Strikes

[Max Fowler]

True, we can never want anything better and our political parties from all sides of the spectrum (far right to centre right) should only tell us that we can eat sh*t and smile about it otherwise we're childish idealists.

We can and should absolutely want better. We should also probably recognise that the first step is “a little bit better”, and that recognition of that fact is especially important after two general elections where a more idealistic party was rejected at the polls, first narrowly, then overwhelmingly.

Again - I don’t particularly like it, but I see why it’s currently the way it is. Nobody seems to be engaging with this bit: we have to convince people who voted Tory to vote Labour if we want any sort of Labour government. I’m not even saying don’t moan about it (that’ll help!!) I’m just a bit baffled that there’s no acknowledgment of why an opposition who is effectively a government in waiting, would be focused on not saying or doing anything to cause floating Tories to waver on their tentative decision that they’ve had enough of the Tories. Once Labour is in, then absolutely it needs to be that they’re under pressure to be a Labour Party.

So you're saying the only way to get tory voters to vote labour is to lie to them?

The alternative is to be honest. Say the nurses do deserve a pay rise and get those at the 'top' to pay for it.

[StillSpike]

To be fair to him, if there's one thing Sir Kier is good at, it's making a set of very clear promises in order to win an election, and then almost immediately abandoning them all, so it's not entirely out of the question that he'll win a General Election by promising Tory voters that he'll be just as Tory as all their heroes, and then immediately decide to pay public sector workers what they are due and laugh at those who thought he wouldn't.

[CEB]

I don’t think it’s a charade, I think it’s equivocation. I don’t think he’ll get into number 10 and be like “ahahaha actually I’m going to give them 23%”, but I do think that underpinning what he’s saying is a recognition that he can’t allow the Tories to be able to paint him as less financially responsible. Thats frustrating, 100%. But it makes sense as a focus on the first priority - getting the Tories out. We get them out and build from there, putting pressure on Starmer where necessary (and it will be necessary)

You get all this, I’m sure.

[Proposition Joe]

To be fair to him, if there's one thing Sir Kier is good at, it's making a set of very clear promises in order to win an election, and then almost immediately abandoning them all, so it's not entirely out of the question that he'll win a General Election by promising Tory voters that he'll be just as Tory as all their heroes, and then immediately decide to pay public sector workers what they are due and laugh at those who thought he wouldn't.

He's shown he's happy to lie to the left. Less so the right. Satisfied he's shown enough of who he really is thus far that, if elected, he's not going to suddenly whip off a mask and back decent pay rises and improvements in terms and conditions.

[CEB]

True, we can never want anything better and our political parties from all sides of the spectrum (far right to centre right) should only tell us that we can eat sh*t and smile about it otherwise we're childish idealists.

We can and should absolutely want better. We should also probably recognise that the first step is “a little bit better”, and that recognition of that fact is especially important after two general elections where a more idealistic party was rejected at the polls, first narrowly, then overwhelmingly.

Again - I don’t particularly like it, but I see why it’s currently the way it is. Nobody seems to be engaging with this bit: we have to convince people who voted Tory to vote Labour if we want any sort of Labour government. I’m not even saying don’t moan about it (that’ll help!!) I’m just a bit baffled that there’s no acknowledgment of why an opposition who is effectively a government in waiting, would be focused on not saying or doing anything to cause floating Tories to waver on their tentative decision that they’ve had enough of the Tories. Once Labour is in, then absolutely it needs to be that they’re under pressure to be a Labour Party.

So you're saying the only way to get tory voters to vote labour is to lie to them?

The alternative is to be honest. Say the nurses do deserve a pay rise and get those at the 'top' to pay for it.

What’s the lie? It’s politics. This is so blindingly obvious that I don’t know why it has to be spelled out: a Labour Party who, in opposition, take up positions, will be understood to be calibrating those positions rightwards in order to win over those whose votes are subject to change. People will therefore assume them to be likely to move somewhat left once in power - just as the Tories were once trying to present themselves as cuddly and human.

So a Labour opposition which doesn’t rock the boat in opposition - especially when the government is doing a great job of f***ing itself up - has nothing to gain from effectively saying to the floating voters “we’re going to do stuff you won’t like”

[CEB]

To be fair to him, if there's one thing Sir Kier is good at, it's making a set of very clear promises in order to win an election, and then almost immediately abandoning them all, so it's not entirely out of the question that he'll win a General Election by promising Tory voters that he'll be just as Tory as all their heroes, and then immediately decide to pay public sector workers what they are due and laugh at those who thought he wouldn't.

He's shown he's happy to lie to the left. Less so the right. Satisfied he's shown enough of who he really is thus far that, if elected, he's not going to suddenly whip off a mask and back decent pay rises and improvements in terms and conditions.

How would we yet know if he’d “lied” to the right? Any assurances he’s dishonestly giving to the right would seem inherently to only possibly come out once Labour were in a position to implement some policies, no?

[Proposition Joe]

This is fair. However, would say he knows that lying the left is absolutely A-OK and all the RW and centrist media have lapped it up as "sensible politics to get elected". If he went the other way, he knows they'd crucify him.

[Long slender neck]

I guess its okay to lie to the left as the last two elections have proved you dont have the numbers to matter.

[CEB]

Yeah and that is sh*t and depressing, and I don’t like it at all.
I’d suggest though that there’s two meanings of “sensible politics” though - I think it probably *is* “sensible politics” (if not particularly courageous or ethical politics) to focus on strategy to get into power, including dealing with right wing media.

The other meaning is the idea that being centre right is the “sensible set of values”, which is bullshit.

