Keir Starmer and the Labour Party

[jon0844]

Both my mum and uncle are going to vote for Reform, they arn't raving far right lunatics or racists thank you. They are life-long Tory voters who are disillusioned with a party who they feel never do what they promise.

Though both live in rock solid Labour seats anyway so it won't change a lot!

If Reform did take power by some miracle, does your mum and uncle seriously believe they'd do anything to make their lives better? If they do, can you name what these things would be?

 

[birchesgreen]

If Reform did take power by some miracle, does your mum and uncle seriously believe they'd do anything to make their lives better? If they do, can you name what these things would be?

No idea, i'm a Labour party member so to be honest i've found it best to avoid politics, unless i want an arguement!

I suppose they think things can't be any worse?

 

[jfollows]

The mainstream left really does have rather low expectations of the average man in the street... the best cure for people like Griffin isn't to ban them, it's to expose them to daylight.

I am totally with you on this one.
At the time when Griffin appeared on Question Time I was disgusted by the attempts of the "establishment" to prevent him from appearing.
I loathe the man and everything he stands for, and I believed he would condemn himself out of his own mouth anyway, which turned out to be the case, but even if he hadn't he had a right to be heard.
I've said it before, but since we started fixating on "terrorism" we have as a society become less tolerant of what people say whereas previously it was more about what people did. This change was led by Labour, Margaret Beckett banning Phelps (or was it the other rancid preacher Falwell) springs to mind also.
Politicians understand the power of words so one weapon in their armoury is to silence their opponents, under an pretense of doing it for the general good. In this, there's no significant difference between them and their parties.
PS I was thinking of Fred Phelps being banned by Jacqui Smith in 2009, not by Margaret Beckett.

 

[najaB]

The mainstream left really does have rather low expectations of the average man in the street... the best cure for people like Griffin isn't to ban them, it's to expose them to daylight.

Generally, I agree. However the USA does give rather a cautionary tale of what can happen if they get both light and fertilizer.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Generally, I agree. However the USA does give rather a cautionary tale of what can happen if they get both light and fertilizer.

Does it? Was there a return of widespread lynchings during the Trump presidency? I'm sure the media would have covered it if there had been. Smells like (and I hesitate to use the term) "Trump Derangement Syndrome" to me.

I'm no fan of Trump, but he wasn't anything like as terrible as some make out. Anyone would think that he'd ripped up the constitution and declared Martial Law the way his opponents talk about it. Though we have a thread for him, so I'll leave it there.

 

[jon0844]

Thanks to social media, and now many video platforms that allow people to become their own broadcaster, it really isn't a case of allowing some people to expose themselves and be shown for what they are.

They can not only control the narrative, but also pretend they get more support than they do (hence the 'we are speaking for the silent majority who are too scared to reveal their beliefs' claims). You won't get to see the analytics.

When they can then get an appearance on Question Time, they can gain more credibility - not less.

Otherwise they're just the ranty nutter that used to sit in the corner of the local Wetherspoons. Now they're potential leaders of a party/Government!

 

[najaB]

Does it? Was there a return of widespread lynchings during the Trump presidency?

Lynching, no. But life has gotten significantly harder for LGBTQ+ people in the last half decade or so, abortion is now illegal in many states and the racial disparity of outcomes in the legal system has become greater.

But nobody is being hanged so everything is okay.

Smells like (and I hesitate to use the term) "Trump Derangement Syndrome" to me.

You brought up Trump.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Generally, I agree. However the USA does give rather a cautionary tale of what can happen if they get both light and fertilizer.

I'm not sure the cases are comparable. The main issue with giving airtime to Trump is that he repeatedly tells verifiable lies (Also, in part because of the way media in the US is set up, he's able to do so on many platforms without those lies being challenged). I can certainly see an argument for preventing people who have a proven track record of lying on air from being given more air time, where there's a good reason to believe that they'd just use that air time to tell more lies. But it would be wrong to prevent someone from being able to present their views simply because you strongly disagree with their views. (Yes, I know someone then has to make a judgement call over whether something is a verifiable lie, but if you want to be able to draw some kind of line of what can and can't be said on tv, then you have to make difficult judgement calls no matter where you draw the line).

