To think it's not a foregone conclusion that Labour will win the next election?

[flashbac]

I am seeing things here and there predicting Keir Starmer being our next prime minister etc, as if its already been decided.

I won't be voting for them under Keir that's for sure. Their stance on Gaza is the straw that broke the camel's back. I don't care if the Tories get in again. I am so disenfranchised I dont give a shit and at least with the Tories its "better the devil you know" and not Labour pretending they give a shit about people/human rights.

It's not hard to understand. The Tories may be indifferent to human suffering but Labour will tell you they have your well being at the centre of their policies - so long as you let them stab you in the back first for "the greater good".

What a load of utter shit.

Well, that's an enlightening position on the matter 🤷

At the end of the day, Labour won in 1997 because of Tony Blair. They lost in 2010 because of Brown. Labour lost the last two elections because of Corbyn. Libdems did well in 2010 because of Clegg. Boris won the GE because of being Boris!

Absolutely this. Some voters may have their niche interests, and others have really caught the public consciousness like Israel-Palestine. Brexit was a bit of an exception but most elections are about the personalities.

About as enlightening as that pile of ordure about Labour stabbing you in the back.

I agree, and it was why Blair targeted "Mondeo Man", i.e. it's the middle where elections are won and lost, the floating voter.

Desecratedcoconut · Yesterday 10:06
**
Unfortunately I don't think enough people care about anti-semitism or misogyny in the Labour party to make a dent.”

They just care more about other issues.

Okay.

Well the general consensus from the finger waggers is that gender critical women should suspend their disbelief and vote for Labour. That women will be better served under Labour. Even as they dismantle women as a sex class and continue to marginalise and demonise gender critical women throughout the party.

But, yes, my feeling is that, despite a friendlier exterior and compassionate narrative, the Labour Party will be terrible for women's rights for years to come.

At the very least, cobble together a more entertaining insult.

I don't think you understand what an insult is.
I expressed an opinion about the content of your post.

More meaningless waffle. Do you have an opinion beyond this nonsense?

As enlightened as the point it was responding to.

Some people are single issue voters.

Some aren't.

I'm in the latter camp and I suspect those who are concerned with gender ID to the exclusion of anything else won't make much difference when it comes to the election result.

Yes I do, thanks for asking.

Well, yes. I have my opinion. I'm not going around telling anyone else what they should do.

We'll have a Labour government and hopefully we'll at least get to see some of this up side before women's rights pay the penalty. Although given the economic constraints, I'm not very optimistic that the change in government will change the quality of life for anyone.

I think I'd add to "economic constraints" the fact that the current government has crashed and burned the economy, shown no concerns for the well being of anyone except the rich and seem hell bent on leaving as big a mess as possible for their successors to sort out. The damage they've deliberately caused will take at least a decade to address.

I do think the COVID spending was beyond ridiculous. Brexit wouldn't have been my first choice either. I think I'd be more optimistic that a Labour government could turn this around if they hadn't been such a hapless, ineffectual opposition party while all this was happening.

I don't know, like I say, I'd be over the moon to be wrong. I'm not usually such a pessimist.

Does it really matter whether Labour regain the seats they lost in Scotland? After all they won virtually all the Scottish seats throught several decades of Tory rule and it made no difference. Jim Sillars pointed out this paradox long ago , which is where the SNP came in.

A friend of mine is a lifelong socialist. A few years ago he visited his home town , Paisley after a long absence. Labour ran it for the guts of 100 years he says. He is SNP now. Seems to me Lab have a mountain to climb even if they do win a few more seats there.

I disagree. MPs are from all over the country, they don’t all represent London. They’ve even even got blocks like the Northern Research Group to champion their causes. If parliament were to move to Norwich tomorrow, would this mean all of the MPs’s would be representing East Anglia?

London has some of the poorest wards in the country. He would be on to a winner if he pointed out the neglect in parts of his region and suggested solutions for this. However, it’s always pitched as being the fault of London. Meanwhile people living in Tower Hamlets in mouldy flats, with no greenery to be seen, are wondering why someone who has constituents which include people living in places looking like something off Footbalers Wives, is blaming them and claiming they have more because they live in the SE.

He would never be a successful PM.

The Brexit vote was a Tory election manifesto promise, Labour didn’t offer it. What could they have done differently?

Excellent points. He was the most ridiculous brown-noser over ID cards, long after it was obviously a (quite rightly) doomed scheme.

What is it about the BoJo lovers? They're scarily able to disconnect themselves from reality. My grandfather in law is the same. When you point out that Boris Johnson is a faithless liar who tells so many lies he frequently forgets what he's said where, GiL replies "well that's just politicians". Drives me insane.

Don't particularly like KS, but frankly I'd vote for my dog to lead the country over the current corrupt shower of sh*t.

Anyone but the 'let the bodies pile high' Tories. Besides, we don't vote for individuals, we vote for parties, if the revolving door of Tory PMs have shown us anything, it's that it makes no difference who's in charge when you vote them in, give them 6 months and you'll be 3 PMs along...

Well, they didn't represent much of anything at all at the time. Their position under Corbyn, was incredibly woolly, with a party that was broadly remain but a leader who was entirely and publically apathetic about EU membership. It was a party that was too cowardly to set out it's stall in full one way or another and it created a void where it should have been holding the government to account for being honest with the public about what Leave would entail and how that would be implemented, as a starting point.

So you are talking about the period after the referendum. The uncomfortable fact for both major parties is that they were both significantly split on Brexit. Going full on leave or remain would have alienated significant numbers of their supporters. Also there was the small matter of the referendum vote - actually a higher turnout than most of elections, and unlike most elections, the majority of votes cast for the winning side.