Alright I'll go back into my little hole now. I don't want to turn into the Keir Starmer version of you twats. *winky smily but also passive aggressive deadly seriousness*

Took me about 15 seconds to google this.

Prior to his leadership win, Sir Keir promised to reverse corporation tax cuts, get rid of university tuition fees, renationalise the mail, water, rail and energy industries, raise taxes for the top 5% of earners, and get rid of the House of Lords with a view to replacing it with an elected body

https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/04/sir-keir-starmers-political-views-policies-new-labour-leader-stand-12507769/
There are plenty of other links as well to opinion pieces or the same stuff on other outlets.

I have no energy for this shit.

monkey wrote:

acemuzzy wrote:

equinox_code wrote:

I wouldn’t ever vote for him just to get the tories out.

This feels like a mistake

It's infantile.

Hahahahahaha

Oh my, the irony

I don’t think Starmer would have won the last election. He would have been on the wrong side of the brexit question and it would have been too much to hold seats that felt strong enough about it to go Tory.

mistercrayon wrote:

I don’t think Starmer would have won the last election. He would have been on the wrong side of the brexit question and it would have been too much to hold seats that felt strong enough about it to go Tory.

The last election was a nightmare. Johnson and co snookered Corbyn and co over brexit. I think it was unwinable for Labour but perhaps the loss could have been lessened.
Not really wanting to get into a big thing of it mind.

The Tories want nothing more than you all voting on principle. That's what enables them to run 100% of the country from a support base of 35-40% of the population. FPTP skews this all. You don't get the same range of choice when it's winner takes all. 

You either get someone in who will listen to you, because you voted for them and can keep them in power. Or someone who won't, and is determined to ignore your arguments, undermine them and prove them wrong to curry favour with their own supporters. If you won't compromise yourself, you don't get to complain when the government won't either. 

I don't think Starmer is a neo-liberal. He's probably not the socialist that his policies would suggest either. But I don't reckon the normal anti-Blair arguments apply. That it's a slower slide into penury and climate apocalypse. Time will tell.

Granted, I don't believe the Labour Party are quite the same species of craven fuckup the Dems are in the US, but I'm not about to imagine no-one in it is quite happy to just take a bunch of support for granted.

This country will never have a revolution at the polling booth.

What you do with that is up to you. I personally will always vote for the least worst candidate but there is logic in the opposite approach. It would be a very long game though and I question how much earth needs to be scorched before it works.
The right is very clever in keeping the majority in some form of comfort where the sacrifice they ask seems reasonable to whatever horse shit they can get people to swallow.

Tbh, it's probably too hard to solve this in the abstract. I sort of half took back the infantile comment because it is complicated. At the next election we'll have a better idea of what Starmer is all about and I'll tell you all how to vote at that point.

monkey wrote:

Yeah the flipside is that if a politician can take your vote for granted you get just as ignored anyway. Electoral reform required. Which, again, you won't get by voting Green and letting the Tories in.

You won't let the Tories in by voting Green in a constituency where the Tories will never win. If you vote Green in Liverpool Riverside for example, the chances of the Tories taking that seat with their circa 10% vote are non existent.

He's back bitches.
Shadow Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy motherfuckers. 

https://dailygael.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/mental.jpg

I think Ed Miliband was energy before the coalition government.

I think it was reading a chapter or two of lord of the rings but I can’t help but instinctively skim past any part that looks like lyrics.

My partner says that in retrospect it was surprising Johnny Marr our up with any of this shit. I guess it’s a shame he’s the less famous one now.

It’s a tough one for me. Take the reaction to sacking Burgon: he may well be a Cambridge-educated lawyer should supported Corbyn all the way, but every time I saw him I thought he was useless. On the other hand: he’s a proper loyal trooper, an apparently excellent local MP in a region in dire need of positive labour representation, and would surely assuage fears of a Corbynite purge.

Then there’s the appointment of Rachel reeves: someone who said that Leeds was a “tinderbox” echoing Powell’s speech with regards to racial violence, who promised to be tougher on “benefits” (such an ugly word for Social welfare) than the Tories! Is this what a “balanced” shadow cabinet looks like?