|
|
Post by shevii on Jun 29, 2024 9:26:06 GMT
People get held up all the time for all sorts of reasons such as road works, adverse weather or just high traffic volumes and people generally sit quietly in their cars waiting to carry on with their journeys.
However when it's a JSO protest then by some strange quirk of fate every one in the queue turns out to be urgently trying to get their Granny to hospital , desperatly late for picking up children from school, or about to lose their job for arriving late.
What are the odds on that ! The antics of JSO have alienated a lot of people and certainly caused the Green movement to lose political traction. It's ironic that the Greens are now more hopeful of some rural rather than urban gains. JSO are just seen as middle class people immune to the reality of the daily grind of life for most. Ironically there was a "march for nature" last weekend which attracted 60,000 to 100,000 people to London and received virtually no press coverage. Question Time continues to promote right wing guest columnists over and above Green party of Green activists, undue attention is given to Farage in the media and so on. You may be right about JSO and they do seem to pick some poor targets but if no-one is willing to cover the Green arguments and people like Attenborough have to do a very softly softly approach in their shows then really what choice to they have? Middle class people willing to get arrested and risk prison sentences is not exactly something to look down on in a patronising way. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jun 29, 2024 9:26:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jib on Jun 29, 2024 9:32:27 GMT
The antics of JSO have alienated a lot of people and certainly caused the Green movement to lose political traction. It's ironic that the Greens are now more hopeful of some rural rather than urban gains. JSO are just seen as middle class people immune to the reality of the daily grind of life for most. Ironically there was a "march for nature" last weekend which attracted 60,000 to 100,000 people to London and received virtually no press coverage. Question Time continues to promote right wing guest columnists over and above Green party of Green activists, undue attention is given to Farage in the media and so on. You may be right about JSO and they do seem to pick some poor targets but if no-one is willing to cover the Green arguments and people like Attenborough have to do a very softly softly approach in their shows then really what choice to they have? Middle class people willing to get arrested and risk prison sentences is not exactly something to look down on in a patronising way. No need to get in a twist over an observation I made and you're correlating observation with my beliefs - please don't. I was just stating why I believe the Greens struggle to make a breakthrough against pretty insipid opponents, Labour included. The legal / custodial peril has certainly increased for JSO activists in recent years. |
|
|
|
Post by pete on Jun 29, 2024 9:41:04 GMT
Regarding Joe Biden and his poor performance at the debate.
Why is his time not better managed? Surely he has top Dr's etc looking after his health?
They used to claim Trump was useless at his brief and they needed to dumb everything down for him. Maybe Biden is the opposite and does to much and tires himself out?
|
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jun 29, 2024 9:41:15 GMT
People get held up all the time for all sorts of reasons such as road works, adverse weather or just high traffic volumes and people generally sit quietly in their cars waiting to carry on with their journeys.
However when it's a JSO protest then by some strange quirk of fate every one in the queue turns out to be urgently trying to get their Granny to hospital , desperatly late for picking up children from school, or about to lose their job for arriving late.
What are the odds on that !
