The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[bickster]

32 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

Starmer is just a trojan horse to get Labour into power and once rank and file Labour supporters realise he's, at best, Tory-lite, he will be ousted, and replaced with Rayner, whose experience of supporting public-sector workers when she was working for Unison, will endear her to ordinary Labour supporters.

She's a grand northern lass and she'll be just like Gracie Fields in Shipyard Sally.

 

Only ever happened once, Ramsay McDonald and he was removed as Labour Leader (and expelled from the Party) for forming a National Government which consisted of mainly Tories

It would be a very extreme event like that which would cause the Labour Party to remove a sitting PM whilst in office

On current polling, the required 20% to stand a candidate against the current leader is likely to be around 90, given that an awful lot of the party will be new MPs who will be mostly grateful to Starmer for getting them elected. I'd suggest getting near to the threshold will be next to impossible unless something really dramatic happens

[OutByEaster?]

37 minutes ago, bickster said:

The Tory Party will be a very different party after the next election. An awful lot of complete throbbers will be gone.

The Starmer effect is going to make life very difficult for them. Whilst he's often criticised for being too much like the Tories by Labour voters, the accusation that any sort of reformed Tory party with any common sense is "too Starmer" is definitely going to affect the Tories - by nudging Labour to the very right of centre, the only room he's really left for the Tories to operate in is the very right, he's forced them into a right wing corner of nut jobs by occupying the ground their voters would normally live in.

Sadly, I can't see them hilariously adopting policies left of Starmer to attract the disaffected, so they're kind of bubbled in, and unless the Greens are suddenly able to invest massively in the British press, the only really danger to Starmer in the foreseeable future is from the Labour party, which he seems to have a firm grip on.

Like or not, we're spending the next good chunk of our future in Kier's world, he'll have a mandate that allows him to do whatever he wants (should he in fact want to do anything).

 

[Jareth]

Starmer's going nowhere, he's the perfect host body for the new labour old-guard to occupy and manipulate at will. It's no secret that Starmer talks with Blair regularly, let alone Mandleson's omnipotent presence. If they decide they need a new host with jazz hands then there are no obvious candidates available.

[MakemineVanilla]

7 minutes ago, bickster said:

Only ever happened once, Ramsay McDonald and he was removed as Labour Leader (and expelled from the Party) for forming a National Government which consisted of mainly Tories

It would be a very extreme event like that which would cause the Labour Party to remove a sitting PM whilst in office

On current polling, the required 20% to stand a candidate against the current leader is likely to be around 90, given that an awful lot of the party will be new MPs who will be mostly grateful to Starmer for getting them elected. I'd suggest getting near to the threshold will be next to impossible unless something really dramatic happens

Times are difficult and the sun-lit uplands look a long way off yet, so things could get politically volatile.

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

The Starmer effect is going to make life very difficult for them. Whilst he's often criticised for being too much like the Tories by Labour voters, the accusation that any sort of reformed Tory party with any common sense is "too Starmer" is definitely going to affect the Tories - by nudging Labour to the very right of centre, the only room he's really left for the Tories to operate in is the very right, he's forced them into a right wing corner of nut jobs by occupying the ground their voters would normally live in.

Sadly, I can't see them hilariously adopting policies left of Starmer to attract the disaffected, so they're kind of bubbled in, and unless the Greens are suddenly able to invest massively in the British press, the only really danger to Starmer in the foreseeable future is from the Labour party, which he seems to have a firm grip on.

Like or not, we're spending the next good chunk of our future in Kier's world, he'll have a mandate that allows him to do whatever he wants (should he in fact want to do anything).

 

The latest large scale regression poll (August) is suggesting that the Tories will only win 90 seats and also that their biggest losses will actually come in some of their strongest seats. It actually predicts that Sunak will lose Richmond

It will be an entirely different party and the lesson they will surely learn is that the moving to the right really isn't going to win them any votes. I appreciate what you say about being in Starmer world for a long time and I agree and think it's equally as dangerous but what I can't see is the Tories staying as right as they are, there's more likely to be a convergence towards the centre BUT it will not matter. The real lesson they should have learned is that the country will be wholeheartedly be rejecting Conservatism but I do expect the reaction to be a movement towards the centre ground again.

[bickster]

7 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

Times are difficult and the sun-lit uplands look a long way off yet, so things could get politically volatile.

Not internally in the Labour Party they won't

[Jareth]

What chance we see Rory Stewart joining Labour?

 

[Chindie]

14 minutes ago, Jareth said:

What chance we see Rory Stewart joining Labour?

 

Starmer's in bed with enough spies already.

Stewart is just appreciating acceptably centrist suggestions.

(And still hitting that reverse from great Satan support button )

[chrisp65]

Rory Stewart talks a good tory wet game. His voting record suggests he’s as much of a word removed as the rest of them.

 

[blandy]

44 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

by nudging Labour to the very right of centre, the only room he's really left for the Tories to operate in is the very right, he's forced them into a right wing corner of nut jobs by occupying the ground their voters would normally live in.

I think your analysis is back to front. The tories moved themselves, unprompted, way further right. That left all those centre right and centre voters with no acceptable (to them) party to vote for. At the time, Corbyn had moved Labour significantly more left wing, so the vast swathes of floating voters, centre left, centre and centre right had no viable choice. Starmer has set all his efforts on trying to capture their votes. Something that neither the Tories, nor Corbyn Labour appealed to.

[OutByEaster?]

