Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Danishfurniturelover]

Voted for the winning guy for the first time on a long time.

Do I get a slice of cake or at least a biscuit. I like custard creams, I like custard. I like to pour it over my balls when I'm in the bath

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

No doubt Its a difficult game going forward for any new PM, the state of the country, big numerous issues and a bank account that is way overdrawn.

Normally people gravitate towards image, the personality (whether they admit that or not, hey much of SM is built in that) when weighing up a potential leader BUT Starmer doesn't have that, but he is an antidote to what has been dished up in recent years. He has a good head on his shoulders, is intelligent (whoop whoop), has empathy, and imo sincere in his commitment and openess.

Whether the system chews him up, or even his own party, who knows? I hope not. Sometimes you need a quieter, less dramatic, solid intelligent person that I'm sure can just get on with the fudging job if not distracted by the various political gonad*s.

If he fails I'm voting for Larry the cat next time...anyone that can laze around asleep, zen like, in front of the intense glare of a 1000 hacks obviously has his head (and priorities )sorted out.

 

[monkeybarry]

Are there 5-6m silly people?...easily imo.

They're disaffected, I get it. But they're vulnerable to dog whistling and false reasoning and misdirection on why the country, and by continuation, their lives look as they do.

With modern channels and the algorithms of the world, one (eg Reform) can press their buttons in quick order, using the language of blame and offering nothing but sound bites of a future that's solely based on divisiveness.

I have a real issue with this position - and it's one we should have already learned to better understand after Brexit.

5-6m people is a very large part of the country. Their views shouldn't be dismissed, irrespective of what they voted for, or why. It's horribly arrogant and elitist; democracy is here to represent everyone, not "everyone unless it's a bit uncomfortable". And most politics is about selling an ideal and a headline.

Reform got more votes than the LD's - are we calling LD voters stupid because they were sold a vote by a man bungee jumping?

Reform got double the number of votes, but the same number of seats, as the Greens. Are the Greens worth double because it's "the right thing"?

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

You can still get into parliament as a guest of your mp, which is an amazing experience for anyone.

Cameron would need to bump off someone to get a by-election first. No good for the immediate vacancy (unless he feeds Osborne enough cocaine and sets him on a really urgent mission)

There are enough stooges to step aside with the promise of directorships or consultancy jobs.

 

[monkeybarry]

The people I know from those towns happen to be quite racist and angry at the amount of immigrants dropped on their door steps

14% of a vote spread over the whole of the UK just shows that there isn’t a majority of people who want them in power. It’s a spread and could easily be skewed by every towns very own racist dingdongheads

There isn't majority, no.
But 4m votes, from an electorate of appx 47m - that's almost 1:10 people in the country. That's a lot of people. It's more than think the LDs are better; it's double the Greens support.

The 14% spread shows the limitation of FPP, not a lack of desire for a certain ethos.

It's uncomfortable - but we shouldn't ignore it.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Eh, Democracy does represent everyone?

It doesn't make me uncomfortable, I just don't agree with what they think (tbh what they've been told to think), and that's normal, that's life...opposing views.

It's not elitist or arrogant....it's an observation. They're gullible and can't think for themselves.... perfect for the self serving 'leaders' to mule for their own gain.

There's no good in this, it's based on negativity and divisiveness. Look at Trump and the MAGA disciples, literally some of them are deranged. Do I think that because they're different to me, possibly BUT I'm not being divisive myself, just recognizing when someone or something looks dangerous and of no benefit to humanity. (goes beyond politics)

 

[P.D.]

The risk is you continue to ignore minority parties and they only get louder until one day they or their cause are no longer a minority. Look at France and the Netherlands for example. Even Denmark went hardline on immigration to appease the right. Similarly they might get outflanked on the left by the greens in the future.

I feel like this is last chance saloon for a government to actually get something done, big enough majority to pass whatever he likes at least.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

There isn't majority, no.
But 4m votes, from an electorate of appx 47m - that's almost 1:10 people in the country. That's a lot of people. It's more than think the LDs are better; it's double the Greens support.

The 14% spread shows the limitation of FPP, not a lack of desire for a certain ethos.

It's uncomfortable - but we shouldn't ignore it.

Id be more interested if that represented the whole country
I think it’s reflection just of the way the angry people vote

 

[Rorschach]

Eh, Democracy does represent everyone?

