UK Politics
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
view the rest of the comments
And this is why Starmer isn't being 'bolder', for those of us who were wondering.
The rapid expansion of ULEZ to the suburbs is a bold policy. Everyone knew it would be controversial but Khan went for it anyway because it has already been shown to be highly effective (London's air quality has improved faster than anyone thought possible since the earlier expansions of ULEZ).
The result of this unequivocally sensible policy? Of a politician taking bold but effective steps to improve public health and quality of life? Labour lose a winnable seat.
Politics isn't fair. Starmer knows it.
Good points. There is far too much concern about focus groups and "what the public want" and not enough leadership. Preventing self harm should be applauded by the silent majority, not perpetuated by the selfish few..
Shall we also mention the swing? From a fairly good majority of 7,200 in a constituency that been very Tory even in its previous boundaries going to a majority of 495 votes after a recount that is not a resounding victory for the tories but a close escape.
I saw some people pointing out that Uxbridge has a big university and all the students have just gone home for the summer. We shouldn't put too much emphasis on hypotheticals but it genuinely could've swung the by-election for Labour if it had been held during term time.
Students couldn't possibly vote by post. They couldn't possibly!
Fair point. Like I said, we shouldn't put too much on hypotheticals.
Don't students vote in their home constituencies, not the ones where they study?
They can choose either!
Up to them where they want to register (unless it's changed since I were a lad)
You can actually register in both, which is useful for local elections where you can vote in both. But in a general election, you can only vote in one. I assume that you can vote in any byelections.
Or maybe all those Tory voters in uxbridge thought, maybe I want a Tory instead of low fat Tory?
No one thinks like that because it makes no sense. Even if someone already thinks Starmer is a 'low fat Tory', they would then have to say to themselves:
'I'm not so sure about the Tories, so I think I'll go 100% Tory instead of slightly Tory, that makes sense.'
We already know why they didn't vote Labour: it was ULEZ. We don't need to come up with these incoherent fan theories which involve people not being able to follow their own thoughts from one end of a sentence to the other.
We don't really know exactly why, we know the Tory candidate says it was ULEZ so I'm inclined to believe it was something else tbh with you.
Starmer is a low fat Tory, he's got no intention of reversing any of their shady policies, much less chance of improving things with a move to PR for example. I wanted him to begin with because I thought he might offer a backbone on Brexit but he;s been shite on that as well. I've given him a chance to see what he is, and I don't like it, he's shite. I'll vote LD tbh, because I'm in a safe seat anyway and I just can't bring myself to do it.
Not just the Tory candidate, but the Labour candidate, the Labour leader, the Labour deputy leader, every journalist, and also every pollster and focus group. That's enough evidence for me. It certainly beats out your theory which you have, frankly, just imagined.
The current Lib Dem leader was actually a Cabinet member in a Tory-led government, so I'm not sure who you're calling Tory lite, tbh. I'm going to vote for the party that always makes the country better whenever they get into government and I think you should, too, rather than getting distracted by media management.
Pollster and focus group? I've not seen any such evidence.
It seems my guess is as good as any bodies really, and I can certainly imagine there are others who are revolted by the way Labour has been going on.
Fair point about Davey, and in fairness I've no idea what they are even about now they are so irrelevant.
I'd like to believe Labour will do that, I just don't.
I mean, to pick two from opposite sides of the aisle, Luke Tryl has said Ulez was the big issue and so has James Johnson. Your 'guess' is as good as anybody's; however, your guess is not as good as actual evidence.
I'm going to take Labour's 100% track record at making the country better over any amount of pessimism. If they implement even a single policy that they've promised, that will be an improvement on the current situation!
Sorry but, I actually remember the Labour years and this is massively over simplifying.
They actually encouraged and made worse a lot of problems we are dealing with now, things like housing and starting an illegal war.
That aside, we are talking about a different labour to the one from 15+ years ago and the things Keir is saying are not very encouraging and I don't support a party, I vote for policy so that's why I take a dim view of what I'm hearing.
Might they be marginally better, maybe, I used to believe that but I'm sorry he's lost me. I know you and Kier will say that the proof is in the polling, and that might be true but I think with how god-awful this last decade has been it should be even better than that.
I am sick to fuck of pandering to old boomer fucks in marginal constituencies. You probably got that tho right?
I didn't say Labour was perfect, I said they made things better. And they did. For example, they didn't spend enough on building new housing, it's true, but they did massively improve the remaining council housing stock. You can't expect them to fix everything and it's quite safe to blame the Tories for the continued failure: they paused or scrapped a lot of new council building belatedly started by Labour, for example.
Labour's current pledge to reform planning rules to allow more housebuilding (and actually more building generally, including onshore wind) will go some way to fixing that problem. If those reforms are effective, they'll lead to greater economic growth and Labour will then be able to spend and invest more in other areas. That's the plan.
