Keir Starmer

[Hamble]

Whether or not Labour isn't listening is neither here nor there. They don't listen, they don't get in power. Simple as that. If they want to appeal to old racists who have got some kind of Stockholm syndrome that they believe that 9 food banks is something of an achievement, or that Labour 'closed their police stations', or Labour put up a remain voting candidate in one of the highest 'leave' voting areas of the country, that's not my problem. That's sheer stupidity.

I'm not listening? To whom? The corrupt government? The lying psychopath in charge?

Or the sycophants who would support them even if they killed tens of thousands of people? Which they have. And you do.

All Johnson does is tell Trumpian lies, bendy bananas, Turks invading, couldn't have free ports in the E.U, couldn't have done our own vaccine roll out, couldn't have stopped the super league...and like Trump he has millions of lower educated older voters queuing up to swallow them. Yes, Johnson may get up to no good; but as long as he represents their values, they’re willing to stick by his side. Those values include championing a Britain that is anti-immigration and nationalistic, as well as protecting economic interests through the continuation of house price inflation, all while being flagrantly corrupt and maintaining an open hostility towards those who need taxpayer-funded help.

You either agree with that, or, as has been mentioned, you just don't care. I suspect it's a combination of the two.

Maybe the voters of Hartlepool do not want their grandchildren working in mines.

Perhaps the voters cringe at Labour policies and tactics.

One thing is sure Hartlepool was not special in working out the party of 'Socialism' was too good at electronic sabotage and not convincing at maths.

The only people still defending Labours current tactics are those still
happy to label Brexit voters as racist despite voting for anti-Semitic leader.

[sandGroundZero]

Was it ever the case that voters' allegiances could be characterized simply? Probably not. Certainly, contemporary voters have endless sources and information resources easily accessible — some indeed, inescapable such that it becomes exceedingly difficult to reduce voters' responses to some simple schema. To suggest political parties (and assorted others) are not 'listening ' presupposes a simplistic conception of the political realm.

[Toodles McGinty]

Maybe the voters of Hartlepool do not want their grandchildren working in mines.

How could they? Thatcher shut them. Why on earth do you think anyone wants their grandchildren working in mines? Is it 1920? Is that what you think working class people's option is, vote Tory or work in mines?

Perhaps the voters cringe at Labour policies and tactics.

One thing is sure Hartlepool was not special in working out the party of 'Socialism' was too good at electronic sabotage and not convincing at maths.

The only people still defending Labours current tactics are those still
happy to label Brexit voters as racist despite voting for anti-Semitic leader.

Oh good grief. Here we go again. Did the ECHR report say Corbyn was anti-Semitic? No, it didn't. It stated there were failings to deal with anti-Semitism. Failings of the leadership. Which they should rightly be ashamed of. I'm not going back and forth over Corbyn again, but at least deal with facts.

But you whole-heartedly support a racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, homophobic psychopath. But I guess he's your racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, homophobic psychopath. That's alright then.

So your moral compass is happy to go off kilter when it suits. I guess anti-Semites are OK if they are Tories. Top collaboration.

I don't think anyone is defending Labour's tactics. I've just listed a few faults myself.

[Hamble]

Was it ever the case that voters' allegiances could be characterized simply? Probably not. Certainly, contemporary voters have endless sources and information resources easily accessible — some indeed, inescapable such that it becomes exceedingly difficult to reduce voters' responses to some simple schema. To suggest political parties (and assorted others) are not 'listening ' presupposes a simplistic conception of the political realm.

On Brexit?

[Hamble]

How could they? Thatcher shut them. Why on earth do you think anyone wants their grandchildren working in mines? Is it 1920? Is that what you think working class people's option is, vote Tory or work in mines?



Oh good grief. Here we go again. Did the ECHR report say Corbyn was anti-Semitic? No, it didn't. It stated there were failings to deal with anti-Semitism. Failings of the leadership. Which they should rightly be ashamed of. I'm not going back and forth over Corbyn again, but at least deal with facts.

But you whole-heartedly support a racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, homophobic psychopath. But I guess he's your racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, homophobic psychopath. That's alright then.

So your moral compass is happy to go off kilter when it suits. I guess anti-Semites are OK if they are Tories. Top collaboration.

I don't think anyone is defending Labour's tactics. I've just listed a few faults myself.

That is ok I am happy to go back over Corbyn again you can just listen.

As far as I am concerned Corbyn condoned antisemitism.
He did this in the party and with his private judgement on endorsements and associations with known links to terrorism.

The EHRC report found there was political interference on dealing with antisemitism from head office.
Corbyn was complicit and leader of the Labour party.

You need to accept the problem with Corbyn was multifactorial.
History is still dealing with some of these parts.

