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

[ml1dch]

58 minutes ago, bickster said:

My only thought as to why is rather odd, I remain to be convinced by it myself but maybe he's worried about the flow of votes from Tory to Reform and he's attempting to stem that flow by trying to attract the nutters to vote Labour. Makes no sense 

I don't think he's trying to attract any new voters. I think that the only real hope that the Tories now have (and it's really not much of one), is that something happens and they can find a way to make stick the idea of "yes, we've screwed up - but that lot? Brexit-hating, immigrant-loving, gold-selling, bacon sandwich-mangling, prosperity-stifling Labour? You might not like us, but you still need to hold your nose and come out and vote so that they don't ruin things even more"

This isn't trying to get people who would never vote Labour to vote Labour, it's trying to get people who would always vote Tory to not be scared into being desperate to keep Labour out. 

And as said previously, I don't think it'll really make a big difference. It's been all of what, three weeks since we were being told that Starmer had lost the votes of hundreds of thousands of Muslims over his Gaza stance - now that appears to be more or less forgotten and it's not made even a tiny dent on any opinion poll since.

Edited December 4, 2023 by ml1dch

[chrisp65]

16 minutes ago, blandy said:

You might be right. In that there the North, she’s still toxic. Same for Scotland and Wales, I’m sure. Those places what he said, particularly as portrayed, rather than his precise lawyer words, are not gonna go down well. But I also suspect that in 6 months time no one will care that he said the witch wanted to get Britain out of its malaise 45 years ago. 

Which begs the question, why say it?

He needs Scottish votes, it appears he had Scottish votes. Might the SNP spot something they can use here to show Westminster parties are just two cheeks of the same arse? It might not make a significant difference, it probably won’t. 

I guess he just values Tunbridge Wells more than he values Aberdeen.

[bickster]

28 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Which begs the question, why say it?

He needs Scottish votes, it appears he had Scottish votes. Might the SNP spot something they can use here to show Westminster parties are just two cheeks of the same arse? It might not make a significant difference, it probably won’t. 

I guess he just values Tunbridge Wells more than he values Aberdeen.

The SNP are about to implode further if the rumours of their new leaders affair and Matt Hancock style lockdown breaches are true. On top of all their other woes.

But the idea that Labour needs Scotland is as false as it ever was. Blair and Brown didn’t need Scotland constituencies to come to power and neither does Starmer

Also Tunbridge Wells is firmly in LibDem target seat territory

[blandy]

50 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Which begs the question, why say it?

He needs Scottish votes, it appears he had Scottish votes. Might the SNP spot something they can use here to show Westminster parties are just two cheeks of the same arse? It might not make a significant difference, it probably won’t. 

I guess he just values Tunbridge Wells more than he values Aberdeen.

Well exactly. Like I said earlier, I think it was a mistake.

i don’t think he or Labour values Tunbridge Wells over Aberdeen- it’s all stats in the plan that matter in terms of getting elected. He /they clearly err towards the timid and not frightening the horses and they’re right to be like that, tactically speaking. This thing is an example why - merely mentioning the witch and we start getting the vapours over it and how Labour are exactly the same as the baby eaters, because he didn’t also say what an evil witch she was (she was).

[Davkaus]

9 minutes ago, blandy said:

merely mentioning the witch and we start getting the vapours over it and how Labour are exactly the same as the baby eaters, because he didn’t also say what an evil witch she was (she was).

I think what it comes down to is whether you think he doesn't think much of Maggy, but he's pretending to to win tory voters, or whether he actually quite admires her.

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, Davkaus said:

I think what it comes down to is whether you think he doesn't think much of Maggy, but he's pretending to to win tory voters, or whether he actually quite admires her.

Trying to second guess which voters he’s attempting to con.

Not a strategy I’m overly keen on.

 

[Davkaus]

Just now, chrisp65 said:

Trying to second guess which voters he’s attempting to con.

Not a strategy I’m overly keen on.

 

Indeed.

I'm at the point of thinking that after the last few years, he's told us repeatedly again and again who he is, and I don't like it. Every time he's said something I like, it's rowed back within months, weeks, or even days.

There are some (a dwindling number, admittedly) who labour under the illusion that he'll win power and rip off the mask to reveal he was the second coming of Saint Corbyn all along, but even if it weren't ludicrously far fetched I'm not sure "he's great, he was lying all along" is a great win.

He's a Cameronesque, "safe pair of hands" (don't mention the referendum) that won't frighten the other side while keeping things ticking along basically like this, but hopefully without so much corruption and incompetence as the current government. The day after that Torygraph article came out, there was some tory donor who said that Starmer was much more open to his ideas than Sunak is.

It's the Greens for me, I think.

[chrisp65]

37 minutes ago, bickster said:

The SNP are about to implode further if the rumours of their new leaders affair and Matt Hancock style lockdown breaches are true. On top of all their other woes.

But the idea that Labour needs Scotland is as false as it ever was. Blair and Brown didn’t need Scotland constituencies to come to power and neither does Starmer

Also Tunbridge Wells is firmly in LibDem target seat territory

Yes, for Tunbridge please read generic southern english tory seat.

Yes, Labour don’t ‘need’ Scotland, they are making that abundantly clear.

 

[Chindie]

Some people have been saying for donkeys he's a deeply untrustworthy and totally unprincipled shyster. There's only so many times he can totally drop or even outright U-turn on his 'positions', and only so many times the line his version of the party chooses can boil down to 'the Tories are right, but they're incompetent/crooks', before you have to question what he actually stands for, and his party actually wants to achieve. It appears that we have a single track to follow as a nation, and all that can change is who pulls the levers and decides when the coal goes in. All indications are that track goes nowhere good, I'd like someone to suggest we get off at Crewe.

