It might well be disgraceful but will you please stop with the rest off this shit? It indicates absolutely nothing about Starmers politics. Coming out with crap like this makes me think you would actually prefer a Conservative govt to a Labour one.
Calm down, buddy.
It indicates either that Starmer is more comfortable with the far right than the far left, or that he has little in the way of political convictions (or both). Either of these options is worrying.
Ignoring what this says about Starmer's politics, in the short-term, he presumably thinks this will gain him more in right of centre reporting & votes than he will lose in left of centre reporing and votes. Who knows if this is the short-term vote maximiser? It will cut both ways. I'm not sure any prospective centre-right voters will really believe it . . . and anyway if they like Elphicke's views, they're probably further to the right and unlikely to shift from Tory or Reform UK. It will lose some centre-left and maybe centre votes to the Greens and the LibDems. Overall effect - who knows? And in an election where the outcome is not really in doubt at this stage.
It's the longer-term price to be paid for this potential short-term gain that worries me. It (together with many other positions) will erode the Labour voting base. I don't honestly think it will gain much from the right of centre voters because they will always go back to the Tories, if not Reform UK. But what it does to the whole political scene is worrying. It legitimises Elphicke's views, which is the last thing we need. And it looks weak, optimistic and unprincipled - which is not a good look. Is there no one the Labour party wouldn't take on?
Two things.
1) Why does it mean Starmer is negative thing or negative thing? Why can't it be that he's actually simply competent at being a politician?
2) I was speaking to two politician friends of mine, and I told them quite clearly that they're pretty terrible politicians...and they agreed with me.
And the reason for that is the same thing you're doing here: this isn't a protest vote. This is about getting into power and THEN enacting change. It's no good saying all the "right" things if you don't get in. We can't base Starmer's politics on his actions when he is simply trying to win an election IF he is a competent politician. Instead, we can look to everything he has said and done previously in his life.
Also remember something important... "liberals" are not Labour's core vote. Never have been. Working class voters are. And that's who Starmer is appealing to. Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's not Labour's core vote. If Labour can take Brexit Britain votes back from the Tories after we had years of intellectual liberal Labour leaders doing sweet FA, he's going to destroy the Tory party as it is. Because the Tories have lost a huge portion of their core vote thanks to Covid, Brexit, and the shrinking of the middle classes. Take away that traditional Labour voter who went blue for Brexit and...damn.
So, no, I don't think this means much at all. Starmer is playing a very clear and very understandable game. It's just that you're not his target audience.
I think you're using "liberals" in an American sense, which isn't very clear in the UK setting.
Agreed that the "working class" is the traditional core of Labour support. But you seem to be suggesting (?) that Elphicke's views are working class in some way, or particularly attractive to the working class. I don't think that's the case. Nationalistic/anti-immigration/Pro-Brexit views cut across the traditional left and right of politics, which is why they were so disruptive (ie breaking the "red wall") in 2019 (at least when used by an unusual, charismatic, populist leader).
There are pros and cons to Starmer's acceptance of Elphicke, as I gave in my previous post. Obviously, I am not in favour of Elphicke's views, but the pros and cons exist regardless of my position.
It might well be disgraceful but will you please stop with the rest off this shit? It indicates absolutely nothing about Starmers politics. Coming out with crap like this makes me think you would actually prefer a Conservative govt to a Labour one.
Calm down, buddy.
It indicates either that Starmer is more comfortable with the far right than the far left, or that he has little in the way of political convictions (or both). Either of these options is worrying.
Ignoring what this says about Starmer's politics, in the short-term, he presumably thinks this will gain him more in right of centre reporting & votes than he will lose in left of centre reporing and votes. Who knows if this is the short-term vote maximiser? It will cut both ways. I'm not sure any prospective centre-right voters will really believe it . . . and anyway if they like Elphicke's views, they're probably further to the right and unlikely to shift from Tory or Reform UK. It will lose some centre-left and maybe centre votes to the Greens and the LibDems. Overall effect - who knows? And in an election where the outcome is not really in doubt at this stage.
It's the longer-term price to be paid for this potential short-term gain that worries me. It (together with many other positions) will erode the Labour voting base. I don't honestly think it will gain much from the right of centre voters because they will always go back to the Tories, if not Reform UK. But what it does to the whole political scene is worrying. It legitimises Elphicke's views, which is the last thing we need. And it looks weak, optimistic and unprincipled - which is not a good look. Is there no one the Labour party wouldn't take on?
It indicates absolutely nothing other than he's comfortable in temporarily using a situation to his advantage.
