General British politics discussion thread

Ideological purity is all well and good but it only appeals to a very small number of people and basically makes a party unelectable. For all the talk about Stamer being a soft Tory, Corbyns focus on ideological purity meant he was all but a fully paid up member of Tory party. Unfortunately his views were not widely shared by the UK population. The fact he wasn't prepared to moderate his views to better match what the UK public wanted meant he made Labour unelectable and guaranteed Tory majorities.

Stamer is aiming for a broader coalition with labour and yes he is definitely not as ideological pure as Corbyn but Stamers approach will assuming he wins the election will result in Labour policies actually being implemented and not another 5 years of Tory rule. The sad fact is from the sounds of it some people would prefer Tory rule instead of having to make the messy compromise leading a country actually involves.

As someone pointed out earlier Corbyn failed, he lost to Boris Johnson. It's mindbogglingly that he's still being talked about nevermind venerated as a "true labour" leader.

It's fuck all to do with Corbyn. I understand he's a bete noire for some around here, a handy effigy to throw their shit at, but the Labour Party existed long before Jeremy Corbyn.

The thing is this, when you have a party whose self proclamation is supposed to be "left wing" (of whatever degree) getting rid of left wing members, some of whom have been serving the party their entire political careers, and bringing in Tory rats deserting that sinking ship, it says a hell of a lot more about your stances than merely "we're building a broader coalition".

There's a spiteful, factional, gutting going on within Starmer's, so called, Labour Party and it's thoroughly distasteful to watch.

The man is a snake. And people should be wary of putting a snake into power.

Stamers approach will assuming he wins the election will result in Labour policies actually being implemented

Starmer has yet to show that he actually has any Labour policies.

No doubt it is a huge factor that people want the Tories gone, but people seem to be writing Labour off even before they have had a chance to Govern.

It will be night and day in comparison

perhaps true but if the infighting takes over about ideological stuff, the election (or a comfortable majority ) might be lost. Labour needs to win this election for its own survival. It can sort out the ideological stuff afterwards.

Those who want to sort it out now keep forgetting that the election is not in the bag until the vote is counted.

Corbyn is relevant because he took the approach you are proposing at we can see the result. It seems that for person to suitable to be Labour MP they must satisfy and arbitrary test of being "left wing" enough. Left wing is a very vague test as it varies between country and year(political views evolve over time). Corbyn took the ideology purity approach and the result was Brexit, Threasa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Sunak and so and so on.

Reaching out and building a broad coalition is not being a snake it's called good governance. To look at in an Irish context, the reason every government in the state has had FF or FG or their predecessors is arguably because they haven't had a nailed down ideology and have been able to adapt to what voters want.

Being Left wing/right wing/ libertarian etc is grand but the first question is that want voters actually want. Remember the job of public representative is to reflect the views of voters.

If representatives don't listen to people they don't get elected no matter how ideologically pure a candidate is. And if your party doesn't get elected another will and they will make decisions you disagree with because a party valued it's ego/ideological purity over actually listening to the public.

Stamer might not stand for much but that's not a bad thing. It's the reason Brexit got across the line it meant everything and nothing at same time. Once it got across the line supporters of Brexit were able to set the agenda.

All Starmer is doing is chucking out the people who traditionally are Labour and bringing in people who are Tory so he can utter the slogan 'Change' to the electorate… If he truly believed in broadening the political base, he would announce that Labour would bring in PR but he is not interested in that.

Author Michael Rosen put out a joke tweet that is close to reality

Corbyn is relevant because he took the approach you are proposing at we can see the result.

I'm not proposing anything of the sort.

I'm not expecting Starmer to be like Corbyn or anything close. But I and others would like to see is a bit more direction. A bit more substance. Contrary to what some might believe, I'm not some sort of rabid Corbyn fan or even that invested in left wing politics. My lefty credentials extends to things like decent public services and a state that actually makes an effort to look after its people first, instead of corporate interests. You know, the shit most people consider an important part of running a country.

Now, Corbyn may have worn his heart on his sleeve and, perhaps, he shouldn't. But that's not what brought Corbyn down. It was the lies said about him and Labour that were his undoing. They blindsided him and other Labour members completely. So, maybe Starmer is right to play his cards so close to his chest. That isn't the real issue however. What's galling is Starmer's treatment of LABOUR MEMBERS, some of whom have been around a lot longer than he. It's the completely unnecessary way he has factionalised the party and how he has blocked, barred and expelled Labour Party personnel in the most authoritarian way that is making people, at best, nervous about what makes this guy tick. Such measures are rightly eye openers to people who would tend to bend toward traditional Labour principles and they have a lot of people viewing Starmer with a critical focus, largely because it doesn't NEED to happen as Labour are almost guaranteed to win the next election. So, it means his actions are mostly out of spite and that's not a quality one traditionally looks for in a leader.

