Anyone actually excited about a Keir / Labour govt?

[roarrfeckingroar]

I'm typically a Tory voter (one nation Conservative, just right of centre, nothing radical) and gender critical, so I'm wary of a Labour government. I worry they'll leave the country worse than it is now.

However, I absolutely agree we need a change. Things can't get much worse, can they? Idiots like Boris and Truss have made a mockery of what I understand of the Conservatives - namely economic competence - and I can't vote for them this time. I don't know who I will vote for.

Listening to LBC this evening, I hear a Labour MP talk about how Starmer is offering an "exciting programme" of change and I just don't buy it. Maybe he will he better, maybe he won't, but my real question is is anyone genuinely excited about Labour, or just looking forward to the back of the Tories?

Currently men can but biological sex definition would change that. I’m sure some males are not law abiding but most are.

No they want a simple yes or no answer to their question. I know it’s incredibly difficult for you for whatever reason but why not give it a try.

No.Poor people hit by the costs of their middle class luxury of a climate change obsession, disabled people and the poor hit by restrictions on cars, men in women's everything, free speech banned, etc.

And this thread is everything in my personal opinion that is wrong with politics- I don't give a shiny shit if people want to be transgender- just don't discriminate, live and let live- I do give a shit though that it is dominating so many political arenas- partly by those using it as a political pawn and partly by the Trans community bigging it up-and partly by businesses wanting to seem all inclusive and giving it more prominence than it really should have. yet it is actually just a tiny minority of people it is pertinent to or has any relevance. Just back from Sweden, tons of 'communal' facilities/toilets etc. it's bad behaviour that needs trampling on and not tolerated , not the fact someone is transgender. There are so many more things that are of far more relevance to most people. Cost of living, sky high utilities, forthcoming likely supply chain issues, the sheer volume of mental health issues and lack of access to help, major housing problems, long term chronic health caused by waiting lists/GP issues- same with dental issues.

If there is any focus on minority issues I would much rather it be something like disability, mental health or alcohol /drugs abuse - stuff which affects far far more people. Guess it isn't as 'trendy' though - and no I am not a Tory but nor am I naive enough to jump on every 'trendy' rights bandwagon out there.

This is how we get shit 'one' subject obsession by parties and media. It's how we got Brexit-look at the Reform party if you want proof of this- just focus on one issue, despite the fact you have few solutions for the general day to day living or business and some of the public will lap it up , rather than think about the bigger picture.

@Crikeyalmighty excellent post 👏👏

This is mentioned often.

I'm never sure why? Why not bring out a manifesto now? Who's going to steal your ideas? Allegedly the two main parties are like chalk and cheese. So the other party wont want your ideas.
Also manifesto pledges mean fuck all. Not one party has kept every manifesto pledge. We all remember university fees yes?

I heard Rachel Reeves on the radio this morning saying that they will not put up tax or National Insurance for working people. Remember this folks.

And I don't think it's replicated in real life and in the priorities the electorate identify in surveys. The last YouGov survey overwhelmingly indicated that the electorate were priorising the economy and the NHS. I don't know anyone personally for whom self ID is a deal breaker though I accept that there are posters here for whom it is. As a previous poster said "do as you like". Just don't expect everyone to prioritise self ID because you do.

Presumably also Sunak thinks that, otherwise he would have changed the law that according to @EasternStandard says that?

Why do they particularly need me to answer that question when I previous poster has so helpfully already answered.

As much as pp derides any women for speaking up mn is one of the few media relevant sites that allows the discussion

That a few posters have invested their time with the reverse which is telling women to stop or that no one cares they haven’t noticed the change has happened due to challenge.

This is thanks to all those voices they mock or dismiss, and no thanks to them.

Probably because you as good at hiding behind waffle as Starmer and they would like a straight answer

I can't believe I am reading this.

It is widely accepted that after Brexit, the Tory party shifted hard to the right. And has widely been described as 'Thatcherism on steroids'.

The only reason they have stayed in so long is because a lot of voters in previous labour strongholds voted to leave the EU. More fool them...