I'm beginning to even get past the idea of the Tories really bad thing being they've rinsed the country for every penny they could take. That's not the bad thing, that's the insult to the injury - and it's not even like for the common man they're being on the take would meaningfully harm him further. The problem is the complete empty headed cruel nonsense, and the Labour response to all of that has appeared to be it's roundly correct in it's approach, just done by crooks and incompetents. That's not a selling point for me - there needs to be wholesale change in policy approach, root and branch a new direction that actually seeks to help people.

We're even already getting the excuses lined up. We had a decade of the Tories telling us they couldn't do anything because Labour had left the coffers empty, which was rubbish. I'm not prepared to hear different ties play the greatest hits of the 2010s.

**** em.

[Wainy316]

11 hours ago, Davkaus said:

Indeed.

I'm at the point of thinking that after the last few years, he's told us repeatedly again and again who he is, and I don't like it. Every time he's said something I like, it's rowed back within months, weeks, or even days.

There are some (a dwindling number, admittedly) who labour under the illusion that he'll win power and rip off the mask to reveal he was the second coming of Saint Corbyn all along, but even if it weren't ludicrously far fetched I'm not sure "he's great, he was lying all along" is a great win.

He's a Cameronesque, "safe pair of hands" (don't mention the referendum) that won't frighten the other side while keeping things ticking along basically like this, but hopefully without so much corruption and incompetence as the current government. The day after that Torygraph article came out, there was some tory donor who said that Starmer was much more open to his ideas than Sunak is.

It's the Greens for me, I think.

I'm of the mind set that those Tory words removed have to be removed and punished under absolutely any circumstances and then worry about the rest later.

I will vote tactically against Tory which could be Labour or Lib Dem, they've traded off second place in my constituency over the last two GEs.

[Seat68]

16 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

I'm of the mind set that those Tory words removed have to be removed and punished under absolutely any circumstances and then worry about the rest later.

I will vote tactically against Tory which could be Labour or Lib Dem, they've traded off second place in my constituency over the last two GEs.

For me its a cat in hells chance of anyone but the Tory, do I go back to Labour on the off chance they might just do it, or vote how I want and the Greens. Lib Dems here have zero chance, but Greens are gathering pace.

[ml1dch]

4 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

For me its a cat in hells chance of anyone but the Tory, do I go back to Labour on the off chance they might just do it, or vote how I want and the Greens. Lib Dems here have zero chance, but Greens are gathering pace.

Which constituency are you in?

[Seat68]

5 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Which constituency are you in?

Stafford, Labour are not the best locally. Dropping candidates in at the last minute, and then when they lose buggering off, we also have a refugee centre opening up in the town, that's gone down well. The MP has been vocally against it so thats helped.

[ml1dch]

7 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Stafford, Labour are not the best locally. Dropping candidates in at the last minute, and then when they lose buggering off, we also have a refugee centre opening up in the town, that's gone down well. The MP has been vocally against it so thats helped.

 

The Electoral Calculus website (not an exact science, I know) seem to think that Labour should take it pretty comfortably.

Quote   Party Predicted Votes Predicted Share LAB 18,126 42.7% CON 13,540 31.9% Reform 3,848 9.1% LIB 3,676 8.7% Green 2,656 6.3% OTH 599 1.4% LAB Majority 4,586 10.8%

[Seat68]

1 minute ago, ml1dch said:

 

The Electoral Calculus website (not an exact science, I know) seem to think that Labour should take it pretty comfortably.

That warms my heart a little, I would still bet on them keeping Stafford though.

[Jareth]

I don't think it's actually too difficult to see what Starmer stands for, he's updating New Labour - a reboot. A bit like when they made a feminist Ghostbusters. 

[blandy]

16 hours ago, Chindie said:

It would be hilarious if he tickles Tory balls so much the weather vane flips and the Labour support suddenly realises 'oh this blokes a word removed' and stays home.

Yeah, ‘cus another Tory government would be well worth the giggles.

[Chindie]

Just now, blandy said:

Yeah, ‘cus another Tory government would be well worth the giggles.

What's good for the goose is good for gander - a number of members were all too happy to stab in the front the party last time round and help get the last 5 years of shit. Why isn't the joke funny when they have it happen to them?

[blandy]

18 minutes ago, Chindie said:

What's good for the goose is good for gander - a number of members were all too happy to stab in the front the party last time round and help get the last 5 years of shit. Why isn't the joke funny when they have it happen to them?

Not sure if you’re seriously asking what it seems you are. If you can find anyone who said “it’d be hilarious if Labour voters finally see Corbyn as utterly unsuitable and stays at home”.

I mean as much as (IMO) he was totally unsuitable to be either a party leader, or even more so PM and Labour voters did stay at home and we did get 5 more years of Tory, absolutely no one suggested that would be or was hilarious either before or after the event.

[Chindie]

10 minutes ago, blandy said:

Not sure if you’re seriously asking what it seems you are. If you can find anyone who said “it’d be hilarious if Labour voters finally see Corbyn as utterly unsuitable and stays at home”.

I mean as much as (IMO) he was totally unsuitable to be either a party leader, or even more so PM and Labour voters did stay at home and we did get 5 more years of Tory, absolutely no one suggested that would be or was hilarious either before or after the event.

You're taking the joke framing as more important than the fundamental point.

A number of Labour members and alleged supporters at the last election decided a Tory victory was better than a Labour one and acted to achieve this - be that actual party figures actively acting against it or 'just staying home'. Now the wing of the party they like is in charge they've decided a Labour government is good again. Is it ok for their counterparts to decide Starmer is no good and act to prevent his winning an election for being too Tory and too much the same old shit? Because it was last time. Last time it was lauded.