Snap General Election called

[Puja]

Meanwhile, Sunak is making it clear that Farage wouldn't be stopped from joining the Conservatives. For those of us who were on the left of the Tory Party, that would be the final straw.

Sunak is baffling. Lurched one way to piss off the right wing by ditching Bravermann and bringing in Cameron, now stumbling the other way in a desperate attempt to piss absolutely everybody off.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Meanwhile, Sunak is making it clear that Farage wouldn't be stopped from joining the Conservatives. For those of us who were on the left of the Tory Party, that would be the final straw.

Sunak is baffling. Lurched one way to piss off the right wing by ditching Bravermann and bringing in Cameron, now stumbling the other way in a desperate attempt to piss absolutely everybody off.

Puja

I think he's more to the right by inclination, so the truly weird decision was bringing back Cameron. That must have been a sop but regardless of his political leanings, I think he's trying anything to see what works in the hope something will. But not even reducing the rate of NI is shifting the dial and the writing is very much on the wall. Sunak might decide to focus on some kind of legacy (smoking appears to be just that) and possibly Rwanda, but most party members I know are now expecting a right hiding.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Sunak bringing Cameron back is a little like Blair keeping Prescott around - optics to keep one lot of voters from deserting the ship - although it also says something about the quality of the ministers he had to choose from.

Starmer 'praising' Thatcher. I haven't read it - there's not much point as I don't really believe anything he says - if he's happy to lie to the Labour party what would he not say to Telegraph readers? Is is smart politics? There's a case for it. I don't really accept what the article says about the 25% left who support the Tories. I agree that none of them will vote Labour but 1) they would be less motivated to vote to stop a Thatcher-loving Starmer and 2) there's the next 20% of voters who could easily go back to the Tories under certain circumstances.

So it may be smart politics. I guess, if Starmer wins we'll finally see what he really stands for. His words can't be relied on, we'll see what he actually does. Needless to say I find this kind of no principle politics pretty despicable and I think it will just drag us down. And it's utterly uninspiring, which will kill Starmer in the end because no one really likes him (why would they, he doesn't seem to stand for anything). Unless he changes his tune, develops a message, a point, he will only last as long as people's dislike for the Tories.

[Sandydragon]

Sunak bringing Cameron back is a little like Blair keeping Prescott around - optics to keep one lot of voters from deserting the ship - although it also says something about the quality of the ministers he had to choose from.

Starmer 'praising' Thatcher. I haven't read it - there's not much point as I don't really believe anything he says - if he's happy to lie to the Labour party what would he not say to Telegraph readers? Is is smart politics? There's a case for it. I don't really accept what the article says about the 25% left who support the Tories. I agree that none of them will vote Labour but 1) they would be less motivated to vote to stop a Thatcher-loving Starmer and 2) there's the next 20% of voters who could easily go back to the Tories under certain circumstances.

So it may be smart politics. I guess, if Starmer wins we'll finally see what he really stands for. His words can't be relied on, we'll see what he actually does. Needless to say I find this kind of no principle politics pretty despicable and I think it will just drag us down. And it's utterly uninspiring, which will kill Starmer in the end because no one really likes him (why would they, he doesn't seem to stand for anything). Unless he changes his tune, develops a message, a point, he will only last as long as people's dislike for the Tories.

I agree he needs something positive as a key message. Not being Tory is enough for a 20 point lead, fair enough. But that wont last forever and there's no guarantee that it will last until polling day. When Blair won, not only were the Tories tired, there was a sense of enthusiasm about what New Labour would do. Money is tighter than it was, but if Starmer could pick a few key areas on how his government would improve things today it would be a start:
Making public services actually work,
Getting the care system (and its funding) right,
Net zero,
Growing the economy,
Our relationship with the EU (and every bugger else),
An education system that genuinely levels up society,
Levelling up of the rest of the country vs the South East,
UK federation, local democracy and the House of Lords,
Gallons of shit in our rivers.

Some of those need to be front and centre of the Labour manifesto to generate aa draw to Labour, rather than just an aversion of the Tories.

[Which Tyler]

[Son of Mathonwy]

Wow, it seems a little late in his term to remove the monarch as sovereign, but I'm all for it.

More seriously, what is he saying, that laws made by Parliament cannot contradict previous laws made by Parliament (for what else could the courts use to undo parliamentary decisions other than previous parliamentary decisions (. . . and the truth))?