You're overthinking it, projecting wild assumptions based on your own, frankly weird, interpretations and finding Starmers/Labour guilty of stuff they haven't said. Maybe you need to calm down?
If you leave out the insults, perhaps we can have a discussion.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2024 7:06 pm
Calm down, buddy.
It indicates either that Starmer is more comfortable with the far right than the far left, or that he has little in the way of political convictions (or both). Either of these options is worrying.
Ignoring what this says about Starmer's politics, in the short-term, he presumably thinks this will gain him more in right of centre reporting & votes than he will lose in left of centre reporing and votes. Who knows if this is the short-term vote maximiser? It will cut both ways. I'm not sure any prospective centre-right voters will really believe it . . . and anyway if they like Elphicke's views, they're probably further to the right and unlikely to shift from Tory or Reform UK. It will lose some centre-left and maybe centre votes to the Greens and the LibDems. Overall effect - who knows? And in an election where the outcome is not really in doubt at this stage.
It's the longer-term price to be paid for this potential short-term gain that worries me. It (together with many other positions) will erode the Labour voting base. I don't honestly think it will gain much from the right of centre voters because they will always go back to the Tories, if not Reform UK. But what it does to the whole political scene is worrying. It legitimises Elphicke's views, which is the last thing we need. And it looks weak, optimistic and unprincipled - which is not a good look. Is there no one the Labour party wouldn't take on?
It indicates absolutely nothing other than he's comfortable in temporarily using a situation to his advantage.
You're overthinking it, projecting wild assumptions based on your own, frankly weird, interpretations and finding Starmers/Labour guilty of stuff they haven't said. Maybe you need to calm down?
If you leave out the insults, perhaps we can have a discussion.
Insults?
Leaving out the hyperbole would go a long way to facilitating discussion.
It might well be disgraceful but will you please stop with the rest off this shit? It indicates absolutely nothing about Starmers politics. Coming out with crap like this makes me think you would actually prefer a Conservative govt to a Labour one.
Calm down, buddy.
It indicates either that Starmer is more comfortable with the far right than the far left, or that he has little in the way of political convictions (or both). Either of these options is worrying.
Ignoring what this says about Starmer's politics, in the short-term, he presumably thinks this will gain him more in right of centre reporting & votes than he will lose in left of centre reporing and votes. Who knows if this is the short-term vote maximiser? It will cut both ways. I'm not sure any prospective centre-right voters will really believe it . . . and anyway if they like Elphicke's views, they're probably further to the right and unlikely to shift from Tory or Reform UK. It will lose some centre-left and maybe centre votes to the Greens and the LibDems. Overall effect - who knows? And in an election where the outcome is not really in doubt at this stage.
It's the longer-term price to be paid for this potential short-term gain that worries me. It (together with many other positions) will erode the Labour voting base. I don't honestly think it will gain much from the right of centre voters because they will always go back to the Tories, if not Reform UK. But what it does to the whole political scene is worrying. It legitimises Elphicke's views, which is the last thing we need. And it looks weak, optimistic and unprincipled - which is not a good look. Is there no one the Labour party wouldn't take on?
Two things.
1) Why does it mean Starmer is negative thing or negative thing? Why can't it be that he's actually simply competent at being a politician?
2) I was speaking to two politician friends of mine, and I told them quite clearly that they're pretty terrible politicians...and they agreed with me.
And the reason for that is the same thing you're doing here: this isn't a protest vote. This is about getting into power and THEN enacting change. It's no good saying all the "right" things if you don't get in. We can't base Starmer's politics on his actions when he is simply trying to win an election IF he is a competent politician. Instead, we can look to everything he has said and done previously in his life.
Also remember something important... "liberals" are not Labour's core vote. Never have been. Working class voters are. And that's who Starmer is appealing to. Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's not Labour's core vote. If Labour can take Brexit Britain votes back from the Tories after we had years of intellectual liberal Labour leaders doing sweet FA, he's going to destroy the Tory party as it is. Because the Tories have lost a huge portion of their core vote thanks to Covid, Brexit, and the shrinking of the middle classes. Take away that traditional Labour voter who went blue for Brexit and...damn.
So, no, I don't think this means much at all. Starmer is playing a very clear and very understandable game. It's just that you're not his target audience.
That tension has been apparent in Labour for a long time. I’d suggest it was even there at the beginning since there have always been middle class liberal types alongside genuine working class. The British working class isn’t unacquainted with views that can be quite right of centre, including anti immigration.
Starmer is desperately trying to reclaim the red wall and not appear too pro immigrant or pro Europe which is probably against his own instincts. As you rightly point out Starmer is being pragmatic and he needs to be to overcome a political system that doesn’t favour him.