But life has gotten significantly harder for LGBTQ+ people in the last half decade or so, abortion is now illegal in many states and the racial disparity of outcomes in the legal system has become greater.

Is that by itself a reason to prevent people from being able to air their views? I mean, I'm totally with you on being horrified about abortion being illegal in many states (less convinced on your other examples), but arguing for someone not to be given airtime because, say - abortion became illegal when they were allowed to spread their opinions, looks to me uncomfortably close to, seeking to deny someone a platform merely because you strongly disagree with them (As opposed to denying them a platform because they consistently use it to tell lies, which I have no problem with)

 

[najaB]

Is that by itself a reason to prevent people from being able to air their views?

No. But it is, as I said, a cautionary tale. As the proverb goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[nw1]

Both my mum and uncle are going to vote for Reform, they arn't raving far right lunatics or racists thank you. They are life-long Tory voters who are disillusioned with a party who they feel never do what they promise.

Though both live in rock solid Labour seats anyway so it won't change a lot!

On the other hand there are, I'm sure, plenty of Tory voters who supported the likes of Major and Cameron who don't think much of the current version of the Tory party and would like Reform even less.

 

[birchesgreen]

On the other hand there are, I'm sure, plenty of Tory voters who supported the likes of Major and Cameron who don't think much of the current version of the Tory party and would like Reform even less.

I'm sure there are, plus many Reform voters indeed are fascists but lazy generalisations are not really that useful.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm not sure the cases are comparable. The main issue with giving airtime to Trump is that he repeatedly tells verifiable lies (Also, in part because of the way media in the US is set up, he's able to do so on many platforms without those lies being challenged). I can certainly see an argument for preventing people who have a proven track record of lying on air from being given more air time, where there's a good reason to believe that they'd just use that air time to tell more lies. But it would be wrong to prevent someone from being able to present their views simply because you strongly disagree with their views.

Much the same could be said in the UK about Johnson.

 

[Busaholic]

the rather obvious point being: why would a serious politician not take advice from people with a track record of, you know, actually winning elections!

Easier just to speak to Corbyn clowns and deliver comfortable, constant, opposition but ideological purity!

I know this is your hobby horse. For the record, I am not anti- Blair, think his first two governments, at least, achieved some good things, don't even regard him as a war criminal, although I always thought the Iraq War was ill-conceived and badly executed. Not everything in the real world is as black and white as you fondly imagine. Corbyn was quite obviously to me not suitable to lead anything, let alone a major political party, and the members were mad to elect him. As with Thatcher, though, Blair's legacy attracts all these fan'boys (always men, I've never come across a woman other than political appointees like Tessa Jowell) who bridle at any perceived slight or criticism of him or the governments he led. My own brother-in-law is one of them and his wife knows to steer clear of the subject to avoid tantrums! Perhaps I've just never been prone to homo eroticism, despising most all-male activities outside sport all my life.

Purity is something I've never aspired to, let alone ideological purity. And you?

 

[DarloRich]

although I always thought the Iraq War was ill-conceived and badly executed

i agree - i think removing Saddam Hussein was a good thing. Removing him with no plan as to how to fill the power vacuum following his removal as bonkers. I said so at the time!

Not everything in the real world is as black and white as you fondly imagine.

i don't suggest otherwise! it is the complete lack of grey in Corbyn and his clowns that infuriates me. They must have perfect and pure rather than good enough and to suggest compromise to win power is an anathema.

who bridle at any perceived slight or criticism of him or the governments he led.

i am more than happy to criticise. Many mistakes ( even excluding Iraqi) were made and there is a decent argument that the policy agenda delivered was not radical enough considering the majority.

My concern is that many, and in particular Corbyn clowns, want to dismiss everything as Tonty Bliar and forget the change we saw in this country. That change delivered benefits to families, including mine, all over the UK. Frankly, i would rather listen to someone who won elections and delivered rather than people who won the argument but nowt else!

Those people delivered us Johnson and his gang of clowns. We cant afford any more of that! Blair, Brown, Campbell and Mandelson won 3 elections. Why would you not listen to them?