1. In so far as posters concern themselves with JSO & other protests by climate activists they tamely follow the media line: it's counter-productive, holds up ambulances etc. Counter-productive! Yeah, silence on environmenatl matters has been so productive hasn't it? The media determine the agenda, just as the media either ignore the constant attacks on ULEZ cameras, or if they mention them at all, portray the hooligans as popular heroes. Meanwhile, while JSO people are arrested by the bushel the police take little interest in arresting the camera smashers. Their "interference with the infrastrucure" (Public Order Act, 2023) is wholesale, very expensive, but ignored. We also get this sort of hysterical tosh from jib "The antics of JSO have alienated a lot of people and certainly caused the Green movement to lose political traction." They make babies' milk curdle as well. 2. The violent. atavistic reaction of motorists & the hatred of JSO protestors reveals the dark side of the "people's" view of protest. Why are these people so angry, so sick in their minds that they feel they hv the right to assault women. 3. JSO do as they do because of the impossibility of having a rational debate in this country about environmental matters Anyone suggesting an alternative to current policies --on anything! -- is jumped on by a thousand agencies. Maybe it's the same in other countries: I don't know. 4. Protestors are people who feel that given we are saddled in Britain with a remarkably immature level of public debate, that they are prevented having a voice, whether it's JSO, Restore Nature marchers, or muslims & others horrified by Israeli actions in Palestine. I admire the activists on here who work so hard for the Labour party, or indeed the Lib-Dems, but as for the tut-tutting armchair warriors ..... |
|
|
|
Post by norbold on Jun 29, 2024 9:44:56 GMT
norbold Colchester is 98th on the lib dems target seats and would require coming from a fairly distant third place. The only reason it's in The top 100 is before 2010 there was a liberal democrat mp. I'm not anticipating a win☺ Yes, I am fully aware of all that (Bob Russell, formerly the Labour candidate!). But, even in the ward where my son lives, there are no LibDem posters. This is a LibDem stronghold and has been for as long as I can remember. They had a big win there in this year's local elections. Normally you see street after street full of LibDem posters ("Winning Here"), but not one this time. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,573
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jun 29, 2024 10:13:17 GMT
If you can't see the difference between Farage spreading his poisonous racism and xenophobia and Starmer's mild centrism which you don't like much, then I feel truly sorry for how warped your perspective has become. Not saying I disagree, but you do come across a little as a rabid militant centrist? I'm tempted to say what would be the problem with that!  In reality my personal politics are decidedly left of centre, but I'm also a pragmatist and I like to win and I recognise that to do that you need to appeal to a lot of voters who are well to my right. And I absolutely loathe fascist-lite ethno-nationalists like Farage and his ilk - they are the opposite of everything I believe is right and good and necessary for the survival and progress of humanity. So a rabid social democratic anti-Fascist militant pragmatist perhaps. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,643
|
Post by steve on Jun 29, 2024 10:18:27 GMT
pete Yes Desmond Swayne that man of the people there's a whole plethora of these out of touch ultra wealthy Tories in the West country We used to take the kids to warmwell and on route along the A 31 we passed a 12 foot high wall that carried on for miles , there were various gargoyles and griffins and coats of arms statues on top, it looked a bit like a giant builders palace , very tacky.it transpires that it was the back garden wall of Tory MP Richard Drax. Behind the wall in thousands of acres of garden Drax had his humble abode.With over 50 bedrooms should have plenty of space to house the entire Tory parliamentary party. Here it is 
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jun 29, 2024 10:20:32 GMT
Has anyone actually seen a Tory garden poster any where? I've seen a couple of "I Stand With Giles" large poster boards up in nearby farms in Clacton.
Talking of posters....I am a frequent (weekly) visitor to Colchester as my son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren live there. In past elections, the whole town seemingly has been festooned with LibDem posters - window posters, garden posters, you name it. This year the only posters I've seen are Labour ones.
