Muttley
Well-known member
Couldn't put it better.
Keir Starmer - FoM now a red-line
- Thread starter Scrote
- Start date
SmallTown
Well-known member
Compared to pretty much everyone. We take in far fewer refugees, for example than so many countries.
Also, I hate to break it to you but we've always been a reasonably populace nation. Despite this, we aren't even in the TOP FIFTY of countries by population density. So you see the issue: You claim to be arguing with facts. but you really aren't are you? You're arguing with the bigoted, and nasty narrative that Immigrants = bad in this country. I for one, don't mind workforces increasing and income from tax going up.
ThePrisoner
Well-known member
Except that he had a US Green Card while a member of Parliament. He was beholden to a foreign power and promising to take up permanent residence there while being a member of the UK Parliament. This is treachery.
Sorry , but why are you basing our immigration on the number of refugees we take in ? You can still have high levels of immigration but low refugee intake
I’m not suggesting otherwise . I’m arguing to what extent the amount of people the island can hold . High density can lead to : loss of habitats , more pollution , more traffic , less greenery , more land needed for farming , more land needed for houses . I also don’t think it’s acceptable to just keep increasing the population number because we aren’t in the top 50 for population density either
To base how good something is based on the sheer volume of tax and wealth it generates is remarkably Tory of you . If we’re serious about fighting global warming we can’t just keep taking in more people who will demand even more resources of the island
ThePrisoner
Well-known member
You what? They took in a million refugees a few years ago!
His wife held both a US green card and UK non-dom status. The green card required a commitment to remain a permanent US resident. My understanding of her non-dom status is that it was based on a commitment to eventually reside in India to look after her parents. I am unable to reconcile both statements. Why do HMRC appear uninterested in this?
SmallTown
Well-known member
That last bit makes no sense at all. Maybe you want to have a look at what the “global” means in global warming.
The rest of it is just typical government approved bigotry isn’t it: immigrants, coming here, stealing our jobs etc…
I don't find it strange at all. The overwhelming need to finally eject the Tories becomes more and more compelling with each subsequent election. As a Labour member I would be overjoyed for us to be in an anti-Tory coalition with other parties (which might hopefully usher in PR), but people throwing away votes on parties guaranteed to lose out of 'principle', where that vote could have been used to unseat a Tory, is unconscionable for me. You have to see the wood for the trees.
Andy_W
Well-known member
I find it mad how some supposed labour supporters would think Starmer, or more rightly labour under his leadership would be anything like under the worst tories, never mind the bunch we’ve had since Cameron/ brexit.
Have they ever voted for a Labour PM, and if so do they think the Tory alternative would have done better? How did the following Tory in power compare?
Where do they rank Starmer on this list of some notable Tories, which I’ll call worst to least bad:
JRM
Dorries
Patel
Truss
BJ
Hancock
Sunak
Cameron
Jesus, even John Major is going to town on this bunch of clowns, at any chance he gets, fair play to him. The last guy to beat a Tory to take power back was Blair, and that was 25 years ago, who beat major (the one who seems reasonable compared to the current clowns). Where does Blair and Major come on that list?
How many of the above would do better than Starmer on the areas mentioned for the 10 pledges, seeing as both sides will still end up having to discuss these issues pre election and for the manifestos, and will have to do something during the next term(s).
We need to get real, pushing for left polices is great in normal times (providing you have a chance of winning, otherwise it’s pointless), but since brexit a cess pit was opened up, and the only way to get the keys to no 10 back is by getting dirty. Of all the times ever, this next election is not the one to take any risk PRE ELECTION. It’s crap, but it’s reality, and brexit, immigration, FOM is the hottest of hot potato’s.
When the tide starts to turn, and things calm down, then maybe bring in even more, but you can only risk this when you have the keys in hand, and have a good buffer. Otherwise you end up out the door, and you get the very worst of practically everything, usually for at least a decade.
It’s not a negotiation, it’s all or nothing, and we need to be on the side that is guaranteed all, even if all of what we get, isn’t quite all of what we want.
Have they ever voted for a Labour PM, and if so do they think the Tory alternative would have done better? How did the following Tory in power compare?
Where do they rank Starmer on this list of some notable Tories, which I’ll call worst to least bad:
JRM
Dorries
Patel
Truss
BJ
Hancock
Sunak
Cameron
Jesus, even John Major is going to town on this bunch of clowns, at any chance he gets, fair play to him. The last guy to beat a Tory to take power back was Blair, and that was 25 years ago, who beat major (the one who seems reasonable compared to the current clowns). Where does Blair and Major come on that list?
How many of the above would do better than Starmer on the areas mentioned for the 10 pledges, seeing as both sides will still end up having to discuss these issues pre election and for the manifestos, and will have to do something during the next term(s).
