Westminster Politics

[Maticmaker]

Yes indeed. And unfortunately I have to admit that it is people of our generation who are the most bigoted against the loony left. Assuming that they actually existed.
And so hopefully it will be the younger generation who will realise that it is this Tory party who has actually wreaked havoc with the British economy and pretty much everything else. And brought about the cost of living crisis which is affecting us all.

I like to believe that too, but I'm to much of an old cynic.

In my view the Tories have got away with it because of Labour's parliamentary showing, which has, for the most part been woeful over most of my lifetime. I'm cynical because I grew up in and lived for many years it what is now referred to as a' red wall' constituency and for most of that period it was dire indeed, no hope, no aspiration forthcoming even in rock hard labour constituencies, where Labour ruled the roost for generations but were unable to stop or even get a share in what was happening elsewhere in the country... even when a Labour government was in power!

I do agree a certain element of 'bigotry' did enter the the arguments, and has been witnessed ever since, but to my mind the Labour party actually reinforced this with its 'international socialist' stance, concentrating on matters of importance around the world, but not necessarily high in the pecking order of those who voted for them at home. Many Labour politicians continually duped or rode roughshod over their 'natural' supporters and this is where a lot of what is now referred to as the 'loony left' emerged from. In my experience of the looney left' most of it was good intentioned, but incredibly naive and didn't stand a chance of being elected, except in areas where the 'international socialist play-book' was already the credo to follow.

I resigned from the Labour Party when I realised its dedication was such that it would forever be in 'permanent opposition', where it could wear its international socialist credentials but never have to back them up. It effectively invited the Tories to become the 'natural party of Government' and rule as it willed, for its own ends and its own backers. The only time Labour has a real chance is when the Tories eventually drive the 'good ship UK' onto the rocks and Labour, by default, gets a chance, but only if it wins a big enough working majority in the House of Commons, will it be able to do anything but merely survive

Therefore Starmer now has to steer with precision and purpose towards the next GE. At one time Labour could count on a 'shed full' of Labour MP's coming down from Scotland, but now, even with the SNP appearing to be in disarray, the smell of independence now permeates the air North of the border, its not going to go away either. To get a large enough majority not just to survive but to bring in new Acts which like the Education Act and the NHS Act will in future generations positively affect the lives of millions or ordinary men and women, Starmer has to win a lot more South of the border as well as pick up some Labour MPs again in Scotland... but that will be at a price!

I would hope the younger generation would see through the mists of time, but experience tells me they wont, they will continue to beat their chests and argue for 'what is right' , shout down anybody who they feel is selling out, march and demand everything under the sun, but then grow old like me watching the return of Tory 'self first, self last and if anythings left over self again' governments... if only Starmer could pull it off, but he is as usual coming under fire from among others, the 'international socialist' wings of his own party, even before the race starts!

But you never know the 'looney right's unmasking might just even things up.

 

[calodo2003]

What the feck is 'voting negatively' exactly? Cursing at the computer screen while registering your vote?

 

[Bert_]

Yes indeed. And unfortunately I have to admit that it is people of our generation who are the most bigoted against the loony left. Assuming that they actually existed.
And so hopefully it will be the younger generation who will realise that it is this Tory party who has actually wreaked havoc with the British economy and pretty much everything else. And brought about the cost of living crisis which is affecting us all.

There is clearly a generational divide when it comes to politics these days outside of the traditional social value changes which every generation goes through. Economic and long term stability issues specifically. I don't think the Tory party will exist in 10/20 years time without them rigging elections to maintain power. They've alienated a generation to the point were there is visceral hatred of them. There was a lot hate for Thatcher, but loads of people gained property or rode a service sector boom off the back of her policies so they didn't kick up a fuss and allowed her dogma to shape our society. No such bribes are available to working people these days though so its a different playing field.

As someone who experienced the rise of Thatcher and the failure of Foot, how would you compare Corbyn's polices to what was on offer in the 80s? Was the 2017 Labour manifesto specifically going too far?

To me that seemed completely reasonable and achievable rather than some Looney Left dream. I'm gutted that Starmer lied when he said that manifesto would form the basis of his policy. I voted for Nandy in the leadership election, but I had faith that Starmer would at least stand up to his stated principles once he won. That faith was misplaced it seems.