Random regional observations on the poster and garden signs front from me. After a slow start, and admittedly still nothing like the good old days, a lot more posters and signs have appeared in the last week or so in Redditch and its neighbouring constituencies/villages that I often travel through. If there is a vaguely discernible pattern to this late flowering it is this. In sold Tory territory, and I live in the West Worcestershire constituency, held by Harriet Baldwin Tory MP in 2019 with a 24,500 majority, there are hardly any Tory signs beyond the odd one in a farmer's field, usually adjacent to a busy main road. I've soon none on any private houses. A few Lib Dem and Green ones maybe. Here and there. In Redditch, very few to be seen still but those that have appeared recently are mainly for Labour. The same applies in Worcester. In the smaller towns and villages I've seen one of two Tory signs but they've been vastly outnumbered by Lib Dem, Green and, surprisingly, Labour ones. Feckenham, one of the "Villages" in the Redditch constituency staggered me. Normally written off as a repository of safe Tory votes, it is now festooned with Labour signs, posters and even a banner. I relay these anecdotes with the normal caveat about how the sign count can be misleading in terms of how things are faring in terms of voting intentions. I've found, over the years, that Tory voters tend to be notorious shrinking violets in terms of public displays of support for their party!! Still, some encouraging signs for Labour. The late flowering has taken on a distinctly red hue, and in surprising parts of the forest too!!! P.S Little sign of any Reform posters etc. Labour had some signs ripped down in a public place in Redditch, with Reform supporters thought to be the likely culprits. I can report too that a Reform leafleter was captured by a door bell camera in the town delivering leaflets at 11.45 pm! Under the cover of darkness and a hoodie pulled firmly over his head!! Who tore down a Rachel MacLean sign in bucolic and idyllic Bradley Green is anyone's guess!! All very silly but a common feature of electioneering!! |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,573
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jun 29, 2024 10:31:28 GMT
If you can't see the difference between Farage spreading his poisonous racism and xenophobia and Starmer's mild centrism which you don't like much, then I feel truly sorry for how warped your perspective has become. Well Starmer's interview with the Sun (later clarified) suggests he's not taking the line Kinnock would want him to take: www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-keir-starmer-bangladesh-the-sun-immigration-rwanda-rushanara-ali-b1167070.html"At the moment people coming from countries like Bangladesh are not being removed because they’re not being processed." Now of course he's not like Farage and may be simply seeing this is a way of trying to get elected but the use of a specific country strongly suggests to me that this was pandering to racist views and saying Bangladesh is a safe country as an explanation for why he quoted that particular country doesn't really sound like the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth. He could have gone with economic migrants but he chose not to. You will be aware Starmer has spent the last two days clarifying and semi-apologising over that: "Defending the comments on Thursday, Sir Keir said he was trying to give an example of a safe country where a returns agreement is in place - but people aren't being sent back because their asylum claims are not being processed. He told broadcasters: "The reference in the debate the other day was an example of a country that is considered safe as far as asylum is concerned, and one of the countries that's actually got a returns agreement with us, and that is actually a good thing where both we and Bangladesh can be proud of." "I certainly wasn't intending to cause any concern or offence to any Bangladeshi community here." He said he values the relationship and the contribution of the Bangladeshi community in Britain, adding: "They've made a massive contribution to our economy, to our culture and to our country. That's why there's always been a longstanding and strong relationship between Labour and the Bangladeshi community here. "It's why my first trip as a Labour MP was to Bangladesh, where I saw for myself the strength of the country, the hospitality and warmth of the country. I've got many Bangladeshi constituents in my own constituency who I've been working with for many years, and I want to build on that in government." news.sky.com/story/starmer-says-he-meant-no-offence-to-bangladeshi-community-over-deportation-comments-13159889However, I will say the same to you as to Graham - anyone who can't see the difference between the danger to the democratic values of this country represented by Farage and Starmer's moderate centrism has lost the plot. They are not even in the same ballpark and it lets Farage off the hook to make the comparison. Stopping the growth of right-wing nationalism in this country is too important for petty point scoring. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jun 29, 2024 10:40:03 GMT
I am not suggesting that the rally cost Labour the 1992 election - rather that it might well have made the difference between Major's 21 majority and a Hung Parliament similar to that which faced Theresa May in 2017. The actual outcome in GB vote share was a Tory lead of 7.6% - but had that margin been restricted to 6.5% there would have been no Tory majority. The Tories held on to four seats by fewer than 100 votes , and i am inclined to believe that Sheffield proved crucial in such very tight contests plus a handful more. That rally brought out the Tory vote and boosted turnout to their advantage.