It's not looking good for the Tories as the party of law and order - stealthily increasing the early release of prisoners to 70 days, and telling the police to arrest fewer people:
Sandydragon wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 2:41 pm
Something going on potentially.
Cameron recalled from overseas trip early.
Shapps has been cancelling meetings.
Hunt pulled from media event scheduled for this evening.
Could it be a bollocking for a few cabinet members who haven't been supportive of Sunak?
Or could they be debating a July election?
Sunak has been very firmly asserting today that the election "won't be held until the second half of the year," with the implication that he means a long time away, so maybe he's attempting to catch Labour on the hop by making it early July and being technically accurate.
Maybe they're Telegraph readers. There was an article headlined "Labour poll lead shrinks as economy improves," and I was quite tickled to look at the actual numbers and discover that the "shrink" was from 18 points to 17 across two polls for the Telegraph, and was somewhat dampened by the poll before those two showing 16 points and the one before that showing 18. Almost as if it's statistical noise, rather than the start of the Sunak resurgence.
Sandydragon wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 2:41 pm
Something going on potentially.
Cameron recalled from overseas trip early.
Shapps has been cancelling meetings.
Hunt pulled from media event scheduled for this evening.
Could it be a bollocking for a few cabinet members who haven't been supportive of Sunak?
Or could they be debating a July election?
Sunak has been very firmly asserting today that the election "won't be held until the second half of the year," with the implication that he means a long time away, so maybe he's attempting to catch Labour on the hop by making it early July and being technically accurate.
Maybe they're Telegraph readers. There was an article headlined "Labour poll lead shrinks as economy improves," and I was quite tickled to look at the actual numbers and discover that the "shrink" was from 18 points to 17 across two polls for the Telegraph, and was somewhat dampened by the poll before those two showing 16 points and the one before that showing 18. Almost as if it's statistical noise, rather than the start of the Sunak resurgence.
Puja
This all seems to be a choice between losing badly and losing catastrophically. Also the small boats numbers will increase in the summer as the weather improves. Maybe its a judgement call that the news is moderately positive and this could be a better time than later? Ministers dont just call off foreign trips and pull out of interviews with major TV presenter for no reason.
A Tory rebel source tells the BBC that some letters calling for a no confidence vote in Rishi Sunak are being submitted.
The reported move came after one senior Conservative MP described the atmosphere in the tea room as “panic”.
(As a reminder, 15% of Conservative MPs must submit a letter before the party holds a leadership election - that would mean 52 letters are needed).
Rebel Tories were meeting in huddles after reports on BBC Newsnight last night and elsewhere that the prime minister may make an imminent announcement about a general election.
A leading Tory Brexiteer says an election now would be “madness”. Why go when the Conservatives are 20 points behind in the polls, goes the thinking.
Nobody was expecting this. “Everyone mortified,” another source tells me.
Many Tories appear to have been caught off-guard. They had thought the prime minister was thinking of holding an election in the autumn.
But it has became apparent that Sunak’s formulation - holding an election in the second half of the year - may be observed in the narrowest sense.
As a reminder, the second half of the year begins on 1 July.
Never mind surprising Labour with his "second half of the year" misdirection (and let's face it, there's no chance that Labour were ever going to be surprised; they've been poised in the blocks since the end of last year), Ready4Rish! is actually selling the dummy to his internal opposition and not giving them time to organise.
An 'early' election seems too good to be true. If they go for it, great, the sooner they're out of the driving seat the better. Labour will leap at the chance.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 4:27 pm
An 'early' election seems too good to be true. If they go for it, great, the sooner they're out of the driving seat the better. Labour will leap at the chance.
Listening to some of the coverage and the commentators are saying that right now is the sweet spot just after the Rwanda policy is law and Rishi can claim that he's brought in this deterrent to stop the small boats, and just before it becomes patently obvious that it's not going to offer any kind of deterrence or operate in any kind of functional fashion. He's not fighting Labour, he's trying to defend against Reform.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 4:27 pm
An 'early' election seems too good to be true. If they go for it, great, the sooner they're out of the driving seat the better. Labour will leap at the chance.
looks like its happening. Weird. Suspect he's just had enough of his own party.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 4:27 pm
An 'early' election seems too good to be true. If they go for it, great, the sooner they're out of the driving seat the better. Labour will leap at the chance.
As I understand it, the thinking is:
The Euros might provide some positivity,
The first flights to Rwanda should happen prior to that,
The economic news is improving,
Its likely to be warmer so the older voter might be tempted out.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 4:27 pm
An 'early' election seems too good to be true. If they go for it, great, the sooner they're out of the driving seat the better. Labour will leap at the chance.