What he's really trying to do is present the bill as stronger than it actually is while sowing hatred for our legal system, as though they're to blame for stopping the government from breaking its own laws.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Sunak bringing Cameron back is a little like Blair keeping Prescott around - optics to keep one lot of voters from deserting the ship - although it also says something about the quality of the ministers he had to choose from.

Starmer 'praising' Thatcher. I haven't read it - there's not much point as I don't really believe anything he says - if he's happy to lie to the Labour party what would he not say to Telegraph readers? Is is smart politics? There's a case for it. I don't really accept what the article says about the 25% left who support the Tories. I agree that none of them will vote Labour but 1) they would be less motivated to vote to stop a Thatcher-loving Starmer and 2) there's the next 20% of voters who could easily go back to the Tories under certain circumstances.

So it may be smart politics. I guess, if Starmer wins we'll finally see what he really stands for. His words can't be relied on, we'll see what he actually does. Needless to say I find this kind of no principle politics pretty despicable and I think it will just drag us down. And it's utterly uninspiring, which will kill Starmer in the end because no one really likes him (why would they, he doesn't seem to stand for anything). Unless he changes his tune, develops a message, a point, he will only last as long as people's dislike for the Tories.

I agree he needs something positive as a key message. Not being Tory is enough for a 20 point lead, fair enough. But that wont last forever and there's no guarantee that it will last until polling day. When Blair won, not only were the Tories tired, there was a sense of enthusiasm about what New Labour would do. Money is tighter than it was, but if Starmer could pick a few key areas on how his government would improve things today it would be a start:
Making public services actually work,
Getting the care system (and its funding) right,
Net zero,
Growing the economy,
Our relationship with the EU (and every bugger else),
An education system that genuinely levels up society,
Levelling up of the rest of the country vs the South East,
UK federation, local democracy and the House of Lords,
Gallons of shit in our rivers.

Some of those need to be front and centre of the Labour manifesto to generate a draw to Labour, rather than just an aversion of the Tories.

Agreed, and it does seem strange that he doesn't push at least some of those points - most of them would be popular and the Tories are weak on almost all of them, either ideologically or because they've obviously failed.

I can see why he should be cautious about the EU, but he could have taken the line that we simply need to renegotiate the awful exit deal the Johnson signed (and definitely not rejoin the EU). Instead he's so terrified of the subject that he has to show total agreement with the Tories, which impresses nobody (he did vote for the exit agreement after all . . . the idiot).

[Son of Mathonwy]

Wow, it seems a little late in his term to remove the monarch as sovereign, but I'm all for it.

More seriously, what is he saying, that laws made by Parliament cannot contradict previous laws made by Parliament (for what else could the courts use to undo parliamentary decisions other than previous parliamentary decisions (. . . and the truth))?

What he's really trying to do is present the bill as stronger than it actually is while sowing hatred for our legal system, as though they're to blame for stopping the government from breaking its own laws.

On further reading, perhaps it is already too strong. Perhaps Braverman and Jenrick would be satisfied with nothing less than the UK's withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights. The bill faces a difficult passage through parliament (Sunak is not making it a confidence vote), but if it does, it will then face some particular challenges in UK courts. But even if it silences and blinds UK courts that makes no difference to our position in international law. We are a signatory to the ECHR. This bill does not change that, so presumably this whole thing may be shot down by that court. And if our ministers allow flights to go ahead against the court's rulings, the UK will be breaking international law. Nice work, Tories.

But this is probably just for the headlines anyway, for the general election and the poisonous Tory infighting. No one or next to no one will be sent to Rwanda, and this will make zero difference to the supposed boats problem. Just a terminal government wasting time, trashing our international reputation and possibly ruining a few lives.

https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2023/1 ... lications/

[Puja]

Wow, it seems a little late in his term to remove the monarch as sovereign, but I'm all for it.

More seriously, what is he saying, that laws made by Parliament cannot contradict previous laws made by Parliament (for what else could the courts use to undo parliamentary decisions other than previous parliamentary decisions (. . . and the truth))?

What he's really trying to do is present the bill as stronger than it actually is while sowing hatred for our legal system, as though they're to blame for stopping the government from breaking its own laws.

