nowt, and it's entirely fabricated to get him to the US where he definitely won't be dealt with by the CIA the same way Nvalny was by the KGB FSB.

>>98376
>Pardon me, I often forget that being transphobic and doing weird things on telly is far worse than associating yourself with unabummers and dictators out of nothing but personal greed.
I don't recall anyone saying that it was.

>>98376
Even if Assange was innocent what's that got to do with Galloway's defence of raping someone who's asleep? You need to stop posting now.

>>98378
tbf the whole concept of spousal rape is still in its trial period

>>98378

Can you point to the part of the post where that was even referenced? It wasn't. It was purely a tangent. Galloway's defence is nonsense, but that's irrelevant because Assange never did nowt to begin with.

Either way it's funny that you lot are apparently serious about "he supports war criminals, he's a money-driven charlatan, he's affiliated with literal genocidal dictators; but worst of all, he doesn't respect women".

>>98380
If he's a money-driven charlatan, he could be doing all the other things for money, because dictators are rich. Even Kim Jong-Un is wedged. I'd probably get on with him if he bought me a boat. But if you don't respect women, there's no excuse because you're doing it for free.

>>98380
Again, nobody is saying that these things are worse than any other things. I posted >>98374 just to add to the previous poster's list of reasons Galloway is an arse and a nutter. If it needs to be said to you, which apparently it does, I do think supporting war crimes is worse than being a common-or-garden misogynist.

>>98382

It's just the way the pair of you had to keep adding to the list after I had already been satisfied with the explanation that he's a crook, that amused me. You had to keep going as if you were worried I'd be on the fence about him unless you clarified that he doesn't even say Trans Rights.

It made me chuckle, that's all. I'm not taking it as seriously as you seem to think here.

>>98383
I was going to say something about other people, but then I remembered that there are only three of us here, and I'm not sure two of those aren't just alters of the other.