@Lonelycrab and this is what the Tory's don't like- Starmer is actually keeping his cards close to his chest- quite right in my opinion as he doesn't know what he will inherit- if Labour are back in. This is exactly what the Tory's don't want as it's much harder to utilise the mainly right wing media to push out half truths /downright lies or assumptions or indeed 'steal' some aspects that seem to be going down well with the public.

It annoys me that you get the naive Corbynite cult going on about Red Tory's. What they mean I think is that in certain facts of life dealing with piss takers they will be just as non tolerant as the Tory's. Yvette cooper is for one a pragmatic no nonsense person and I'm all for that - and much of the manifesto may not be that dissimilar to labours in 2019 for all they know. Basically they don't like the fact that with the exception of Angela Rayner labour has mainly brought back more of those to the centre who are good communicators and pragmatic people, rather than the airy fairy ultra woke Diane Abbotts of the world. Personally I'm all for that- we need pragmatic solutions, creative solutions, an understanding of commerce and all with a lot more realism and less fraud and sleaze than the current bunch of charlatans , Europhobes and flag shagging weirdos in charge are able to muster.

I am not hiding anything.

The law is quite clear on the subject. A previous poster stated what the law says, why does it need anyone else to do the same?

This thread would get incredibly dull if before anyone could post they had to quote the relevant parts of the law, even though it had been quoted previously.

I stopped being excited about changes of government when Heath was PM.

A yes or a no..

So what do you think people’s real motivations are? That

a. They are using the trans issue to allow them to enact their secret more wide ranging right wing values. Or

b. Their centring of the trans issue is an expression of their deep-seated dislike of trans women?

@Ferraria I distinctly remember many of the Tory right wing saying with regards to Brexit and pre referendum that there was no suggestion of leaving the single market or customs union- it was possible to have it all- remember that folks!

Personally I would rather tax went up and people knew where they were. Councils were funded centrally, childcare was £250 a month, dental care was properly free and no council tax and there was far far more good quality social housing at social housing rates. Having lived in Denmark for 20 months and just back from new year in Sweden- that's their system and works far better for far more of the population- but it is a totally different mindset. Far less subsidising people with housing benefit for private rents etc as it's state owned. Higher wages, higher services. People come out with about the same income but far more is covered off already and both people in a family tend to work full time or one person a little less because child care is way more affordable meaning overall family incomes are higher- and yes it shows!!

Having low tax is great if other things are also great or you aren't then paying out on top- and that's the problem with the UK - lowish tax but pretty low standards. The US works a bit like this and it's why it's common to have huge medical payments - massive bills for higher education , ludicrous kindergarten fees etc - you simply end up with a very divisive country of haves and have nots

@AllTheScoresOnAllTheDoors I've got a business and one of the reasons I am extremely anti Tory is actually that they are piss poor for business-have no comprehension of anything that isn't hedge funding or an accountancy practice or anything involving 'goods/logistics' or an international element- they are totally backward thinking

But yes I get what you are saying totally-

Or… unfathomable c. Women care about their sex based rights

I know this might not be directed to you, as you may know already

I wouldn't say excited is the correct word. I'd be relieved by a change of government. The current lot have been in power for too long and that always leads to laziness, corruption and sleaze, whatever colour of rosette they wear. A change of government is a healthy and necessary part of a functioning democracy.

I am not a huge Keir Starmer fan, but I think he is intelligent and professional and has at least some notion of how most people live in this country. Sunak is too remote from the reality of people's lives. In addition, Starmer has some sensible, credible politicians in his team, Sunak appears to be surrounded by goons.

Accusing Starmer of waffle @EasternStandard takes the biscuit. The Tory's are full of complete waffle and Johnson himself was an A* pupil of it. Basically said as little specific as he could get away with till he saw the press/public reaction .

Clearly the public lap up waffle, worked for Johnson, so no doubt Starmer has noted duly.

I do know what the law says, yes.
Helpfully we all do as a previous poster posted it earlier in the thread.
I can look back and repost it if scrolling back is too much trouble.

Yes of course there is c as a third possibility. The PP was quite clearly ruling out c and proposing there were other motivations.