So if* George Galloway's constituents believed in a complete reversal of LGBTQ rights, the introduction of Sharia law and a ban on the Jewish religion in Rochdale, then he should implement that then? Give them what they want regardless if its in the interests of Britain? Maybe sort out some backroom deal with AQ? *appreciate the word "if" doing some heavy lifting there
He wouldn’t be able to implement any of those absurd “what ifs”, because he is MP for Rochdale, not Prime Minister. In fact he’s not even a member of any political party so it’s unlikely we’ll have to contend with a George Galloway government any time soon. In the meantime, we have a bunch of right wing extremists sitting on the front bench of the current government, so perhaps we should worry about that rather than hypotheticals about a single issue Parliamentarian who is unlikely to be in situ for more than a few months. On the other hand, given that the single issue George Galloway got elected on is the tragedy currently unfolding in Gaza, maybe the U.K. political establishment should take some notice of that.
Corbyn has consistently stated his belief in a united Ireland. However, as well you know, he has always condemned violence by anyone in any conflict.
And Corbyn was in no position to implement absolutely anything to do with NI but you believe he should listen to his constituents. Why is my deliberately absurd example any different? I absolutely have no time for the Tories either. I think they're all self serving scum. This rewriting of Corbyn as anything different just pisses me off
I often spend time with convicted terrorists to show just how much I condemn violence. Only convicted terrorists fighting for the political ideology I support though.
Your deliberately absurd example is different because it’s deliberately absurd. Corbyn’s position on Northern Ireland was always consistent, like his position on Israel/Palestine. He might be naive, he might be misguided, but he’s always been consistent and he’s always been principled. And he’s always been anti war and anti violence.
Corbyn was terrible at the most basic aspect of political leadership: convincing the body politic that they want you in charge of anything. That he was so bad at it contributed to the parade of clowns that have occupied 10 Downing since. But his defeats were not a repudiation of the left, just as Starmer's likely landslide is not really a strong endorsement of moderation. Mostly, it indicates that Starmer is relatively good at avoiding stepping on rakes, whereas Corbyn was a rake-seeking missile.
His defeat absolutely was a repudiation of the left. And anyone that thinks otherwise spends too much time reading left wing propaganda (which I know you do already). Nobody wants socialism. This has been proven at every general election and referendum that ever happens. Reform just dropped this as their manifesto. They could do some real damage to both major parties if a GE is called. Most of these are common sense policies that the public has been crying out for. It’s going to be an interesting few years politically
So obviously, when neither the Conservatives nor Reform win this upcoming election -- and they will not -- that is clearly a repudiation of the right, and anyone who says otherwise is clearly reading too much right-wing propaganda, right?
According to the Electoral Commission there is still an issue with people getting ID, that will be accepted at Polling Stations. Their latest claim is that if an election was to be held today, 14%/8 million people eligible to vote wouldn’t be able to. Can’t say that I have seen much in the press or on social media, that has been encouraging people to get ID, of late.
That manifesto, as you say, could cause problems for both major parties, but would ultimately be more beneficial for the Tories, imo. The bottom line is basically saying that they don’t know how they will fund it but have just thrown out a catch all phrase that carries no weight. You say nobody wants Socialism, yet part of the manifesto is about helping the NHS, which is built on socialism, as is the Welfare State, benefits, social housing, social care, state pension etc. I think more people want socialism than you think, but they just don’t know what socialism entails. I am a social democrat who believes in the need for a mix of both socialism and capitalism and don’t want the UK to become a second USA where people have been poisoned by the capitalists into thinking that socialism is evil and shouldn’t be tolerated.
I’ve noticed some messages on the electronic billboards at Finsbury Park station where I work. But I agree it hasn’t had the coverage it deserves
But it's so common sense. They'll simply wave a magic wand and £153 billion in waste will disappear, at which point they can fund everything lavishly. No, they won't tell you how they arrived at that figure, nor what constitutes the waste. But trust them, it's there somewhere.
I wonder how they will deal with the civil war that will break out in Northern Ireland when the “British” Bill of Rights replaces the ECHR, the body which oversees the Good Friday Agreement? Presumably this is where the increased defence spending will go. After the lengthy discussion recently on the different people who actually brought about the ceasefire leading to that historic document, I’m surprised no one has pointed out this particular flaw in Reflux’s manifesto, let alone all the others.
Mostly unworkable and/or unaffordable policies which won't stand up to scrutiny but may well attract votes. It should be noted to that voting patterns in general and by elections are different. We will see, whatever will be will be. A hung parliament is possible and may, I hope, result in PR coming back into discussion. Although I recognise as a supporter of electoral reform it would be likely under single transferable vote, dependant on the level of qualifying percentage, more minority parties would be represented in parliament.