@Maticmaker - Same question. Do you think Labour's manifesto under Corbyn went too far? As a former Labour man, what would bring you back into the fold?

 

[Buster15]

I like to believe that too, but I'm to much of an old cynic.

In my view the Tories have got away with it because of Labour's parliamentary showing, which has, for the most part been woeful over most of my lifetime. I'm cynical because I grew up in and lived for many years it what is now referred to as a' red wall' constituency and for most of that period it was dire indeed, no hope, no aspiration forthcoming even in rock hard labour constituencies, where Labour ruled the roost for generations but were unable to stop or even get a share in what was happening elsewhere in the country... even when a Labour government was in power!

I do agree a certain element of 'bigotry' did enter the the arguments, and has been witnessed ever since, but to my mind the Labour party actually reinforced this with its 'international socialist' stance, concentrating on matters of importance around the world, but not necessarily high in the pecking order of those who voted for them at home. Many Labour politicians continually duped or rode roughshod over their 'natural' supporters and this is where a lot of what is now referred to as the 'loony left' emerged from. In my experience of the looney left' most of it was good intentioned, but incredibly naive and didn't stand a chance of being elected, except in areas where the 'international socialist play-book' was already the credo to follow.

I resigned from the Labour Party when I realised its dedication was such that it would forever be in 'permanent opposition', where it could wear its international socialist credentials but never have to back them up. It effectively invited the Tories to become the 'natural party of Government' and rule as it willed, for its own ends and its own backers. The only time Labour has a real chance is when the Tories eventually drive the 'good ship UK' onto the rocks and Labour, by default, gets a chance, but only if it wins a big enough working majority in the House of Commons, will it be able to do anything but merely survive

Therefore Starmer now has to steer with precision and purpose towards the next GE. At one time Labour could count on a 'shed full' of Labour MP's coming down from Scotland, but now, even with the SNP appearing to be in disarray, the smell of independence now permeates the air North of the border, its not going to go away either. To get a large enough majority not just to survive but to bring in new Acts which like the Education Act and the NHS Act will in future generations positively affect the lives of millions or ordinary men and women, Starmer has to win a lot more South of the border as well as pick up some Labour MPs again in Scotland... but that will be at a price!

I would hope the younger generation would see through the mists of time, but experience tells me they wont, they will continue to beat their chests and argue for 'what is right' , shout down anybody who they feel is selling out, march and demand everything under the sun, but then grow old like me watching the return of Tory 'self first, self last and if anythings left over self again' governments... if only Starmer could pull it off, but he is as usual coming under fire from among others, the 'international socialist' wings of his own party, even before the race starts!

But you never know the 'looney right's unmasking might just even things up.

Despite me coming from Bristol which was nothing like a northern red wall town or city, I have nonetheless long felt the same way about Labour. And I too was a long time member of the Labour party but resigned when Corbyn was elected leader. And I seriously considered not even voting Labour at the last election... but in the end did because I detested the local Tory MP.

And I said many times that Labour had to appeal to a much wider audience than the so called left to be considered capable of winning a GE.
I am hopeful that this time things will be different.

 

[Buster15]

There is clearly a generational divide when it comes to politics these days outside of the traditional social value changes which every generation goes through. Economic and long term stability issues specifically. I don't think the Tory party will exist in 10/20 years time without them rigging elections to maintain power. They've alienated a generation to the point were there is visceral hatred of them. There was a lot hate for Thatcher, but loads of people gained property or rode a service sector boom off the back of her policies so they didn't kick up a fuss and allowed her dogma to shape our society. No such bribes are available to working people these days though so its a different playing field.

As someone who experienced the rise of Thatcher and the failure of Foot, how would you compare Corbyn's polices to what was on offer in the 80s? Was the 2017 Labour manifesto specifically going too far?

To me that seemed completely reasonable and achievable rather than some Looney Left dream. I'm gutted that Starmer lied when he said that manifesto would form the basis of his policy. I voted for Nandy in the leadership election, but I had faith that Starmer would at least stand up to his stated principles once he won. That faith was misplaced it seems.

@Maticmaker - Same question. Do you think Labour's manifesto under Corbyn went too far? As a former Labour man, what would bring you back into the fold?