Perhaps I've just never been prone to homo eroticism, despising most all-male activities outside sport all my life.

I am not even sure i know what this means!

and the members were mad to elect him.

Some of us were very clear about that - I didn't vote for him because he wasn't fit to run a bath.

 

[nw1]

(Moved to the Trump thread)

 

[Cowley]

Ok. Trump/GOP stuff here:

Donald Trump and the aftermath of his presidency

Donald Trump's inauguration takes place today. Thoughts?

www.railforums.co.uk

Conservative stuff here:

Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

Well I’ll just copy and paste some of it from the last thread. :) So here we are with a new PM (the fourth fifth in six years). How is this likely to play out and is Sunak facing the worst outlook for an incoming PM in over 40 years (I don’t know, I’m just throwing it out there ;))? It’ll be...

www.railforums.co.uk

Labour stuff for this thread please.

Obviously we do recognise that there’s going to be some crossovers at times as that’s unavoidable, but, well. Just do your best ok?

Thanks!

 

[BAFRA77]

Generally, I agree. However the USA does give rather a cautionary tale of what can happen if they get both light and fertilizer.

It's how we got Farage

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It's how we got Farage

What do you mean "got"? Farage has never been elected to any office in the UK other than as an MEP- a job he himself campaigned to abolish.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

But he (Farage) is the power (ie nemesis) behind the Tory throne and they have all shifted right and right again to avoid major defections to his parties (Ukip/Brexit/Reform).
He wouldn't want to do/be capable of doing a real ministerial job though - too much like hard work.
The "decent" Tories were all dumped after the Brexit rows.

The near-demise of the Lib-Dems also means there is no "middle way" any more.
The SNP is now the third party in Westminster, and they only exist to break up the UK.

 

[Howardh]

The near-demise of the Lib-Dems also means there is no "middle way" any more.

As the polls stand, the LD's who are keeping nicely quiet and doing what they do best, campaigning at local level for local issues for local elections, will - as the polls stand now - win 40 - 50 seats, maybe more if Labour "lend" their votes, and could possibly be the official opposition to Labour later this year.

Although it's an interesting conundrum, on the one hand if the Tories fight back (and they get all those lost to Reform) the LD's could be in coalition with Labour, on the other hand if things are abysmal for the Tories the LD's could be the opposition to Labour. Would the LD's demand another EU referendum for support?

So in the run up to the election I can see neither party attacking the other's policies as they may well be in that coalition, a coalition first and foremost to keep the Tories out, and also if you are Labour and the SNP end up with more seats than LD's, are you wanting a coalition with them? If so, the indy ref would be on the agenda.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

As the polls stand, the LD's who are keeping nicely quiet and doing what they do best, campaigning at local level for local issues for local elections, will - as the polls stand now - win 40 - 50 seats, maybe more if Labour "lend" their votes, and could possibly be the official opposition to Labour later this year.

Although it's an interesting conundrum, on the one hand if the Tories fight back (and they get all those lost to Reform) the LD's could be in coalition with Labour, on the other hand if things are abysmal for the Tories the LD's could be the opposition to Labour. Would the LD's demand another EU referendum for support?

So in the run up to the election I can see neither party attacking the other's policies as they may well be in that coalition, a coalition first and foremost to keep the Tories out, and also if you are Labour and the SNP end up with more seats than LD's, are you wanting a coalition with them? If so, the indy ref would be on the agenda.

Be nice if LDs could do that well but can't see it Torys will return not enough to win but enough so they aren't wiped out. Todays budget hasn't made Labour life any easier because they are boxing themselves in and risk not delivering anything beneficial over their term and batten goes back to Torys.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Sadiq Khan promises 40,000 new London council homes if he wins third term

Mayor says May election will be ‘closest ever’ and says the contest is ‘once in a generation’ chance to tackle city’s housing crisis

www.theguardian.com

Sadiq Khan launched his campaign for a record third term as mayor of London by promising the “greatest council homebuilding drive in a generation” and defending his ultra-low emission zone for London.

Appearing at an event in London on Monday, alongside the Labour leader, Keir Starmer, with whom the mayor has had public policy clashes in recent months, Khan promised to complete 40,000 new homes by 2030.