[joan ofarc]

Was it ever the case that voters' allegiances could be characterized simply? Probably not. Certainly, contemporary voters have endless sources and information resources easily accessible — some indeed, inescapable such that it becomes exceedingly difficult to reduce voters' responses to some simple schema. To suggest political parties (and assorted others) are not 'listening ' presupposes a simplistic conception of the political realm.

I think you are over thinking it. Most peple are not interested in politics in general. They take in the highlights and headlines and respond according to their leanings. I think there are many more 'independent' voters now than ever before as old traditional voting patterns are changing. This is what politicians are not listening to. Labour completely misread Brexit because they assumed too much of their traditional voters. Tories do the same. All politicians think they know better than the man or woman on the Clapham omnibus. They scorn populism when really they mean it's a view they don't approve of. If we were truly democratic the country would look very different today.

[Toodles McGinty]

That is ok I am happy to go back over Corbyn again you can just listen.

As far as I am concerned Corbyn condoned antisemitism.
He did this in the party and with his private judgement on endorsements and associations with known links to terrorism.

The EHRC report found there was political interference on dealing with antisemitism from head office.
Corbyn was complicit and leader of the Labour party.

You need to accept the problem with Corbyn was multifactorial.
History is still dealing with some of these parts.

And if he'd have worn a blue rosette you'd have praised him. Excused him. As you praise the racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, homophobic psychopath in Number 10. I've never read one critical comment against the government from you. Party before country. Party before morality. Any perceived criticism of your party is met with an instant switch to your bete noir. With the occasional sprinkling of Diane Abbott, of course. You seem incapable of critical thought politically.

So I have no interest in morality sermons from 'Boris' fans. Corbyn wasn't responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. He didn't corruptly spaff taxpayers money up the wall. And I don't think he was anti-Semitic, but I'm damned sure your hero is. Anti-Semitic, racist scum.

When one is the personification of evil for admittedly not getting a grip on anti-Semitism but wears a red rosette, and one is wonderful despite being a racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, homophobic psychopath, but (pretends to) wear a blue rosette, you have no argument.

That's all I have to say on Corbyn. I'm not going back and forth, like I said. It's all been said before. Pages and pages of the same thing. He is irrelevant now. I'm done on that particular subject.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

[Toodles McGinty]

I think you are over thinking it. Most peple are not interested in politics in general. They take in the highlights and headlines and respond according to their leanings. I think there are many more 'independent' voters now than ever before as old traditional voting patterns are changing. This is what politicians are not listening to. Labour completely misread Brexit because they assumed too much of their traditional voters. Tories do the same. All politicians think they know better than the man or woman on the Clapham omnibus. They scorn populism when really they mean it's a view they don't approve of. If we were truly democratic the country would look very different today.

I agree with most of this, but I don't see Brexit as a left / right issue. Most of the Tory cabinet were (and the 'were' bit is important) remainers. Traditional left wing socialists are generally Eurosceptic.

But I do agree that traditional voting patterns are changing. Any political pundit worth their salt would say the left now appeals to young urban types. In England, anyway. Hence today's voter oppression in the Queen's speech, the boundary changes and the turn away from the fixed term Parliaments.

If the country were truly democratic, it wouldn't be the tedious 2 party system, and Parliament would be much more representative of the people. Proportional Representation or a progressive alliance would render the landscape unrecognisable. But while the Tufton Street mob are in charge, we are heading to a single party fascist state.

[local]

And if he'd have worn a blue rosette you'd have praised him. Excused him. As you praise the racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, homophobic psychopath in Number 10. I've never read one critical comment against the government from you. Party before country. Party before morality. Any perceived criticism of your party is met with an instant switch to your bete noir. With the occasional sprinkling of Diane Abbott, of course. You seem incapable of critical thought politically.

So I have no interest in morality sermons from 'Boris' fans. Corbyn wasn't responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. He didn't corruptly spaff taxpayers money up the wall. And I don't think he was anti-Semitic, but I'm damned sure your hero is. Anti-Semitic, racist scum.

When one is the personification of evil for admittedly not getting a grip on anti-Semitism but wears a red rosette, and one is wonderful despite being a racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, homophobic psychopath, but (pretends to) wear a blue rosette, you have no argument.

That's all I have to say on Corbyn. I'm not going back and forth, like I said. It's all been said before. Pages and pages of the same thing. He is irrelevant now. I'm done on that particular subject.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

Racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, homophobic psychopath.

You can't beat a rational measured critique..

Still when you have finally lost the plot there is the Tory NHS waiting for you.

The Tory run NHS vaccine programme is pushed along by those beastly Tories.

[Toodles McGinty]

Racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, homophobic psychopath.

You can't beat a rational measured critique..

Still when you have finally lost the plot there is the Tory NHS waiting for you.