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

I think your analysis is back to front. The tories moved themselves, unprompted, way further right. That left all those centre right and centre voters with no acceptable (to them) party to vote for. At the time, Corbyn had moved Labour significantly more left wing, so the vast swathes of floating voters, centre left, centre and centre right had no viable choice. Starmer has set all his efforts on trying to capture their votes. Something that neither the Tories, nor Corbyn Labour appealed to.

Oh you're quite correct, he filled the void left for traditionally Tory voters when their party went bonkers in the aftermath of Cameron - but the big problem that leaves the Tory's is that the mass of floating voters now left without a natural home is to the left of Starmer - there's no way the Tories will target those centre left voters, so they've got nowhere to go.

 

[His Name Is Death]

The perfect 'beady eyes, pursed lips & sour, pissed off expression' that voters instinctively warm to.

[His Name Is Death]

via https://twitter.com/keewa/status/1701499330840957397

[ml1dch]

20 minutes ago, bickster said:

It will be an entirely different party and the lesson they will surely learn is that the moving to the right really isn't going to win them any votes.

You're obviously right in the medium-to-long term, but I think you're underestimating the different ways that that entirely different party might manifest itself. 

If they lose heavily, Suank will be gone (as leader at the very least) and the members will still probably want one more "he just wasn't right-wing enough" leader in them before they find their next Cameron. 

But the problem with predicting who that might be is that in the context of a heavy defeat it's impossible to have any idea what candidates there might be and what parliamentary power base they might still have. 

Penny Mordaunt is second favourite to be next Tory leader and is supposed to be the sensible(ish) candidate from the centre, but would comfortably lose her seat on current polling. With so little knowledge about what the 2025 party will look like (in size and political position), it's tricky to draw many conclusions on how it will behave. 

[ml1dch]

14 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

...there's no way the Tories will target those centre left voters, so they've got nowhere to go.

I appreciate that someone's political labels always depends on where they, themselves are standing on the left-right axis, but I imagine that the sort of person that most people would describe as being on the "centre left" will be voting Labour in droves. 

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

the mass of floating voters now left without a natural home is to the left of Starmer - there's no way the Tories will target those centre left voters, so they've got nowhere to go.

I’m not sure I agree completely. You’re right that the Tories have gone mad and stopped trying to appeal to anyone sane, though if they weren’t so deranged they could and (for their own chances)  should - like Cameron did. But I don’t think what I’ve read and heard of Starmer’s Labour plans is remotely out of scope for central-ish voters, nor that they are to the left of Labour to the extent they have no home.  To me it seems like a huge bulk of people just want stuff to work and not to pay through the nose for everything. Can I see a doctor, will the road be resurfaced, when can I have my operation, will the school be fixed, why is my mortgage so high, why is my rent so high, why are trains still on strike, why won’t the police do anything…

Anyone looking even slightly like they understand and want to do something about it, without piling on taxes will romp home. Seems to me that’s what Labour is aiming at doing, or proposing to the electorate.

[Chindie]

I'm surprised so many people are apparently able to look past the party's institutional racism.

Edited September 14, 2023 by Chindie

[Jareth]

9 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I'm surprised so many people are apparently able to look past the party's institutional racism.

Well you see it's very different now. Once there was Corbyn who wanted to expel every person of Jewish heritage from the country. Now we have Starmer who ignores the concerns of people of colour. Like night and day.

[OutByEaster?]

1 hour ago, ml1dch said:

I appreciate that someone's political labels always depends on where they, themselves are standing on the left-right axis, but I imagine that the sort of person that most people would describe as being on the "centre left" will be voting Labour in droves. 

Exactly, Kiers strategy (and it's a good one) is moving the Labour party to the right to capture all of those 'sensible Tories' that have been upset by seeing their party transform into an openly criminal shitshow (with a far right circus frosting) whilst knowing that for the centre left voters he's leaving behind their choices are incredibly limited - they aren't going to suddenly leapfrog the centre-right and go far right to vote Tory, and with the Labour left defeated, he knows that not enough people are about to vote Green that it should worry him - it's politically a great strategy.

Democratically, it leaves an enormous amount of voters forced to choose between the corporo-Nazis or a party that's right of where they'd really like to be - given that choice, those people are either going to stay home or vote for StarmerLabour.

The Tories aren't about to try to appeal to the centre-left and there's no other opposition - essentially if they want to compete, they need to find a Starmer themselves and compete on exactly the same policies and ideas that he does - and even then, the centre left won't vote for him - he hasn't so much beaten the Tory party as replaced it.

 

 

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Exactly, Kiers strategy (and it's a good one) is moving the Labour party to the right to capture all of those 'sensible Tories' that have been upset by seeing their party transform into an openly criminal shitshow (with a far right circus frosting)

You could just as easily say...

"Exactly, Kiers strategy (and it's a good one) is moving the Labour Party to the right to regain the trust all of those former Labour voters that have been upset by seeing their party transform into an openly idiotic left wing shitshow 

It just depends as has already been said on where you think you're standing when you make the statement

From my perspective, I've not seen anything to suggest Starmer has moved Labour to anywhere other than its modern political average stance, ignoring the Corbyn years, it's in pretty much a similar position policy wise to where it always was since Kinnock replaced Foot or going back even further, taking out the Foot years, a similar position to where it's been for over half a century. The idea that those 8 years of Foot / Corbyn actually represent Labour's natural / traditional position is farcical.

Only yesterday, Labour was promising more unionised jobs and greater recognition for unions etc How does that fit in with this red tories / centre right idea?