On further reading, perhaps it is already too strong. Perhaps Braverman and Jenrick would be satisfied with nothing less than the UK's withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights. The bill faces a difficult passage through parliament (Sunak is not making it a confidence vote), but if it does, it will then face some particular challenges in UK courts. But even if it silences and blinds UK courts that makes no difference to our position in international law. We are a signatory to the ECHR. This bill does not change that, so presumably this whole thing may be shot down by that court. And if our ministers allow flights to go ahead against the court's rulings, the UK will be breaking international law. Nice work, Tories.

But this is probably just for the headlines anyway, for the general election and the poisonous Tory infighting. No one or next to no one will be sent to Rwanda, and this will make zero difference to the supposed boats problem. Just a terminal government wasting time, trashing our international reputation and possibly ruining a few lives.

https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2023/1 ... lications/

Two things which I find grimly amusing in all of this. The first is that Rwanda, the developing country that we're legitimately concerned about sending refugees to, is the party in this deal that is refusing to go ahead if we break international law on human rights. Apparently, we need an emotional support country to keep us in the ECHR.

The second is that Sunak's actually done some "good" (and by that, I mean functional if your ambition is "Stop The Boats") things like his deal with Albania, which he could and possibly should be shouting about, but he's backed himself into a corner with Rwanda or bust (and with his false equivalence of trying to attack Starmer with, "Labour doesn't support the Rwanda deal, which means they're in favour of completely open borders and letting everyone in"), so now the entire success of his immigration policy is going to be judged on the pass or fail of the least efficacious and most difficult part of it.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Wow, it seems a little late in his term to remove the monarch as sovereign, but I'm all for it.

More seriously, what is he saying, that laws made by Parliament cannot contradict previous laws made by Parliament (for what else could the courts use to undo parliamentary decisions other than previous parliamentary decisions (. . . and the truth))?

What he's really trying to do is present the bill as stronger than it actually is while sowing hatred for our legal system, as though they're to blame for stopping the government from breaking its own laws.

Can't blame the EU any more, so now its the blob, the courts, woke leftists, etc.

[Sandydragon]

Wow, it seems a little late in his term to remove the monarch as sovereign, but I'm all for it.

More seriously, what is he saying, that laws made by Parliament cannot contradict previous laws made by Parliament (for what else could the courts use to undo parliamentary decisions other than previous parliamentary decisions (. . . and the truth))?

What he's really trying to do is present the bill as stronger than it actually is while sowing hatred for our legal system, as though they're to blame for stopping the government from breaking its own laws.

On further reading, perhaps it is already too strong. Perhaps Braverman and Jenrick would be satisfied with nothing less than the UK's withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights. The bill faces a difficult passage through parliament (Sunak is not making it a confidence vote), but if it does, it will then face some particular challenges in UK courts. But even if it silences and blinds UK courts that makes no difference to our position in international law. We are a signatory to the ECHR. This bill does not change that, so presumably this whole thing may be shot down by that court. And if our ministers allow flights to go ahead against the court's rulings, the UK will be breaking international law. Nice work, Tories.

But this is probably just for the headlines anyway, for the general election and the poisonous Tory infighting. No one or next to no one will be sent to Rwanda, and this will make zero difference to the supposed boats problem. Just a terminal government wasting time, trashing our international reputation and possibly ruining a few lives.

https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2023/1 ... lications/

The Rwanda scheme is just baffling. Putting aside for one moment any moral issues. We have about 750k net migration into the country, of which about 40k are arriving via small boats (which is something I'd like to stop because it's dangerous and just benefits unlawful gangs). Of that 40k, most do get their asylum claims approved, but at best Rwanda will take a few hundred. It's not even a sticking plaster. Rather than do something useful like perhaps getting the processing system working so claims can be dealt with quickly and we don't need to ram migrants into crumbling infrastructure, the government has put countless hours of effort into this scheme. You can't even blame it on the desperation of being 20 points behind - this was rolled out a while ago, but no one seems to want to kill it and it's become an article of faith.

[Stom]

I'm going to comment this here and not on the Gaza thread.

On Starmer and the Labour party.

So, I'm an outsider now. Unless the Tories get their way and extend the voting rights for overseas citizens, this will be my last election. And, as with nearly every other bloody election I've had the chance to vote in, I'll be voting Lib Dem. Is it because I agree with them? No, no I don't. But it's black and white in that constituency - orange or blue.

From what I see in the news, from people I know, and from interactions I have, the situation is very much...Labour are screwed.

And it's the same as here in Hungary.