Starmer doesn't want a Labour Party, he wants a Kier Starmer party, populated completely with loyalists and he'll gut anyone who isn't on board with that. That, right there, SHOULD act as a warning for Labour voters of what the man is like. It's one thing being happy about the Tories being defeated and kicked out, but there has to be more to it than that. If you replace one nest of vipers with another nest of vipers, you still have a nest of vipers.

Will it be good to see the back of this Tufton Street, ERG led bunch of bastards? Of course it will. But British people are also looking for more than JUST that. They want some real changes made to how society is run and who gets the most benefit from it. For too long that's been a small cadre and a lot of Britons are looking for a change in that dynamic. Kier Starmer has shown no inclination that that is of any interested to him and all we've seen from him is him saying one thing and rolling back on it a while later or him welcoming deserting Conservatives and eliminating Labour members…and no, that's NOT "building a broad coalition", or "good governance". Starmer will be judged on that when he's in power and if there's nothing to him and his Labour Party, you can bet that the Tories will be back in in no time at all.

It's no wonder that many Brits are highly sceptical about what it is Starmer is about and what it is he'll actually do when he's in power, because that's where the real litmus test is going to be and all the cheers and horrays will be damped very hastily if Starmer really doesn't have to him anything beyond defeating an already destroyed Conservative government.

We know there are only two choices, 'the bad and the ugly'. It does not mean people should stop scrutinising the bad just because they may be better than the ugly

This the problem with the FPTP system voters have only two options. And depending on the geographic spread of the vote it may not even be two equal options ie one party may require less votes to get elected. It tends to disadvantage parties like Labour who have a high vote share in Urban areas. The whole system forces parties to be coalitions which under a more proportional system would be multiple different parties.

There's a big difference between critiquing someone and calling them stuff like Tory lite etc. The fact is if Steamer wants to win the election he has to appeal to swing voters in swing seats(another lovely quirk of FPTP). That means he's going to fail any arbitrary ideological purity test. But if Labour wants to actually govern/win the election it needs to ignore Labour hardliners. They are not representative of voters in general. It's the mistake Corbyn made and the current conservative party is making.

I've mentioned Corbyn a few times but Liz Truss is an even more spectacular example of what happens if you only appeal to her base. She did exactly what many here say Steamer should be doing and her short term in office tells you all you need to know about how successful/disastrous that approach can be.

Iain Dale is having a nightmare ha.

Quits LBC to run for the Tories less than 48 hours later quits/pushed out.

I would be hopping mad if that was the final result and the Lib Dems were so damn close to being the Official Opposition.

Would very likely end up being so by the end of the term - I'm quite sure that has never happened before, they don't really do seismic changes like we had in 94.

Five years of them not being able to give some wally a title as Shadow XYZ, five years of second slots at questions etc would be hilarious.

Is the second Green seat Brighton Kemptown or that Bristol area one? The Greens were terrible in local government in Brighton; but the Labour candidate problem (suspended for unspecified reasons, potentially nonsense) in Kemptown makes it open for the Greens. They should keep Brighton Pavilion, as they're running against the guitarist from Gomez and not Eddie Izzard who I think would have taken it.

By what metrics has Stamers failed? The opinion polls say otherwise. From my I can see he's standing up to Labour hardliners and many of the people who have let the Torys govern the UK for 14/15 odd years because they value ideological purity over actually listening to the public and governing. We've had posters call Stamer a soft Tory despite his predecessor being the Tory parties best asset . Are you honestly saying you would prefer another Tory government to a Labour government lead by Starmer? Because in the short term they are your only two options.

Remember under the FPTP system it's more important to appeal to voters in swing seats(IE people who are prepared to vote Tory)than those voters in safe seats. So annoying a few hardliners is unlikely to damage him and in fact may appeal to more swing voters who are ultimately the people who will decide the election.

For the Greens inclined to say Bristol Central (pretty much a renamed Bristol West) because Bristol's greens are on the up whereas Brighton's are on the down. However they were really helped in 2019 by the LibDems not standing, and a lot of students will have gone home by July.

Are the SNP gonna win nothing 🤔