Do you know what. I am not even sure how much notice many people actually take of a party's manifesto.
Nowadays, it is all about personality and what shit people read in the papers.

For me, even if I agreed with some of the Corbyn manifesto, far too much of it was being made on the hoof in response to the Tory ridiculous pledges.

Much like @Maticmaker, I have become very cynical when it comes to politicians and don't get at all surprised when they lie. For all his deficiencies, I didn't class Corbyn as a liar. He was just totally out of his depth.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Do you know what. I am not even sure how much notice many people actually take of a party's manifesto.
Nowadays, it is all about personality and what shit people read in the papers.

For me, even if I agreed with some of the Corbyn manifesto, far too much of it was being made on the hoof in response to the Tory ridiculous pledges.

Much like @Maticmaker, I have become very cynical when it comes to politicians and don't get at all surprised when they lie. For all his deficiencies, I didn't class Corbyn as a liar. He was just totally out of his depth.

If 5% of the population read a party's manifesto I'd be amazed. A lot always has depended on the personality of the leader. Labour haven't had a (credible) personality since Blair and Wilson before him.

I know our history has been rewritten by the current generation but I would say youngsters were far more left wing in the 60s and 70s than now.

 

[Red in STL]

If 5% of the population read a party's manifesto I'd be amazed. A lot always has depended on the personality of the leader. Labour haven't had a (credible) personality since Blair and Wilson before him.

I know our history has been rewritten by the current generation but I would say youngsters were far more left wing in the 60s and 70s than now.

I'd be amazed if it was 0.5% TBH, I'd agree about the 60's & 70's but I'd also add that those same youngsters are now more right wing than their parents generation was

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I'd be amazed if it was 0.5% TBH, I'd agree about the 60's & 70's but I'd also add that those same youngsters are now more right wing than their parents generation was

True, 5%, I was being way too generous.
Yes those same Labour voters are probably now voting Tory.

Those rebel Marxist youngsters of today will probably do the same in 30 years time. You would hope the system had changed by then but I doubt it.

 

[Red in STL]

True, 5%, I was being way too generous.
Yes those same Labour voters are probably now voting Tory.

Those rebel Marxist youngsters of today will probably do the same in 30 years time. You would hope the system had changed by then but I doubt it.

I think there's a general trend that folks get more right wing as they get older, not just in the UK, right wing policies tend to give you more money in your pocket, tax cuts etc, we all like to keep our money, whereas when you're young you don't have any so it's other peoples money you wanna spend, bit of a generalization but I think it's broadly true

 

[Buster15]

If 5% of the population read a party's manifesto I'd be amazed. A lot always has depended on the personality of the leader. Labour haven't had a (credible) personality since Blair and Wilson before him.

I know our history has been rewritten by the current generation but I would say youngsters were far more left wing in the 60s and 70s than now.

Completely agree with you about this.
New Labour had many really good policies. But it worked so well because it had a very charismatic leader in Tony Blair. Gordon Brown was probably more intelligent and slightly further to the left. But he was nothing like as charismatic as Blair and would have never won 3 elections.

And your last point is also quite right. The younger generation of the 60/70s were much more free thinking and independent in an age when everything seemed possible. They/we were not constrained by social media and the dreaded political correctness.

 

[Bert_]

Do you know what. I am not even sure how much notice many people actually take of a party's manifesto.
Nowadays, it is all about personality and what shit people read in the papers.

For me, even if I agreed with some of the Corbyn manifesto, far too much of it was being made on the hoof in response to the Tory ridiculous pledges.

Much like @Maticmaker, I have become very cynical when it comes to politicians and don't get at all surprised when they lie. For all his deficiencies, I didn't class Corbyn as a liar. He was just totally out of his depth.

Personality is clearly a big factor in electability, but completely anecdotally, anyone I know that is remotely engaged in politics will at least have a gist of a manifesto if it is offering something. I may be completely wrong and potentially re-hashing arguments you had years ago, but there does seem to be a shift from the "brand" to substance. The biggest problem with politics these days is disengagement. Why read a manifesto that's only insight is how you go about re-arranging the deck chairs? When that's all what's on offer, people stop caring and resign themselves to accepting change is a fantasy. You end up with low voter turnouts and the people that turn up at the polls voting for their favourite face. That's not how a productive society should be functioning.