We need to get real, pushing for left polices is great in normal times (providing you have a chance of winning, otherwise it’s pointless), but since brexit a cess pit was opened up, and the only way to get the keys to no 10 back is by getting dirty. Of all the times ever, this next election is not the one to take any risk PRE ELECTION. It’s crap, but it’s reality, and brexit, immigration, FOM is the hottest of hot potato’s.
When the tide starts to turn, and things calm down, then maybe bring in even more, but you can only risk this when you have the keys in hand, and have a good buffer. Otherwise you end up out the door, and you get the very worst of practically everything, usually for at least a decade.
It’s not a negotiation, it’s all or nothing, and we need to be on the side that is guaranteed all, even if all of what we get, isn’t quite all of what we want.
Last edited:
ForssAwakens
Well-known member
I would actually vote green if they could win. We need pr more than ever
This
Andy_W
Well-known member
Sometimes immediate future is more important than long term future, especially to the least well off (core labour voters). If you don’t survive the short term, why would they care about the long term? Priorities change. If your house is frozen and you had no money for food, you wouldn’t be too concerned about the sea level rising, they see that as a problem for another day. The best way to get these people out of that situation is to get the tories out, which Starmer is trying to do. Once we’re stable then can certainly push green policy on.
Playing on a motorway, the most economically crucial one, at the worst time for the most worse off, in recent history, is not the best way to go about things. Why not just peacefully protest, without the major upheaval and damage?
This is coming from someone who has an EV and Solar. The opportunity is there for the public, if they want it, but to get the longer term benefit and cost savings, it requires more outlay initially, which most don’t have. I’m 100% for energy independence, and from green sources, but it’s not practical anytime soon, largely as we don’t have the labour to build it, and the energy storage problem has not been solved yet. We’re going to need a gas stop gap, to replace the Russian losses. Even though we don’t rely too much on Russia, the whole market is linked. Oil use is coming down, and this will accelerate with the emergence of EV’s.
The Uk is cutting emissions quite quickly, but we need to be realistic that what we do here, is a drop in the ocean compared to the major emitters who are not slowing down, and we’ve got zero sway over them. Sad state of affairs.
Chris_Boro
Well-known member
There's the right way to protest and the wrong way to protest. Doing so in manner that could cause a pile up on a motorway or block emergency services is definitely the wrong way.
If they continue with this and someone gets killed then everything they protest for will be for nothing.
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
I agree, people are getting tired of ’stupid’ politics now when they have to get to work to pay bills, mortgages and feed kids.
Starmer needs to be on the side of the majority, Labour have been dragged back for decades by minority groups (some posting on this thread). You don’t win elections by being dragged down by minority groups.
Scrote
Well-known member
Unless those minority groups are right-wing in which case you'll appease them and burn the left??
Labour have a choice. They can embrace the slightly less fundamental right-wingers or they can work with the left. The two are incompatible though.
It's a political choice (and it's already been made by Starmer & Co. in case people haven't been paying attention).
So how do you overcome that without accepting reality? The media will spin for the Tories no matter what happens in the short term. Giving the Tories an easy win is foolish. Brief ministers on very specific economic lines and only answer questions with those points. The Tories do it all the time. Why do Labour have to capitulate and embrace right-wing economic policy that they (presumably) don't believe in?
It made me despair when folk with essentially the same Left Leaning politics didn't unite behind the Party just when there was an upsurge in support and a real opportunity for change. The right has been imploding for a decade or more. It isn't new. Why am I always being asked to compromise? I've just seen a perfectly good opportunity for real change dismissed by the people now asking for my unwavering support.
It was compelling, to me at least, at the last election.
Define "normal times". All you're saying here is don't rock the boat and be happy for scraps. We had a sea-worthy vessel full of supplies a few years ago. What happened to "It's not a negotiation" then?
ForssAwakens
Well-known member
when it comes to fptp there has to be a compromise to your politics. They’ll be no party that will ever fit you perfectly
Corbyn is about as close to a list of politics that best fit me as a person, I think he was successful in 2017, made a mistake on brexit in 2019
That ship has sailed. This country is on it backside, at the moment what are the most important things facing this country:
Nhs/healthcare
People on welfare
Wages
Economic growth
Starmer’s Labour are currently the best people to deal with that. Although his politics don’t align to mine, he will make the poorer better than they are today (although won’t go far enough) and as someone with socialist values that has to be choice, even if isnt that palatable
festa5
Well-known member
me too. I think a lot of people would and that theyd do surprisingly well.
Cardiffdaffs
Well-known member
Me too but they are lacking a leader with a big voice and character to galvanise the younger vote.
Wiseman_Vaughn
Well-known member
People will vote Labour to get the Tories out, not because they neccessarily agree with any of their policies. This highlights the short comings of our current voting system. People should be voting for the party and policies that they believe in but if they do, it's generally a wasted vote.
festa5
Well-known member
Yeah probably. Although any leader will have the same challenge currently, they just don't get the same media coverage as the main parties (and in recent years, UKIP for some reason).