The tiny majorities you mention, that determined UKGov, are yet more evidence of the stupidity of FPTP elections.I am not aware of such evidence - indeed the pollsters post election came to a concensus view that the Tories had been clearly ahead throughout the campaign. Methodological issues were blamed for the polling failure - which happened again in 2015. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,392
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Jun 29, 2024 10:42:33 GMT
Yougov Scotland x.com/YouGov/status/1806970400212979725New YouGov Westminster voting intention (Scotland)* Lab: 35% SNP: 29% Con: 11% Lib Dem: 11% Reform UK: 8% Green: 5% *now using our new MRP methodology, so not comparable to previous results. Fieldwork 20-25 June |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jun 29, 2024 10:45:07 GMT
Kinnock is correct to say that 'Farage plants and harvests lies ' , but alas he is not alone! I would direct him to what Starmer promised during the Leadership campaign in early 2020. 'Once a liar - always a liar.' If you can't see the difference between Farage spreading his poisonous racism and xenophobia and Starmer's mild centrism which you don't like much, then I feel truly sorry for how warped your perspective has become. But you are begging the question - or ignoring the point at issue. If Starmer wished to put forward a centrist platform , he should have done so when seeking the leadership in 2020. He did not do that - he blatantly lied!! That is a trait which he shares with Farage and Johnson. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jun 29, 2024 10:49:04 GMT
neilj The lib dems are very much on track to equal or exceed their 2019 vote share. With the collapse of the Tory vote share if lib dem votes remained the same in the constituencies where they came second to the tories, that puts all 75 where the Liberal democrats were second with more than 20% of the vote into contention. Nearly all are Tory held, there's just one Sheffield Hallam, which the lib dems could conceivably take from Labour. 80+ seats is at the top end of expectations but it's now plausible. But in quite a few of those seats Labour is likely to 'leapfrog' the LDs - ie reverse what happened in 2019. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jun 29, 2024 10:49:19 GMT
pjw1961Very well said in your last post. In fairness, and in part semi-defence of them, both Graham and shevii have declared their personal loathing of Starmer regularly on this forum. Their attacks on him are as consistent as they are relentless. I dont't think either of them are particularly representative of opinion on here about Starmer.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,643
|
Post by steve on Jun 29, 2024 10:52:22 GMT
norbold No idea why that would be. A good way of telling whether it's a target seat for the lib dems Is if the board is personalized, if it has the candidates name it's normally on the list of possibles if it's generic it probably isnt. It clearly cost a significant amount to produce all these and we as a party don't have a lot in the way of millionaires funding the party like the Tories or the trade union political Levy. Which might explain the absence of signs in a seat not likely to be won. But really I've no idea just speculating.
|
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 29, 2024 10:54:54 GMT
pjw1961Clearly, there is a huge gulf between Starmer and Farage. However, a number of us on here have been warning that Labour in this campaign has been using populist Right language and sentiments to win over socially conservative voters. He can seek to 'clarify" all he likes. The fact is that he targeted a non-White community with a dog whistle appeal to socially conservative voters, where he knew that Labour were a shoe-in anyway in east London (the largest Bangladeshi community in the UK). He only sought to limit the damage after the Labour MPs in Poplar and Limehouse, and Bethnal Green and Stepney reacted with outrage (as well as the deputy leader of Tower Hamlets Council resigning) Just like pulling out of Clacton, Labour are making strategic decisions in a ruthless focus on targeting voters in key seats, and everyone else be damned. They may consider this to be necessary to win (or in Clacton to assist with the Tory civil war), but it does come at a cost.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Lass on Jun 29, 2024 11:02:45 GMT
If you can't see the difference between Farage spreading his poisonous racism and xenophobia and Starmer's mild centrism which you don't like much, then I feel truly sorry for how warped your perspective has become. But you are begging the question - or ignoring the point at issue. If Starmer wished to put forward a centrist platform , he should have done so when seeking the leadership in 2020. He did not do that - he blatantly lied!! That is a trait which he shares with Farage and Johnson. You seem very certain of that .. presumably you can provide the evidence to back it up.
“When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?”
