Have voted Labour all my life- can't see that happening again anytime soon tho. The main issues we have at the moment have been caused by Brexit and lockdown measures Labour voted for the EU act to enable a referendum, alongside the Tories Labour couldn't create an alternative to the Withdrawal Act Labour voted for the Withdrawal Act Labour refused to consider the impacts of the lockdown measures Labour voted for all the lockdown measures I hate the Tories as much as anybody. Labour have also enabled this current situation tho.
No, but he does wear some nice suits. The role of the leader of the opposition most certainly is to scrutinise government actions, hold them to account and suggest alternative policies. What I'm advocating is that that is done in a democratic way within the debating chamber rather than as soundbites and press releases designed to make political capital. Seeing as Starmer's whole shtick is country first, party second. Look up Rory Stewart's A Long History of Argument. It's very enlightening about the nature of political debate today and in the past.
I don't get upset about conversations Norton, I am an adult. It is interesting that you should mention conversation about the history of the Labour Party in a political discussion. History is just that, it is gone and can't be changed the thing that can be changed is the future. Why not talk about what the Conservative Party, who have been in power since 2010, intend to do about the mess they have got us in?
I will because I am a big fan of him, cheers No doubt you will let us know your thoughts on the Conservative Party conference next week. Party conferences are part of the democratic process, what do you expect, politicians to attend but say nothing?
I disagree, as they say "if you don't understand history, you are doomed to repeat it". The funny thing is, this did all start off with a discussion about what the Conservatives should do about the current crisis and how politicking from Keir Starmer might prevent them performing a U-turn on it.
I might do. Depends if they've got anything interesting to say. Why would I expect politicians to attend a conference and say nothing? Wouldn't be much a of a conference.
I did notice that, are you seriously suggesting that a government would not do the right thing for the country because someone in opposition suggested it? That is schoolyard behaviour and would never happen with all of the advisors that are available to government and opposition
I didn't say that you did suggest it, but because your posts #4727 and #4729 appeared to give the idea credibility, I asked if you were seriously suggesting that.
Under normal circumstances, of course I wouldn't seriously suggest something like that. Under Truss? I wouldn't be that surprised if she was that petty. The original post that I responded to seemed to be praising Starmer for preventing this hypothetical U-turn. It was the idea that stopping a government U-turn was a good idea that I was taking exception to.
I agree entirely, however when history is weaponised against a current person or political party it becomes futile and worthless.
I am pleased about that because as I have said before, I enjoy your posts and find them educational. Any politician worth their salt would be delighted to stand at the despatch box and be able to say I told you so, Starmer is no different. I tend to agree about Truss, although I do think that her advisers would keep her on track
I would agree with that but it seems to be a common political tool. I'm not entirely sure it was being weaponised in the discussion on here today though.
I prefer to look at how Starmer dealt with Rupa Huq and think wow, what a fantastic change to the Labour Party in such a short time. To add a bit of context to my weaponising history comment, Starmer was not even in politics in 2003 when Galloway was expelled from the Labour Party so I'm not sure how that one can be used against him.
Yeah, he dealt with Rupa Huq's comment very decisively. I heard Angela Rayner and Ed Milliband commenting on that situation later in the day and I was impressed with how firm they were about its unacceptability too. I'm not usually a fan of Rayner. No, I wasn't blaming Starmer for Galloway or anything like that. I was just saying that the party has often had rogue (for want of a better word) elements like those two that the successful leaders have to deal with or keep under control. Just a bland statement of the facts, not a loaded statement or anything.
We're well on the way tbh ... ... hanging on to the Commonwealth, leaving Europe to become an island nation again, going back to Imperial measurements. Not to mention an Eton-style atmosphere in Downing Street. After 12 unopposed years we should be seeing some kind of progress, there's none ... ... all they have left is to blame the opposition for allowing their insane policies to go through. We're becoming a laughing stock. So the blame now is being pushed onto those who wanted Boris out, as if he could've changed course and miraculously solved all these problems. So it's no longer the fault of a weak opposition ... ... it's our fault for wanting a convicted criminal to leave office