 

[Bert_]

I think there's a general trend that folks get more right wing as they get older, not just in the UK, right wing policies tend to give you more money in your pocket, tax cuts etc, we all like to keep our money, whereas when you're young you don't have any so it's other peoples money you wanna spend, bit of a generalization but I think it's broadly true

There has always been the trend to becoming more socially conservative as you age. But that's more to do with society becoming more liberal and you staying planted. It's not you moving to the right per say.

Moving right economically has gone. People aren't/won't be financially secure until much later in life these days if ever. Owning a home, having children, saving for retirement are things that people can't afford to do until later in life than previous generations were able to do.

 

[Jippy]

What the feck is 'voting negatively' exactly? Cursing at the computer screen while registering your vote?

Computer screen? In Britain we still mark an X on a piece of paper, ignoring any advances in technology.

 

[TheGame]

Computer screen? In Britain we still mark an X on a piece of paper, ignoring any advances in technology.

The voting system on paper works fine. It protects against allegations of fraud if you use machines. Either way people still need to attend polling stations to vote. Having worked in elections, getting people to mark an X on a piece of paper is an achievement enough.

 

[TheGame]

Disgraceful. Again limited scrutiny given to this apparently due to a super injunction for whatever reason.

 

[Coxy]

Disgraceful. Again limited scrutiny given to this apparently due to a super injunction for whatever reason.

Vile. This with the news about the kings ‘pay rise’ really wind me up.

 

[Jippy]

The voting system on paper works fine. It protects against allegations of fraud if you use machines. Either way people still need to attend polling stations to vote. Having worked in elections, getting people to mark an X on a piece of paper is an achievement enough.

That is true, but if it could be done through a secure phone app, it would probably increase participation, though pose its own fraud risks.
Saying that, democracy as a concept is fundamentally flawed and that's magnified even more in a country with a powerful rabidly political and morally bankrupt press.

 

[TheGame]

That is true, but if it could be done through a secure phone app, it would probably increase participation, though pose its own fraud risks.
Saying that, democracy as a concept is fundamentally flawed and that's magnified even more in a country with a powerful rabidly political and morally bankrupt press.

Anything open to fraud or allegations poses a whole set of risks which can't be controlled.

I think in this country, its more the FPTP voting system which results in skewed elections v actual votes cast. That needs to be looked at along with an elected upper chamber rather than jobs handed down or given out.

 

[Kaos]

Disgraceful. Again limited scrutiny given to this apparently due to a super injunction for whatever reason.

So there's an uproar when a 25 year old wins an election to overturn a 20,000 Tory Majority, yet no one bats an eyelid when a 30 year old no one's heard of with no prior experience is made a life peer on the back of....?

 

[CassiusClaymore]

So there's an uproar when a 25 year old wins an election to overturn a 20,000 Tory Majority, yet no one bats an eyelid when a 30 year old no one's heard of with no prior experience is made a life peer on the back of....?

Yeah on the back of what exactly. Rumours are a super injunction is preventing us knowing.

Hopefully when the reasons finally come out this puts an end to the Lords once and for all or at the very least forces a set of guidelines to stop this blatant quid pro co.

 

[Smores]

Ah more lectures from the wise about things everyone already accepts as fact anyway. No the left aren't naive or unaware of Labour needing to be a big tent, they just voted in numbers for Starmer to embody exactly that. It wasn't the centrists, they all pissed off and canceled their membership in a huff

Any criticism comes from the fact the 'left' did so based on Starmer's not very radical commitments. His first act has been to break the very promises that got him elected. What's the wisdom on how voters react to broken promises?

It's down to Labour to win the votes of everyone it needs. If it's strategy and messaging is only to appeal to the right wing press then it'll naturally end up a centre-right party. The Tories pulling Labour right whilst Labour say 'well at least we're not as right wing as that lot' is a bigger win for the Tories than Labour. They either get to govern or they dictate the terms by which Labour can govern.

It is possible to win on Labours terms as a big tent strategy with fiscal discipline. The only choice isn't being on the Tory/Daily mail leash.

 

[Red in STL]

That is true, but if it could be done through a secure phone app, it would probably increase participation, though pose its own fraud risks.
Saying that, democracy as a concept is fundamentally flawed and that's magnified even more in a country with a powerful rabidly political and morally bankrupt press.