Listening to some of the coverage and the commentators are saying that right now is the sweet spot just after the Rwanda policy is law and Rishi can claim that he's brought in this deterrent to stop the small boats, and just before it becomes patently obvious that it's not going to offer any kind of deterrence or operate in any kind of functional fashion. He's not fighting Labour, he's trying to defend against Reform.
Puja
Totally correct. Labour might beat him but Reform will destroy the Tory vote.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 4:27 pm
An 'early' election seems too good to be true. If they go for it, great, the sooner they're out of the driving seat the better. Labour will leap at the chance.
Listening to some of the coverage and the commentators are saying that right now is the sweet spot just after the Rwanda policy is law and Rishi can claim that he's brought in this deterrent to stop the small boats, and just before it becomes patently obvious that it's not going to offer any kind of deterrence or operate in any kind of functional fashion. He's not fighting Labour, he's trying to defend against Reform.
Puja
Totally correct. Labour might beat him but Reform will destroy the Tory vote.
just hope there isn't another UKIP style deal for 'more brexit'
Well, I've had to apply for a postal vote for the first time as Sumak has shown MASSIVE CONTEMPT FOR THE PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND BY CALLING A VOTE DURING THE SUMMER HOLIDAYS (yes, that line is already, ALREADY being vomited into the airwaves by Nats) and it turns out I need to send my vote in by 5pm, 11 working days before the election, which is so clearly designed to catch people out . Pricks.
Donny osmond wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 5:50 pm
Well, I've had to apply for a postal vote for the first time as Sumak has shown MASSIVE CONTEMPT FOR THE PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND BY CALLING A VOTE DURING THE SUMMER HOLIDAYS (yes, that line is already, ALREADY being vomited into the airwaves by Nats) and it turns out I need to send my vote in by 5pm, 11 working days before the election, which is so clearly designed to catch people out . Pricks.
To be fair, they're not wrong. 50:50 whether it's a calculated decision because Sunak wants to suppress the Scots vote or whether he just didn't care about Scotland enough to know it was even a potential issue.
Donny osmond wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 5:50 pm
Well, I've had to apply for a postal vote for the first time as Sumak has shown MASSIVE CONTEMPT FOR THE PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND BY CALLING A VOTE DURING THE SUMMER HOLIDAYS (yes, that line is already, ALREADY being vomited into the airwaves by Nats) and it turns out I need to send my vote in by 5pm, 11 working days before the election, which is so clearly designed to catch people out . Pricks.
To be fair, they're not wrong. 50:50 whether it's a calculated decision because Sunak wants to suppress the Scots vote or whether he just didn't care about Scotland enough to know it was even a potential issue.
Puja
In theory it could be either of those, but they both attribute a greater degree of political intelligence to the decision than I am willing to concede. I think he just called it for 6 weeks hence as he wanted to catch Tory rebels on the hop and didn't think about anything else. To interpret that as a deliberate slight against Scotland feels, to me, like grievance seeking.
Speculation that Sunak called it rather than face a leadership challenge. Plausible I guess given the somewhat rushed announcement (outside, in the rain without an umbrella. Really sensible that)
Whatever the motivation, I'm just breathing a sigh of relief that we have a chance in a few weeks to remove this disgracefully bad Government.
fivepointer wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 6:40 pm
Speculation that Sunak called it rather than face a leadership challenge. Plausible I guess given the somewhat rushed announcement (outside, in the rain without an umbrella. Really sensible that)
Whatever the motivation, I'm just breathing a sigh of relief that we have a chance in a few weeks to remove this disgracefully bad Government.
It's not entirely clear if the letters of no confidence preceded the speculation that a general election was to be called or were a result of that speculation. Either is possible. It felt a bit rushed, but then again it might have been a preplanned option if the financial news was sufficiently promising.
fivepointer wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 6:40 pm
Speculation that Sunak called it rather than face a leadership challenge. Plausible I guess given the somewhat rushed announcement (outside, in the rain without an umbrella. Really sensible that)
Whatever the motivation, I'm just breathing a sigh of relief that we have a chance in a few weeks to remove this disgracefully bad Government.
It's not entirely clear if the letters of no confidence preceded the speculation that a general election was to be called or were a result of that speculation. Either is possible. It felt a bit rushed, but then again it might have been a preplanned option if the financial news was sufficiently promising.
My feeling is that Sunak wouldn't cut his premiership short by 6 months if he didn't have to. But we may never know. Still, if it was a bunch of disgruntled Tory MPs I say, well done, you'll get your leadership election soon.
. Pricks.