There is just zero way to reframe the debate. Opinions have been made, and there is no changing them. So to go in and make a statement...you're at risk of pushing those voters who might just vote for you, or at worst abstain, into the hands of far right parties.

And to go with that, you have London, where the mayor has enacted a policy that is so badly supported that it has basically turned a large swathe of the populace right back into the hands of the Tory party once again. THAT was a massive political blunder, the new emissions law.

So, in terms of choices...what can Starmer and the Labour Party do?

Literally nothing.

They have no options this election cycle. They need to find a way to get a large enough majority to start to undo the damage...all the while people's minds are made up that Labour are awful communists who want to take away their hard earned pensions.

And a young vote who are so apathetic toward politics that even if Labour appealed to them, they wouldn't vote.

So, no, I think they're doing the best job they could do.

Politics is fucked.

[Puja]

And a young vote who are so apathetic toward politics that even if Labour appealed to them, they wouldn't vote.

I don't think that's true at all - quite apart from anything else, Jeremy Corbyn nearly made a famous upset against all polling (and media, and his own political party, and against his own inability to be politic and to politick professionally, but nvm) in 2017 because none of the pollsters believed young people would come out to vote and then they did.

Young people are apathetic because no-one's even pretending to offer them anything anymore. It may be correct that it's a safer bet electorially to do what Starmer's doing, but he's offering nothing that young people want and, in most cases, shying frantically away from it every time he's accused of thinking about it.

You're not wrong that politics is fucked, but I'll also have no sympathy while Labour stay dead set against the one thing that could help - electoral reform - because they benefit too much from the current two-party FPtP system.

Puja

[morepork]

You should parachute Bernie Sanders into the Labour Party over there. He has a good few years fight in him and the UK left-leaning alternatives to Free Market junkies seem somewhat broken.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I'm going to comment this here and not on the Gaza thread.

On Starmer and the Labour party.

So, I'm an outsider now. Unless the Tories get their way and extend the voting rights for overseas citizens, this will be my last election. And, as with nearly every other bloody election I've had the chance to vote in, I'll be voting Lib Dem. Is it because I agree with them? No, no I don't. But it's black and white in that constituency - orange or blue.

From what I see in the news, from people I know, and from interactions I have, the situation is very much...Labour are screwed.

And it's the same as here in Hungary.

There is just zero way to reframe the debate. Opinions have been made, and there is no changing them. So to go in and make a statement...you're at risk of pushing those voters who might just vote for you, or at worst abstain, into the hands of far right parties.

And to go with that, you have London, where the mayor has enacted a policy that is so badly supported that it has basically turned a large swathe of the populace right back into the hands of the Tory party once again. THAT was a massive political blunder, the new emissions law.

So, in terms of choices...what can Starmer and the Labour Party do?

Literally nothing.

They have no options this election cycle. They need to find a way to get a large enough majority to start to undo the damage...all the while people's minds are made up that Labour are awful communists who want to take away their hard earned pensions.

And a young vote who are so apathetic toward politics that even if Labour appealed to them, they wouldn't vote.

So, no, I think they're doing the best job they could do.

Politics is fucked.

I think Starmer and Labour aren't quite as constrained as that, but yes they have to be very, very careful.

I think their approach (with 5-13 months till the election) should be as follows:

Don't go out of your way to alienate anyone.
Try to convince the other side, appeal to all voters, but don't throw away your principles (which may mean criticising Israel etc).
In fact make your principles clear, so people understand why you are doing something they disagree with (which is in the end unavoidable). It's possible to reframe the debate.
Don't ignore your voter base.
Develop some distinct policies which are popular and difficult (or ideologically impossible) for the Tories to steal, eg green new deal, UK owned energy company, UK owned housebuilding company, UK owned water company, rebuild the NHS (reverse the creeping privatization), rebuild education (& tax private schools), replace the Lords with a Democratic chamber, much more stringent rules on MP corruption and second jobs, renegotiate Johnson's hopeless exit agreement with the EU, tax capital gains at same level as income tax, put in place an effective anti-pandemic plan (with a contact tracing system which would make lockdowns unnecessary).
Don't worry if this means you piss off the Telegraph et al, they're going to savage you anyway.

