General British politics discussion thread

Maybe so, but isn't that just semantics? I have no idea what Labour's stance on the striking rail workers actually is. It seems crazy that Sam Tarry has been sacked from the front bench for this, or at least that he wouldn't have been sacked if Labour were clearly rowing in behind the striking workers.

Wage inequality is at disgusting levels. Corporate profits soar while local councils discuss planning of "heat banks", akin to food banks, to provide warm places for people to go to during winter so they don't freeze to death at home. It seems to me that Starmer has misjudged this one, and is falling for the Tory trick of turning people on each other by framing this as the rail workers on £60k a year stopping hard-working poorer paid people from getting to work.

I agree the various factions of the Labour party need to unite, but honestly, shouldn't supporting people's right to strike be a cornerstone of their purpose? I wouldn't be surprised at this point if Starmer says he agrees with the Conservatives' planned policy of making it much harder for certain unions to strike. I'm not some rabid Owen Jones type who openly despises him, I'm just genuinely confused at what their policies are and what their stance is on striking workers. So are lots of other people, who feel they have no one to vote for at this point.

I agree with all of this. I never mentioned elections, but if I still lived in England I'd vote tactically. So what do you think of Starmer's peculiar decision to categorically rule out any kind of alliance with the Lib Dems?

He is not "decent" if he can't support striking workers and sacks people for (being interviewed) supporting them.

This isnt your tabloid "Corbynista" conspiracy this is just the standard humanity that is a core reason why many choose Labour over the Tories.

Okay, so moving on from the 'ites' and the 'istas' as a supporter of Starmer, do you think having Labour being headline news, not for some bold initiative or policy idea but for yet more internal politics is a good thing?

Don't you think he created a rod for his own back by having such public pronouncements about no front benchers on picket lines, which he then went back on, and then sacking of a lower ranking front bencher, who was supporting a still relatively popular industrial action, and offering such a paltry and inconsistent reasoning for doing so.

Is it brave or foolhardy to collide with the unions when Labour finances are shot, Tarry suggests Blair had a considerably better working relationship with the unions than Starmer has, what does this achieve, where are the positives to going down that road?

Thatcher cosplayer Truss is already more popular than Starmer and she's not been selected by the Tories yet, so there goes the well at least he's not Johnson benefit he had.

I wouldn't be a fan of tactical voting either, but would feel I had no other choice in a FPTP system where my number one priority is to not have a Tory government.

The latest YouGov poll has voting intention at 32% Tories, 39% Labour, and 12% Lib Dems. It might be posturing that you think will be forgotten about, for Starmer to say he won't form an alliance with the Liberal Democrats, but I'm sure the Tory gutter press won't forget about it if it does actually come to pass. It seems completely stupid of Starmer to rule it out completely. He could have just said he'd assess all possibilities available to him after a general election result, and weigh up what's best for the country, or something like that.

The problem is that Starmer being wishy washy on issues from workers' rights to strike to Brexit (pretending it's great) is that it isn't even winning over the people he needs. Until my former West Midlands middle-aged Brexit-voting colleagues say they'll vote Labour, he's losing anyway. He may as well pick some actual tangible stances on political issues, rather than selling out and achieving not that much anyway. They should be at 50%+ in the polls with this absolutely disastrous Tory government.

A Savanta ComRes poll has her ahead, though tbf there are polls with Starmer with a nice lead.

Oh, and If you thought my "lol" was at your expense, it was not, it was in response to the Labour policy you quoted, hence I didn't quote you, following snide afterwards, well can't argue with that, but the ista and ite stuff is quite uninspiring and irritating.

The only thing that changed in 1997 was the cabinet and nothing else.

The first Labour gov was dominated on whether the UK would join the Euro. And Labour was split on the issue and decided of course in the end to side with euro sceptics. Sounds familiar.

New Labour was said to have ushered in cultural changes - greater acceptance of minorities and equality for women. But whether those changes were and had happened anyway is up for debate.

Sunack has been so thankful to the British for allowing his family into The UK , to get employment, make sufficient money to set up a business and have sufficient savings to send at.east one member of the family to a private school. I have no problem with all of that. bUT , where does he now stand with the UK policy of sending all potential arrivals re refugees , UKranians and suchlike off to some third world African nation. Did Sunaks family really HAVE to leave India or were they economic migrants?

hopefully this area will be covered in one of the debates or he might just might make a statement or two to refer to the issue

But the irony of this is that the anti-immigration crowd will often regard these second and third generation people as foreigners and outsiders and not really British at all.

Sunak himself said in the BBC debate he has been the victim of racism and name calling in the past (people assuming he was an immigrant).

The specific issues I have with Sunak is the impression he is trying to give - in a very subtle way eg I am / my family is just like the typical one of you out there. We had to leave our homeland it was so terrible, we had little money. My parents had to work very, very hard and we got to where we are because of hard work and savings and the efforts/ sacrifices of my parents enabled me to go to private school. I wonder if the rest of the children , if any , also went to pvt school.

both candidates make a big play about their background- read above for example- and how this had a very significant influence on them in fashioning their thinking today, their ethos, their morals, etc, etc. it is in this context that I am wondering about Sunaks position on the recent UK policy change and ‘directing’arriving refugees onto a specific third world African country with a very questionable human rights record

This is such a white thing to say.

Second and third generation immigrants have differing political ideas.

The fact that their parents arrived in a different era is irrelevant.

So Britain only had two periods of unfettered immigration - from the Commonwealth in the 1950s and from Eastern Europe in the 00s and 10s. They decided in '61 to curb Commonwealth migration and in 2016 to curb Eastern European migration.