Don't let the Tories see that idea, they'll award a multi-billion contract to one of their mates for a proof of concept

 

[Red in STL]

So there's an uproar when a 25 year old wins an election to overturn a 20,000 Tory Majority, yet no one bats an eyelid when a 30 year old no one's heard of with no prior experience is made a life peer on the back of....?

You might have it there right at the end .... on the back ....

 

[Maticmaker]

@Maticmaker - Same question. Do you think Labour's manifesto under Corbyn went too far? As a former Labour man, what would bring you back into the fold?

Yes, but not in the beginning.
Corbyn's manifesto in the beginning brought hope, in particular in a few important areas that resonated with many people, Labour members or not. However, in my opinion there were two problems for Corbyn himself; the initial reaction and 'interest' shown over a broad spectrum of the public to his initial policy proposals went to his (or Labours) head but then he/ they went too far promising almost everything under the sun, including many things which did not carry universal belief and which many 'would be' Labour voters as well as many regular Labour voters got turned off. Secondly, Corbyn himself was a problem, in that so much of his political life in the Labour party itself was a example of constant rejection, across many years whatever the Labour leadership proposed, he found ways to oppose. He was also in many ways the very image of what I have referred to as being an international socialist first, a British socialist, not just second but way back down the scale.
Corbyn frightened away many because as @Buster15 points out he was completely out of his depth. As his dithering over Brexit exemplified.

What I would bring back into the fold, is not really a question for such as me, because after many years experience of being a Labour party member I eventually realised it would (probably) never be there again, like it was post WW2 and the opportunity to change the face of life for the ordinary man and woman, would never appear again, because the Party had lost touch with its roots. In fact in many ways it appeared to despise its own 'roots,' there was no longer aspiration in its message and also a lack of dedication to get into power, to face reality, to find ways to win. The Labour party had become completely absorbed in its own ideology and that 'image and posturing' was everything inside the party, but unfortunately not with the public.

I have to admit I have warmed to Starmer somewhat, although he has nothing of the personal magnetism of say a Tony Blair, he does appear to know what he's doing in plotting a route to not only winning, but carrying a large percentage of the public with him in the form of winning a healthy majority in Parliament. The major problems now facing the UK (as well as further afield) need to be addressed positively by Starmer; regeneration of the economy, more and better equipped housing (efficiency) for the future, taking back 'water management' into a form of public ownership which puts healthy regular supply , first, second and third in priorities; proper planning of migration that is purely based on the needs of this country; a realistic but purposely strategy for addressing climate change that balances future needs with present needs.
These are not easy things to deal with, but as Labour magnificently did after the WW2 with its Education and Health reforms, it needs to seek to improve life for the many not just the few..

 

[nickm]

Rumours are a super injunction is preventing us knowing.

I'd like to know that for a fact. I've seen no evidence there is an injunction, and you don't need a 'secret injunction' to explain why papers wouldn't want to publish evidence free guesses about her parentage. All this injunction speculation is just fuel for conspiracy theories.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

I'd like to know that for a fact. I've seen no evidence there is an injunction, and you don't need a 'secret injunction' to explain why papers wouldn't want to publish evidence free guesses about her parentage. All this injunction speculation is just fuel for conspiracy theories.

Doesn't a super-injunction preclude the publishing of any evidence it itself exists? Bit of a catch-22

 

[nickm]

I think there's a general trend that folks get more right wing as they get older, not just in the UK, right wing policies tend to give you more money in your pocket, tax cuts etc, we all like to keep our money, whereas when you're young you don't have any so it's other peoples money you wanna spend, bit of a generalization but I think it's broadly true

Used to be, but not the case any more. (Annoying chatty tone in this link but it references some actual data on this).
https://amp.theguardian.com/comment...adicalism-not-getting-more-rightwing-with-age

 

[nickm]

Doesn't a super-injunction preclude the publishing of any evidence it itself exists? Bit of a catch-22

If theres no evidence, then you can't draw any conclusions.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

If theres no evidence, then you can't draw any conclusions.

That wasn't what I asked, but thanks for the heads up.