Whereas I think the Labour playbook is:
Say anything now; when the votes are in the bag, break any promise necessary.
Make a show of disagreeing with the Tories on most things but:
1) ideally have no policies in that area,
2) if necessary have a policy, but essentially the same as the Tories.
In the unlikely even that you have a distinct policy, If the Telegraph doesn't like it, water it down.
Never disagree with the Tories on Europe.
Never disagree with the US or Israel.
Fuck your voter base, young people, Muslims, they'll always vote Labour . . . won't they??

[Son of Mathonwy]

I'd love to know what Drax is donating to the Tories to get this:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ill-payers

We should be looking to phase Drax out, not subsidise its wood--burning power generation.

[Banquo]

Starmer's photos in this are well funny https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/upload ... e-Back.pdf

[Puja]

Starmer's photos in this are well funny https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/upload ... e-Back.pdf

The one in camo is especially risible.

Apart from that, it's a pretty good piece of marketing. I don't care for Starmer, but he is a decent political operator and has got his attack and defence lines down pat.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Starmer's photos in this are well funny https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/upload ... e-Back.pdf

The one in camo is especially risible.

Apart from that, it's a pretty good piece of marketing. I don't care for Starmer, but he is a decent political operator and has got his attack and defence lines down pat.

Puja

Middle aged civvy playing Rambo is always an odd look.

[Banquo]

Starmer's photos in this are well funny https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/upload ... e-Back.pdf

The one in camo is especially risible.

Apart from that, it's a pretty good piece of marketing. I don't care for Starmer, but he is a decent political operator and has got his attack and defence lines down pat.

Puja

its perfect for an electorate not interested in detail

[morepork]

How does one "Take the Future Back"? Time machine? Are there candidates with the fortitude to take things forward, to evolve? It's a changing world, physically and socially, and cosplay photos aren't in synch with the evolution of this. Stop fighting evolution. The entire West is on a reactionary crack pipe, and it's infective like COVID. COVID may ironically be our last genuine scientific advance for a generation. When is the last time the free market was challenged by a radical shift in formal academic discipline? All those MBAs handed out (at cost and profit with student loans) in the 90s and early 2000's have left us with a glut of administrators with no infrastructure. Start nationalisng health, housing, and energy. Now. Laissez faire is a dead French hooker. I've had enough of being an undercover socialist. I'm from a poor single parent working class family that existed only because the French hooker arrived after I finished High school. I'm sick of being shy about criticising THE MARKET. I am fully for the worker and spit on the feudal landowners and wealth hoarders.

This is my New Year. I'm tired of pretending to be academic and politic about so obviously a flawed system. I'll pay tax, but don't want to see it go to a Charter School or a for-profit water management start up. I fear I have gone all Billy Bragg.

[Puja]

Starmer's photos in this are well funny https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/upload ... e-Back.pdf

The one in camo is especially risible.

Apart from that, it's a pretty good piece of marketing. I don't care for Starmer, but he is a decent political operator and has got his attack and defence lines down pat.

Puja

Middle aged civvy playing Rambo is always an odd look.

It's not even playing Rambo - it's bringing Essex boy in a new puffa jacket vibes.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

It's not a bad manfesto-lite. I guess Starmer's military cosplaying isn't the end of the world. God knows, it might appeal to some. The Missions are pretty positive, as is securonomics (something of the opposite to the disaster capitalism this Brexiteering lot have inflicted on us). Not a whole lot about climate change though. It's in there but low profile.

Not nearly radical enough for me (obviously) but a small step in the right direction.

[Puja]

It's not a bad manfesto-lite. I guess Starmer's military cosplaying isn't the end of the world. God knows, it might appeal to some. The Missions are pretty positive, as is securonomics (something of the opposite to the disaster capitalism this Brexiteering lot have inflicted on us). Not a whole lot about climate change though. It's in there but low profile.

Not nearly radical enough for me (obviously) but a small step in the right direction.

Can't focus on climate change anymore - might upset a voter.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

It's not a bad manfesto-lite. I guess Starmer's military cosplaying isn't the end of the world. God knows, it might appeal to some. The Missions are pretty positive, as is securonomics (something of the opposite to the disaster capitalism this Brexiteering lot have inflicted on us). Not a whole lot about climate change though. It's in there but low profile.

Not nearly radical enough for me (obviously) but a small step in the right direction.

Corbyn would never have done it, which is probably the point.

I was listening to a podcast the other day which was talking about the margin of swing needed to secure a Labour majority of 1 seat. It's pretty much unprecedented. Under those circumstances, its very understandable why Labour are trying very hard not to give people a reason not to vote for them.