John Maynard Keynes
|
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jun 29, 2024 11:04:50 GMT
If you can't see the difference between Farage spreading his poisonous racism and xenophobia and Starmer's mild centrism which you don't like much, then I feel truly sorry for how warped your perspective has become. But you are begging the question - or ignoring the point at issue. If Starmer wished to put forward a centrist platform , he should have done so when seeking the leadership in 2020. He did not do that - he blatantly lied!! That is a trait which he shares with Farage and Johnson. You act as those we were conned by Starmer in the leadership election. I voted for him as the best candidate to deal with Johnson, to win back the millions of Labour voters who stayed at home in 2019, & to end the power of the Corbyn element represented by Long-Bailey/Rayner, which had lost us 3 elections (if one includes Corbyn's useless leadership in the 2016 Ref.) Of course I didn't believe half the things he said in the campaign. Who tells the truth when trying to win a leadership campaign! Or in any other bloody Brit election. One votes by one's instincts about who can win. You think Long-Bailey, Corbyn's annointed succesor, would have been a better bet? |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,643
|
Post by steve on Jun 29, 2024 11:05:54 GMT
graham"But in quite a few of those seats Labour is likely to 'leapfrog' the LDs - ie reverse what happened in 2019." You keep banging that particular drum, that's why I limited the list to those with the lib dems in second place with 20%+ of the vote. I've picked out a random one to illustrate it Chippenham it's number 45 on the target list. At the last election the lib dems won 34% the Tories 54% and Labour 11%, the lib dems have held the seat before Labour has never come better than 3rd. I should emphasise this is 45th on the list of targets and it's a likely lib dem gain , Labour have no chance and could only act as spoiler to allow the Tories to get back in by splitting the anti Tory vote. You have to go to around 70+ on the list before you get any potential cross over , which is of course entirely consistent with my suggestion that around 80 seats is entirely possible. Don't believe me , work it out yourself here's a list of The target seats from electionpolling. www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/liberal-democrat
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jun 29, 2024 11:10:39 GMT
The fact that Farage is a far more dangerous or odious character than Starmer is totally beside the point at issue. They do have at least one trait in common - both are blatant liars! I find it difficult to understand how a few on here are so willing to effectively condone Starmer's lies - it frankly does them no credit. The line appears to be 'Starmer is nothing like as evil as Farage , so it is ok that he has lied repeatedly' I reject that view utterly - and adhere to it in my personal, private and professional life. If someone openly lies to me, I am not inclined to trust them again - though some liars are clearly onherently more evil than others.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jun 29, 2024 11:11:17 GMT
leftieliberal - the Nature study described in the Conversation article is interesting, but many commentators have suggested it's nothing like as interesting as the authors claim. For a start, it's attracted widespread criticism for the ethics of infecting patients with a virus liable to cause incurable disease in a proportion of those infected. There was no long term follow up, so we don't now what has happened to the volunteers in this case. They are also making extensive claims based on a total of 16 individuals in the study, who were all young and healthy volunteers. The data is not transferable to the wider population in any way, shape or form. The two biggest criticissm I've seen however are firstly the timings: they used the pre-Alpha wild type strain, which is known to be far less infectious that current variants, and what we have now is as different to this strain as it is to SARS1. We also know that the interaction with the immune system is very different with these more recent strains. Second, as the study says, they used an ultra low dose of covid for the initial infection. We know from other studies that the initial viral load is correlated with infection outcomes, so we don't know whether a more normal or high initial does would have ended up infecting all the volunteers and the observations noted in the paper were just noise. But nonetheless, the findings are of interest. As with any biological system, there will be variation, some will be more easily infected than others. It's just that for a load of reasons, this paper doesn't provide any certainty on how and why this happens with covid. Meanwhile, data on NHS England covid bed occupancy is hard to come by, with the UKHSA data extending only until the end of May. Then, it was just under 1,900, after averaging 2,500+ for the previous twelve months. Recent Scottish data is showing a major surge in hospitalisations since the start of June, with their total as at 23rd June at 482. On a pro rata propulation basis this would suggest around 4,500 - 5,000 covid beds in England, suggesting a possibility that right in the middle of the election campaign we've got the highest number of covid beds occupied in more than a year.That would be about 1 in 15 beds, lots of sick staff, ambulance delays, extensive A&E pressures, more heart attacks, more people added to the long term sick tally, more cancelled operations. It just keeps going round and round and round.