While it's obviously presumptuous to assert that she's his daughter there's equally little evidence that she earned her peerage through a lifetime of service to the realm. The guy's a well known nepotist so people are bound to speculate on the exact motive for his nepotism in this particular case.

 

[CassiusClaymore]

I'd like to know that for a fact. I've seen no evidence there is an injunction, and you don't need a 'secret injunction' to explain why papers wouldn't want to publish evidence free guesses about her parentage. All this injunction speculation is just fuel for conspiracy theories.

To be fair it's probably more your bog standard corruption than anything like that. He's not exactly known for spending much time with his kids so it would be out of character for him to employ one.

 

[Jippy]

UK set to become the developed country forking out the most of its budget -10.4%- on debt payments, overtaking Iceland.

UK to run up highest debt interest bill in developed world
https://www.ft.com/content/b25903fd-2ebe-4f65-aa20-c21d873946f3

 

[Pexbo]

UK set to become the developed country forking out the most of its budget -10.4%- on debt payments, overtaking Iceland.

UK to run up highest debt interest bill in developed world
https://www.ft.com/content/b25903fd-2ebe-4f65-aa20-c21d873946f3

Financial whizz Rishi Sunak

 

[Nogbadthebad]

That wasn't what I asked, but thanks for the heads up.

While it's obviously presumptuous to assert that she's his daughter there's equally little evidence that she earned her peerage through a lifetime of service to the realm. The guy's a well known nepotist so people are bound to speculate on the exact motive for his nepotism in this particular case.

Her name isn't just owen, its double barrelled, she is not related to johnson's ex.

The simplest solutions are usually the correct ones. He gave the spokesperson chappy a place in the lords because he was the journalist that played along on the interview when johnson claimed he made buses out of wine boxes.

He gave her a lordship because he wants to have sex with her.

 

[TheGame]

Sunak really is the nastiest of cnuts, more so than Boris. Quoting the Daily Mail and the Labour Party when it's nothing to do with the latter. They really do love appealing to the right wing mob.

 

[TheGame]

 

[Rado_N]

UK set to become the developed country forking out the most of its budget -10.4%- on debt payments, overtaking Iceland.

UK to run up highest debt interest bill in developed world
https://www.ft.com/content/b25903fd-2ebe-4f65-aa20-c21d873946f3

Sounds like we need to cut taxes for the top earners in the country.

 

[berbatrick]

I know our history has been rewritten by the current generation but I would say youngsters were far more left wing in the 60s and 70s than now.

Election	Overall CON lead	18-24 CON lead	Youth vote left-ness
1979	+7	+1	6
1983	+16	+11	5
2017	+2	-40	42
2019	+11	-35	46

I think the current youth vote is slightly more left.

(Old data from here, new data from these two and wiki)

 

[Fluctuation0161]

I'd like to know that for a fact. I've seen no evidence there is an injunction, and you don't need a 'secret injunction' to explain why papers wouldn't want to publish evidence free guesses about her parentage. All this injunction speculation is just fuel for conspiracy theories.

Alright Boris.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Election	Overall CON lead	18-24 CON lead	Youth vote left-ness
1979	+7	+1	6
1983	+16	+11	5
2017	+2	-40	42
2019	+11	-35	46

I think the current youth vote is slightly more left.

(Old data from here, new data from these two and wiki)

If you look at the figures the highest young vote was in 1974 and 1997 when Labour were elected. Your table above states from 1979 when things started to change for many reasons. As I said in the 60s and 70s. According to the attachments Labour should have done much better in 2019 if so many youngsters voted but Labour were completely annihilated.

As I said our history is rewritten.

 

[berbatrick]

If you look at the figures the highest young vote was in 1974 and 1997 when Labour were elected. Your table above states from 1979 when things started to change for many reasons. As I said in the 60s and 70s. According to the attachments Labour should have done much better in 2019 if so many youngsters voted but Labour were completely annihilated.

As I said our history is rewritten.

From the same link I sent, in 1974 (the earliest date it goes back to) the youth vote was +14 for Labour in an election that was +4 for Labour, which means young people were 10 points more left. In 97, the overall vote was +13 and the youth vote was +22, young people were 11 points more left. ... in the last 2 elections, young voters have been 40 points more left.

The reason Labour lost in 2019 was older voters:

I'm not sure who is doing the rewriting!