None of that will happen if they don't get elected. That's the bit you're calling 'pandering' and I'm calling 'media management'. Allowing yourself to get distracted by the marketing, which I'm afraid is what you're doing, instead of the substance, is a mistake.
I don't but I do expect them to grapple the big issues, like our broken electoral system (and the media and it's ownership for that matter) and climate change, I'd like them to actually redistribute all the wealth in this country i.e take it off the billionaires and aristocrats and companies that are hoarding wealth.
It won't, it is faffing about at the edges, we need to stop anybody who isn't resident here owning property and we need taxes on multiple ownership as well as a mass social house building program.
I know, and I personally think is cowardly as fuck.
Make your case and bring people with you is the way to actually gain support, all he is doing is playing the same old FPTP game. With no intention of reforming it.
I know I know perfect enemy of good and whatever, but I think he's shite, I'm very disappointed.
None of what you're saying makes the slightest sense. You're advocating for a bunch of policies proposed by no parties and with no popular support and then saying you're going to vote Lib Dem? It's totally incoherent. You started out complaining about Tory voters voting Tory. How will you persuade those Tory voters to vote for your dystopian daydream?
The party that comes closest to what you say you want is Labour. The cowardly thing for them to do would be to pretend that everything's just great, that we can all just cross our fingers and wish the Tories away. They're actually out there trying to win the votes they need to make things better.
How doesn't it make sense, those are policies I would like to see, that a lot of voters would like to see actually.
Yeah no shit mate, that's exactly the problem.
So what? I've voted LD in the past because they have had more progressive policy and they support PR voting reform unlike Labour they actually implement as policy objectives the things their members vote for, unlike Keir who just ignores his party on issues like PR. Yeah Daveys not inspiring, but neither is Keith.
No it isn't, I just laid out for you the kind of policy I want and Labour are a million miles away in Tory land.
Isn't that exactly what he's doing? Crossing his fingers and having power handed to him by default because the Tories are hated and the voting system is shit? That's what it seems like to me.
They are trying to won votes, but HOW are they going to make things better? Are they going to do anything about those major issues I mentioned?
Because all I've heard from fucking Keith is Tory talking points about growth and tough on crime and it makes me want to fucking vomit.
You know if he said he was going to be tough on Tory criminals and criminal wealth hoarders like the Royal family.. I could get on board with that, but we all know what that shit is about it'll be 'anti social behaviour' and cracking down on poor people smoking weed and shit.
Edit :
Also, I know this is youtube comments but I just came across this, just take a look at the comments under Starmers interview here it's remarkable how similar in general they are to what I am saying and there's LOADS of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcPqLVUQn4c
As I have already explained, Labour's plan is to raise taxes on the rich (through abolishing non-dom status and VAT exemption for private schools) and to invest that money in building green infrastructure and housing, while reforming planning to make that happen. Starmer says this stuff all the time but you've instead opted to get your news from YouTube comments.
As for the Lib Dems, doing what their members ask, I have two words: tuiton fees.
It's not nearly enough none of that actually fixes anything it's again just faffing at the edges and I don't believe he won't u-turn the second the Daily Heil throws a headline at him.
What you need to realise is that there's a growing number of people feel the same, we are sick of this shit.
Yeah, a fucking Labour policy in the first place.
You've obviously decided to vote Lib Dem regardless of reality, so I'm not sure there's any point continuing this discussion.
What we've established is that the Lib Dems and Labour have the same vices, as enumerated by you, but that Labour have the policies closest to your own. If you think that's a reason to vote Lib Dem, I guess that's your right. As for me, I'm going to vote for the party most likely to do the kinds of things that we both want: Labour.
I haven't decided anything yet, there's a long time until the election.
Maybe Keith will be toppled and Ed Miliband will come in and start saying things I like, and then I'll change my mind.
Well I have listened to your points, I did some research on the ULEZ thing and I just don't think that's the reason they lost this by-election. the current state of things Labour should be walking that and I don't believe ULEZ explains it, most people won't have to pay anything for ULEZ it's a total non issue.
I mean, they support PR don't they?
They always have and they've never played politics with the issue, same for the SNP. I'd vote for that even if I didn't like their other policies.
If I thought they were going to do the things I think we agree need doing, then I would agree, but I don't trust them and I definitely don't trust Keith.
I should say, I quite liked what he had to say about Brexit and things before he became leader and in fact he was my prefered choice for leader (not that I get a vote as I am not a member of any party and I wouldn't last 5 mins in Labour with all their rules anyway) , I am judging him based on what I've seen.
The trouble is, there is no party that really is offering the radical change we needed 20 years ago. At least voting for a PR party we can maybe get that done and maybe in 5 - 10 more years we can start getting some actual good policy.
I'd be quite interested to know why it is you have as much faith in Starmer as you do?