The Tory run NHS vaccine programme is pushed along by those beastly Tories.

'Tory NHS'?

Run along, Carrie.

[Hamble]

'Tory NHS'?

Run along, Carrie.

Lefty propaganda machine working well.

https://nursingnotes.co.uk/news/poli...cal-elections/

[Toodles McGinty]

Lefty propaganda machine working well.

https://nursingnotes.co.uk/news/poli...cal-elections/

Ooh look, a distraction.

Not Diane Abbott?

Definitely not 'Yes I support a racist, anti-Semite, homophobic psychopath solely because he wears a blue rosette'?

Look! Look over there!

[sandGroundZero]

Was it ever the case that voters' allegiances could be characterized simply? Probably not. Certainly, contemporary voters have endless sources and information resources easily accessible — some indeed, inescapable such that it becomes exceedingly difficult to reduce voters' responses to some simple schema. To suggest political parties (and assorted others) are not 'listening ' presupposes a simplistic conception of the political realm.

joan ofarc post #236

1. …Most peple are not interested in politics in general. They take in the highlights and headlines and respond according to their leanings. I think there are many more 'independent' voters now than ever before as old traditional voting patterns are changing. This is what politicians are not listening to.
   
   
   Quite right; however I believe it has always been the case that voters have "respond[ed] according to their leanings". Retrospective assessments of voters' diverse motives based on election outcomes provides an abstract explanation of sorts, but it is not an actual account of those motives. In casual exchanges (such as this is) to alledge 'politicians do not listen ' is meaningless. Politicians discern a cacophony of discordant voices.
   
   
   
2. Labour completely misread Brexit because they assumed too much of their traditional voters. Tories do the same. All politicians think they know better than the man or woman on the Clapham omnibus. They scorn populism when really they mean it's a view they don't approve of.
   
   
   Labour did not misread BREXIT. The party was unceremoniously divided as the country was.
   It's fair to say 'populism ' means different things, depending somewhat on who is saying it and why!
   
   
3. If we were truly democratic the country would look very different today.
   
   
   There's the rub! The country is stuck in an antiquated representative system that is only democratic to the extent that we can hope to exchange one political clique for another at intervals of up to five years.

[joan ofarc]

I agree with most of this, but I don't see Brexit as a left / right issue. Most of the Tory cabinet were (and the 'were' bit is important) remainers. Traditional left wing socialists are generally Eurosceptic.

But I do agree that traditional voting patterns are changing. Any political pundit worth their salt would say the left now appeals to young urban types. In England, anyway. Hence today's voter oppression in the Queen's speech, the boundary changes and the turn away from the fixed term Parliaments.

If the country were truly democratic, it wouldn't be the tedious 2 party system, and Parliament would be much more representative of the people. Proportional Representation or a progressive alliance would render the landscape unrecognisable. But while the Tufton Street mob are in charge, we are heading to a single party fascist state.

Ordinary people did not see Brexit as left or right initially but each party became so entrenched in their positions that people were forced to ditch their traditional voting positions to get what they wanted. Having said that, the Tories were all over the shop and Labour was so inconsistent that nobody could understand their stance. Then there was UKIP muddying the waters. I would say most people had made up their mind which way they were going to vote long before the bickering and posturing stopped.The years after the referendum just turned most people off. Politics was something going on in an alternate universe.
It still is to a large extent but Labour hasn't reacted fast enough to a new reality. It's only a one party system at the moment because the other party is away with the fairies.
I really don't think PR is going to help. It only appeals to intellectuals. First past the post just seems more believable. It would be good for local elections though. Maybe once people get used to it after a few years it might filter up.

[Toodles McGinty]

I really don't think PR is going to help. It only appeals to intellectuals. First past the post just seems more believable. It would be good for local elections though. Maybe once people get used to it after a few years it might filter up.

I think we are the only 'democratic' country in Europe to use FPTP.

I don't see it changing any time soon, because whichever of the two parties gains power with it are hardly likely to move to change the system.

However, I do like the fact that almost any alternative to FPTP gives the voters an actual choice. I'd say the Single Transferable Vote is possibly the fairest in terms of delivering choice, but it would take years to get used to. Local elections would be a start. I know a few people who got confused because we voted for more than one candidate recently.

But even PR in the last election would have stepped away from the venal, corrupt Tories and the 'away with the fairies', try offering a policy FFS, Labour. The Greens and Lib-Dems would have 17 and 74 seats respectively, rather than 1 and 11. Far more representative.

When Tony Blair won a landslide victory in 1997, he got almost exactly the same share of the popular vote that Boris Johnson did in 2019 – just over 43 per cent.

But in 1997, the same vote share translated into 418 seats for Labour – more than 50 more seats than the Conservatives have now.

The system is wrong, not the voters.