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jun 29, 2024 11:21:59 GMT
But you are begging the question - or ignoring the point at issue. If Starmer wished to put forward a centrist platform , he should have done so when seeking the leadership in 2020. He did not do that - he blatantly lied!! That is a trait which he shares with Farage and Johnson. You act as those we were conned by Starmer in the leadership election. I voted for him as the best candidate to deal with Johnson, to win back the millions of Labour voters who stayed at home in 2019, & to end the power of the Corbyn element represented by Long-Bailey/Rayner, which had lost us 3 elections (if one includes Corbyn's useless leadership in the 2016 Ref.) Of course I didn't believe half the things he said in the campaign. Who tells the truth when trying to win a leadership campaign! Or in any other bloody Brit election. One votes by one's instincts about who can win. You think Long-Bailey, Corbyn's annointed succesor, would have been a better bet? In answer to your question , no I do not! I actually voted for Starmer in early 2020 as a member of an affiliated organisation - and I did so on the basis of the pledges he made at the time which included returning the energy & water industries to public ownership , raising the Higher rate of Income Tax and abolishing tuition fees. I was misled by him . He effectively lied - hence, my anger and disinclination to believe anything he now says. Had he declared in public that he could no longer stand by the pledges made - and that he - as an honourable man - felt he had in all good conscience to resubmit himself to the membership in a further leadership ballot which would have allowed other contenders to come forward, I would now view him in a very different - and far more positive - light. He failed to do that. |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jun 29, 2024 11:23:00 GMT
You will be aware Starmer has spent the last two days clarifying and semi-apologising over that: "Defending the comments on Thursday, Sir Keir said he was trying to give an example of a safe country where a returns agreement is in place - but people aren't being sent back because their asylum claims are not being processed. He told broadcasters: "The reference in the debate the other day was an example of a country that is considered safe as far as asylum is concerned, and one of the countries that's actually got a returns agreement with us, and that is actually a good thing where both we and Bangladesh can be proud of." "I certainly wasn't intending to cause any concern or offence to any Bangladeshi community here." He said he values the relationship and the contribution of the Bangladeshi community in Britain, adding: "They've made a massive contribution to our economy, to our culture and to our country. That's why there's always been a longstanding and strong relationship between Labour and the Bangladeshi community here. "It's why my first trip as a Labour MP was to Bangladesh, where I saw for myself the strength of the country, the hospitality and warmth of the country. I've got many Bangladeshi constituents in my own constituency who I've been working with for many years, and I want to build on that in government." news.sky.com/story/starmer-says-he-meant-no-offence-to-bangladeshi-community-over-deportation-comments-13159889However, I will say the same to you as to Graham - anyone who can't see the difference between the danger to the democratic values of this country represented by Farage and Starmer's moderate centrism has lost the plot. They are not even in the same ballpark and it lets Farage off the hook to make the comparison. Stopping the growth of right-wing nationalism in this country is too important for petty point scoring. I said as much in my post and no disagreements from me but as RAF says "clarifications" don't hold much sway for me. The intent was clear and the point being that you start going down that extreme a line when you have a 20 point lead and the election is a done deal then you are pandering and going soft on the agenda of people like Farage. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,573
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jun 29, 2024 11:32:05 GMT
pjw1961 Clearly, there is a huge gulf between Starmer and Farage. However, a number of us on here have been warning that Labour in this campaign has been using populist Right language and sentiments to win over socially conservative voters. He can seek to 'clarify" all he likes. The fact is that he targeted a non-White community with a dog whistle appeal to socially conservative voters, where he knew that Labour were a shoe-in anyway in east London (the largest Bangladeshi community in the UK). He only sought to limit the damage after the Labour MPs in Poplar and Limehouse, and Bethnal Green and Stepney reacted with outrage (as well as the deputy leader of Tower Hamlets Council resigning) Just like pulling out of Clacton, Labour are making strategic decisions in a ruthless focus on targeting voters in key seats, and everyone else be damned. They may consider this to be necessary to win (or in Clacton to assist with the Tory civil war), but it does come at a cost. I don't believe Starmer was dog-whistling and do believe his explanation that he picked Bangladesh as an example of a safe country. Since none of us can look inside his mind we will have to agree to disagree on that. However, I am not aware of any evidence of Keir Starmer expressing racist views or engaging in racist behaviour at any point in his life. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,573