I’m not optimistic that Starmer will happily be naturally more courageous and forward thinking in his politics, but I do think that once a Labour government is in place, that’s where criticism, pressure and activism to get the government to move leftwards will be useful and meaningful

[Max Fowler]

We can and should absolutely want better. We should also probably recognise that the first step is “a little bit better”, and that recognition of that fact is especially important after two general elections where a more idealistic party was rejected at the polls, first narrowly, then overwhelmingly.

Again - I don’t particularly like it, but I see why it’s currently the way it is. Nobody seems to be engaging with this bit: we have to convince people who voted Tory to vote Labour if we want any sort of Labour government. I’m not even saying don’t moan about it (that’ll help!!) I’m just a bit baffled that there’s no acknowledgment of why an opposition who is effectively a government in waiting, would be focused on not saying or doing anything to cause floating Tories to waver on their tentative decision that they’ve had enough of the Tories. Once Labour is in, then absolutely it needs to be that they’re under pressure to be a Labour Party.

So you're saying the only way to get tory voters to vote labour is to lie to them?

The alternative is to be honest. Say the nurses do deserve a pay rise and get those at the 'top' to pay for it.

What’s the lie? It’s politics. This is so blindingly obvious that I don’t know why it has to be spelled out: a Labour Party who, in opposition, take up positions, will be understood to be calibrating those positions rightwards in order to win over those whose votes are subject to change. People will therefore assume them to be likely to move somewhat left once in power - just as the Tories were once trying to present themselves as cuddly and human.

So a Labour opposition which doesn’t rock the boat in opposition - especially when the government is doing a great job of f***ing itself up - has nothing to gain from effectively saying to the floating voters “we’re going to do stuff you won’t like”

Is that where we're at? It's too controversial to say that nurses deserve a decent pay rise and the wealthy are going to have to stump up for it.

[Max Fowler]

I’m not optimistic that Starmer will happily be naturally more courageous and forward thinking in his politics, but I do think that once a Labour government is in place, that’s where criticism, pressure and activism to get the government to move leftwards will be useful and meaningful

You've literally just told lefties to shut up and cheer Starmer into Number 10.

[Dunners]

I guess its okay to lie to the left as the last two elections have proved you dont have the numbers to matter.

To be fair, they do have the numbers. They just do not have the distribution to succeed under FPTP.

[Dunners]

Is that where we're at? It's too controversial to say that nurses deserve a decent pay rise and the wealthy are going to have to stump up for it.

You're missing the point.

It's not that it's too controversial, it's just that it doesn't increase your election odds because those that agree with you are probably going to vote for you anyway. You're just preaching to the choir.

Those that do not agree with you are either too wealthy/insulated or too thick. You're not going to win over the "too wealthy" mob, but what you say can be used to influence the "too thick" mob.

In a FPTP system where just a few tens of thousand thickos in key marginals can be the difference between government and opposition, the election winning strategy is to only spend political capital when it generates a worthy return.

Boring and uninspiring as f*ck. But that's the system.

[CEB]

I’m not optimistic that Starmer will happily be naturally more courageous and forward thinking in his politics, but I do think that once a Labour government is in place, that’s where criticism, pressure and activism to get the government to move leftwards will be useful and meaningful

You've literally just told lefties to shut up and cheer Starmer into Number 10.

What is your aim?
My position is that I’ll be doing plenty of moaning about Labour when they’re in power.
If you want to provide the inevitable background noise that Labour aren’t left wing enough, knock yourself out. I agree that they’re not left wing enough, but I understand why they are positioned where they are right now. You do too, but you’re avoiding engaging with why.

[Max Fowler]

It's not that Labour and Starmer aren't left wing enough. It's that they're not left wing.

[BoniO]

So what is left wing? It seems kind of dumb to argue about degrees of being “left wing” when left wing itself isn’t defined.

[Max B Gold]

So what is left wing? It seems kind of dumb to argue about degrees of being “left wing” when left wing itself isn’t defined.

I'm left wing. If that helps.

[Dunners]

So what is left wing? It seems kind of dumb to argue about degrees of being “left wing” when left wing itself isn’t defined.

I'm left wing. If that helps.

Really? You kept that quiet.

[BoniO]

So what is left wing? It seems kind of dumb to argue about degrees of being “left wing” when left wing itself isn’t defined.

I'm left wing. If that helps.

Always helpful! Still no definition from the main protagonists though. Until they can agree on the definition they are just arguing about their individual perceptions - a total waste of time.

[tuffers#1]

I guess its okay to lie to the left as the last two elections have proved you dont have the numbers to matter.

Its ok for him to lie to me as a Labour voter as long as the T@RY Scum get voted out. Anyone who doesnt want them out is as responsible for the mess this country is in .

[CEB]

It's not that Labour and Starmer aren't left wing enough. It's that they're not left wing.

Do you think a left wing party will win a general election in 2024?

[Long slender neck]

Exactly Tuffers, far left already gifted them two elections when they hijacked Labour.

[Max B Gold]

So what is left wing? It seems kind of dumb to argue about degrees of being “left wing” when left wing itself isn’t defined.

I'm left wing. If that helps.

Always helpful! Still no definition from the main protagonists though. Until they can agree on the definition they are just arguing about their individual perceptions - a total waste of time.

Agreed. All they are doing is discussing Keith's personality and whether he is trustworthy or NOT.

And saying we should vote for Red Tories because they are not as horrible as the true Blue ones. The futility of it will eventually dawn on them.

[Dunners]

It's not that Labour and Starmer aren't left wing enough. It's that they're not left wing.

Exactly. Here's the right-wing fascist espousing his neo-liberal ideology again:

[Max B Gold]

Exactly Tuffers, far left already gifted them two elections when they hijacked Labour.

Dont forget the centrists and far right Labour members played their part too.