The target is double that Khan set himself between 2018 and 2024 and which was achieved last year, when it was confirmed that work had started on 23,000 homes.He also defended his controversial his ultra-low emission zone for London under which motorists must pay £12.50 a day to drive a non-compliant car.

“When we first planned to bring it in in central London, there were people who were hostile and anti”, Khan said. “It came in and the sky didn’t collapse. We then expanded it to inner London, lots of complaints and concerns and by the way the Tories have been consistent in opposing it at all levels, the sky didn’t fall in.

“We then expanded it to outer London and here’s the great news - 19 out of 20 cars seen travelling on an average day are compliant... they don’t pay a penny more.”Speaking alongside the London mayor, Starmer said the choice facing the electorate was between “chaos and division with the Tories, or unity and hope with Labour”.

Not surprising Khan has announced that he's standing for a third term with him having a substantial lead over the Tory's Susan Hall.

“This is the difference Labour makes when in power,” he said.

Keir Starmer on Khan's announcement that he's standing for a third term.

He claimed he could have gone “much further, much faster” without a Tory government “holding us back”.

That's true, the Tories have withheld funding for TFL among others.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm pretty sure the 'closest ever' is just trying to motivate his supporters plus trying to scare LibDem/Green voters unto flipping to Labour. It's the same kind of stuff as how basically every general election is 'The most important election in modern times' or something similar. Despite the Tories' atrocious fiddling with the electoral system to remove 2nd preference votes, I don't see any way this contest is going to be remotely close considering how unpopular the Tories are. Sadiq should walk it.

And in the context of the scale of London's housing crisis, 40 000 new homes over 4 years is basically noise. It's certainly better than nothing, but I can't see such a small number making much difference at all. To be fair to Khan, I'm not sure it's within his powers to get much more than that built though (or whether there's even available land within London to build much more than that without destroying precious green areas).

 

[JW4]

I do believe Andy Street will defeat Richard Parker in the West Midlands Mayoral Election, especially with the FPTP system being in place. Name recognition favours Street lopsidedly in the WMCA area, and in Birmingham despite it being the most Labour part and an area that could decide the election on turnout if it wanted, Street isn’t seen as a big C conservative, despite him endorsing Jeremy Hunt in the leadership election, his transport policy especially helps him on that with his work with Labour Mayors. He’s seen as an independent voice more than a conservative here, which is what will matter when it comes to the ballot box.

The FPTP is a move that will gain the Tories this mayoral post at least, even if in London it will just allow the centre to centre-left vote to be split instead of unified in the second round where Khan would win easily.

 

[birchesgreen]

I think it will be closer than people think, at least Labour have finally chosen a candidate for WM mayor who doesn't look like he's just spent a night in the cells like the last two did.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I'm hearing rumours from personal contacts within the social housing sector that these 40,000 new homes, an area which Sadiq Khan has previously underperformed in will be from purchase and conversion of existing properties to social rent use as well as takeover of various mid market rent homes built by various housing associations and cooperatives but now less tenantable due to the comparatively high cost of them compared to standard social rent especially when you include service charges and add ons that often can't be got round as many of these properties were built 15 or 20 years ago under the gift that keeps on giving, new labour pfi schemes.



Much as the conservative candidate is awful I think they all run him pretty close due to issues with TFL and particularly Ulez albeit that the former is an issue that past conservative governments could have done something about should they have chosen

 

[Kite159]

Are those the sort of houses which are suitable only for someone living on their own with a highly minimalist lifestyle due to having limited space?

 

[DarloRich]

Are those the sort of houses which are suitable only for someone living on their own with a highly minimalist lifestyle due to having limited space?

they will be modern houses. However, my house is a 2 bed Victorian terrace. IS that any bigger than a new house of the same type? Is my lifestyle "minimalist"?

 

[Thirteen]

Sadiq Khan will likely win but I like he's not going in with a 'I'll walk this' attitude.

I find it strange that he is insisting he'll serve a third term because 1. he can't go into Parliament without a seat and 2. I think if he does decide to back to national politics, it'll be after he serves his third term.

 

[birchesgreen]

Well he is only 53, i guess he feels he has plenty of time.