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jun 29, 2024 11:41:56 GMT
The fact that Farage is a far more dangerous or odious character than Starmer is totally beside the point at issue. They do have at least one trait in common - both are blatant liars! I find it difficult to understand how a few on here are so willing to effectively condone Starmer's lies - it frankly does them no credit. The line appears to be 'Starmer is nothing like as evil as Farage , so it is ok that he has lied repeatedly' I reject that view utterly - and adhere to it in my personal, private and professional life. If someone openly lies to me, I am not inclined to trust them again - though some liars are clearly onherently more evil than others. When you compare Farage to Starmer - or Sunak, or any other mainstream politician - you validate him. Farage becomes just another one of the bunch,"they're all the same" and its fine to vote for him. The mainstreaming of the far right is profoundly dangerous, as we have seen all over the Western world, and should never be done. It is exactly the same point many have made about the lavish coverage Farage has been afforded in the mainstream media over the years - although at last he is starting to be asked some of the obvious questions and frankly doesn't cope with it well. More of that is what is needed. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jun 29, 2024 11:44:54 GMT
But you are begging the question - or ignoring the point at issue. If Starmer wished to put forward a centrist platform , he should have done so when seeking the leadership in 2020. He did not do that - he blatantly lied!! That is a trait which he shares with Farage and Johnson. You act as those we were conned by Starmer in the leadership election. I voted for him as the best candidate to deal with Johnson, to win back the millions of Labour voters who stayed at home in 2019, & to end the power of the Corbyn element represented by Long-Bailey/Rayner, which had lost us 3 elections (if one includes Corbyn's useless leadership in the 2016 Ref.) Of course I didn't believe half the things he said in the campaign. Who tells the truth when trying to win a leadership campaign! Or in any other bloody Brit election. One votes by one's instincts about who can win. You think Long-Bailey, Corbyn's annointed succesor, would have been a better bet? I agree and it's broadly where I was coming from when opting for Starmer to succeed Corbyn. Your last point is a good one too about platforms constructed to win party membership support differing somewhat by the time a policy platform has to be put to the British public at election time. Lakeland Lass's Keynes quote is very pertinent here. I'm not going to bother doing it, and I don't recommend the utterly worthless exercise to anyone else either, but if Corbyn's offer to the Labour membership in 2015 is examined in detail, I suspect it mutated over time as he was ultimately confronted with the task of tying to convince the electorate to put him into power. I seem to remember him coo-ing sweet nothings about the Royal Family and equivocating about nuclear weapons too during the two general elections campaigns he fought. The lifetime unilateral nuclear disarmer and republican ducking and diving like all politicians have to do when they escape party faithful rallies and enter the real world where voter adoration is less easily offered. |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jun 29, 2024 11:50:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jun 29, 2024 11:54:42 GMT
Obsessed. How are the Greens getting on in your part of the world? |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jun 29, 2024 11:58:57 GMT
graham "But in quite a few of those seats Labour is likely to 'leapfrog' the LDs - ie reverse what happened in 2019." You keep banging that particular drum, that's why I limited the list to those with the lib dems in second place with 20%+ of the vote. I've picked out a random one to illustrate it Chippenham it's number 45 on the target list. At the last election the lib dems won 34% the Tories 54% and Labour 11%, the lib dems have held the seat before Labour has never come better than 3rd. I should emphasise this is 45th on the list of targets and it's a likely lib dem gain , Labour have no chance and could only act as spoiler to allow the Tories to get back in by splitting the anti Tory vote. You have to go to around 70+ on the list before you get any potential cross over , which is of course entirely consistent with my suggestion that around 80 seats is entirely possible. Don't believe me , work it out yourself here's a list of The target seats from electionpolling. www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/liberal-democrat
I am not particularly inclined to disagree re- Chippenham , but there are several seats higher than that on the LD target list where Labour is likely to be competitive - not including Finchley & Golders Green and Cities of London & Westminster where labour is clearly the main challenger. I have in mind seats such as - Frome and Somerset East Hitchin St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire Brecon, Radnor & Cwm Tawe Didcot & Wantage
Then there is Wimbledon which has often been discussed here. Most MRP surveys have the LDs ahead there with Tories in third place but Labour appears to be campaigning hard too.
Woking has also been fought quite seriously. I have an open mind about some seats but remain sceptical re- all MRP surveys - in particular the weight attached to 2019 results.
|
|
