Labour canvasser today

Tory chaos and instability:
Vote Cameron's Tory party get Theresa May's Tory party.
Vote Theresa May's Tory Party get Boris Johnson's Tory Party.
Vote Boris Johnson's Tory Party get Liz Truss's Tory Party.
Tory party member? Vote Liz Truss get Rishi Sunak who was rejected. Like Jeremy Hunt, who was similarly rejected by the party in favour of Johnson.

With each change of leadership of government came a change in direction. Sunak is not popular there's doubt that he'll last to the next GE. If he does survive, like his 5 predecessors in the last 7 years, he will be gone before he can serve a full term. To be replaced by...?

Are you denying that the chaos within the Tory party has been damaging to the UK in the past 13 years? And it isn't over yet.

I don't think anyone can make a statement like this on the basis that it's the same political party. A change in itself is meaningless.

If that were true, we could say the same about all of them, as they've all fucked up in power. None would be a party it would be possible to vote for. (Some people feel that way, mind you.)

What is more important is who is in the leadership team, and what policies, concretely, are they proposing.

The Tory team isn't what one might like, but they have a few people I think are quite competent. Sunak I think is a smart guy, and he shows some signs of being able to get the party on board. Kemi is very good. There are a few others perhaps. On policy, I would like to hear more concrete specifics, but I think they see where the problems lie.

As far as Labour, the leadership team is no more inspiring, and arguably less, because I think Starmer is proving to be a weak leader. On policy, there seem to be a few good ideas, but nothing that hits it out of the ballpark, lots of unanswered questions. Plus - the control on dissent within the party is hugely concerning to me, it could cause other issues as big as gender ideology.

In light of all this I see little reason to hope they would make things better, and real concern they could make things worse.

What an extremely salient quote that is from CS Lewis.

Labour's MO for decades has been get into power on as bland a 'don't frighten the horses' approach as possible and then once in power do whatever the hell they want.

Read some of the New Labour era autobiographies. Post democratic era etc. The lack of respect for the electorate and democracy is about as boggling as the lack of respect or care for women.

Personally, I think the Labour position on private schools ( as well as grammar schools) is based on the idea that both are only for the rich and privileged.

Most private schools, though, are small schools serving local communities, and most of the parents are just average people who have decided to prioritise spending some of their money in this way. Labour doesn't support the idea of this kind of choice because its focus is on equality and not everyone can afford to send their children to such schools - so nobody should be able to ( even though Starmer has now said he is supportive of independent schools)

Most parents are not wealthy people; though maybe fairly 'comfortable' people, including many working class people with their own businesses, or who have managed to do fairly well for themselves by their own efforts. Most independent schools are not Eton or Cheltenham Ladies

Well, I am trying to be as non-biased in my assessment as possible.

But the private school stuff is very interesting, because I think it actually dovetailes very much into a lot of the concerns on gender ideology.

There is a real element around parental rights in terms of educating children, that the Labour Party doesn't seem to even be able to understand. As in, if you try and talk to someone about it, it's almost like they are just hearing wha-wha-wha - they cannot see that telling people they must submit their children so state education reflects on things like parental rights and freedom of thought. They don't even argue against it - they do not seem to recognize the question or the implications.

Which is partly why I think that GI i not so much a weird aberration as some believe for the LP. It is attached to their wider beliefs and worldview.

But he has said what he thinks; that Self Id "doesn't go far enough". He's said it so many times when will people start to believe it?

Personally, I think it is one of the only manifesto pledges he hasn't broken and that is because it is keeping some of his more Left wing supporters on board.

I broadly agree with this, but it’s too kind to labour. The stuff on private schools is on a par with the Brexit bus. They are profoundly dishonest in policy terms.

This I find most enraging

If Starmer could actually answer a question and state the position of the Labour Party then fine. People can vote on it. If it didn’t go my way I’d not like it but that’s democracy.

This evasive approach is so incredibly insulting to women and he’s dangerous because of it. A horrible combination of cowardly, sneaky plus waffle.

Your Labour woman example, is the type who now makes my skin crawl, they are Myra Hindly, enabler types with zero insight.

This I find most enraging

If Starmer could actually answer a question and state the position of the Labour Party then fine. People can vote on it. If it didn’t go my way I’d not like it but that’s democracy.

This evasive approach is so incredibly insulting to women and he’s dangerous because of it. A horrible combination of cowardly, sneaky plus waffle.

I don't think anyone can make a statement like this on the basis that it's the same political party. A change in itself is meaningless.

If that were true, we could say the same about all of them, as they've all fucked up in power. None would be a party it would be possible to vote for. (Some people feel that way, mind you.)

What is more important is who is in the leadership team, and what policies, concretely, are they proposing.

The Tory team isn't what one might like, but they have a few people I think are quite competent. Sunak I think is a smart guy, and he shows some signs of being able to get the party on board. Kemi is very good. There are a few others perhaps. On policy, I would like to hear more concrete specifics, but I think they see where the problems lie.

As far as Labour, the leadership team is no more inspiring, and arguably less, because I think Starmer is proving to be a weak leader. On policy, there seem to be a few good ideas, but nothing that hits it out of the ballpark, lots of unanswered questions. Plus - the control on dissent within the party is hugely concerning to me, it could cause other issues as big as gender ideology.

In light of all this I see little reason to hope they would make things better, and real concern they could make things worse.

But it would be very difficult to see how things would be under Labour.

Whoever comes next is going to have a mountain to climb, so deep is the damage that has been done by the Tories. However we can't even begin to climb it while the Tories are in power. Tory Party chaos made the UK unstable and uninvestable. A vote for them is a vote for continued political and economic instability.

But it would be very difficult to see how things would be under Labour.

Whoever comes next is going to have a mountain to climb, so deep is the damage that has been done by the Tories. However we can't even begin to climb it while the Tories are in power. Tory Party chaos made the UK unstable and uninvestable. A vote for them is a vote for continued political and economic instability.

he doesn’t think you need to know. He thinks you need to keep quiet and let the clever men decide, behind closed doors, once they’re in power. Then you put up and shut up.

What does saying as little as possible mean for women in reality?

Surely we need to know what they actually plan to do at some point

Why will he listen when he is in power? He has made clear where his personal sympathies lie.
I disagree that he's made it clear. I think Starmer's strategy is to say the bare minimum and I expect that will continue.
I do think a comfortable majority might make him bolder because I don't think he's a complete idiot. Trouble is that, as I've already said, my regard for him and his party is haemorrhaging away, and I don't think I can vote for someone if I don't have at least a modicum of respect for them.

Why will he listen when he is in power? He has made clear where his personal sympathies lie.
I disagree that he's made it clear. I think Starmer's strategy is to say the bare minimum and I expect that will continue.
I do think a comfortable majority might make him bolder because I don't think he's a complete idiot. Trouble is that, as I've already said, my regard for him and his party is haemorrhaging away, and I don't think I can vote for someone if I don't have at least a modicum of respect for them.