It doesn't make me uncomfortable, I just don't agree with what they think (tbh what they've been told to think), and that's normal, that's life...opposing views.

It's not elitist or arrogant....it's an observation. They're gullible and can't think for themselves.... perfect for the self serving 'leaders' to mule for their own gain.

There's no good in this, it's based on negativity and divisiveness. Look at Trump and the MAGA disciples, literally some of them are deranged. Do I think that because they're different to me, possibly BUT I'm not being divisive myself, just recognizing when someone or something looks dangerous and of no benefit to humanity. (goes beyond politics)

Labour could defang the refugee/asylum seeker issue with a few fairly straightforward changes. Accepting refugees and aslyum seekers needs to be decoupled from the wider immigration discussion IMO. The right have full control of the narrative around this and have successfully conflated the two. And actually the story about immigration is that it is a net good to the UK, and you need immigrants to make the country function both now and even more so in the future, but those key points are buried under talk about Rwanda and small boats. Labour needs to change the soundtrack here.

 

[P.D.]

Labour could defang the refugee/asylum seeker issue with a few fairly straightforward changes. Accepting refugees and aslyum seekers needs to be decoupled from the wider immigration discussion IMO. The right have full control of the narrative around this and have successfully conflated the two. And actually the story about immigration is that it is a net good to the UK, and you need immigrants to make the country function both now and even more so in the future, but those key points are buried under talk about Rwanda and small boats. Labour needs to change the record here.

I agree but I think it's gone to far here now, too many people are convinced it needs to drastically come down and I don't think they're going to be persuaded otherwise. Starmer also hasn't sought to make that argument at any point either, he's mostly sided with bringing it down.

 

[monkeybarry]

Eh, Democracy does represent everyone?

It doesn't make me uncomfortable, I just don't agree with what they think (tbh what they've been told to think), and that's normal, that's life...opposing views.

It's not elitist or arrogant....it's an observation. They're gullible and can't think for themselves.... perfect for the self serving 'leaders' to mule for their own gain.

There's no good in this, it's based on negativity and divisiveness. Look at Trump and the MAGA disciples, literally some of them are deranged. Do I think that because they're different to me, possibly BUT I'm not being divisive myself, just recognizing when someone or something looks dangerous and of no benefit to humanity. (goes beyond politics)

Hate to break it to you, that is incredibly elitist.
You've made judgements about how and why they voted a certain way.
It's absolutely fine to disagree with their views - but it's not ok to dismiss them, irrespective of what or why they voted a certain way.

Re: the last paragraph - I agree with the basis of it; but that doesn't stop it's existence, and therefore it's right to exist within our politics. Anything outside of that is a step backwards towards disenfranchisement of voting rights.

 

[glasgowspur]

Id be more interested if that represented the whole country
I think it’s reflection just of the way the angry people vote

There will be a lot of frustrated voters who have put their cross next to reform because neither Labour, tory or lib Dems are listening to them.
And it's not to do with immigration.
A significant amount of the country are feeling ignored by government at every level, from local government, devolved admistartions to the national government.
Has the SNP lost all those seats because of immigration, no it's because we feel like they're not listening to the voters.
Farage was too scared to even come up to Scotland, they put up a lot of paper candidates and yet they exceeded the expectations of everyone in Scotland.
Why, because people wanted to make a statement.

 

[Jurgen the German]

The risk is you continue to ignore minority parties and they only get louder until one day they or their cause are no longer a minority. Look at France and the Netherlands for example. Even Denmark went hardline on immigration to appease the right. Similarly they might get outflanked on the left by the greens in the future.

I feel like this is last chance saloon for a government to actually get something done, big enough majority to pass whatever he likes at least.

Was going to post something similar but you already eloquently beat me to it. We absolutely need immigrants but there also needs to be a serious conversation about how many is too many. We have the space for more people, space for new houses etc, that’s not the issue, it’s resources. And as you said, it’s not just an issue in this country, a lot of western democracies like USA, France etc have similar issues.

 

[Rorschach]

I agree but I think it's gone to far here now, too many people are convinced it needs to drastically come down and I don't think they're going to be persuaded otherwise. Starmer also hasn't sought to make that argument at any point either, he's mostly sided with bringing it down.

The genie is never going back in the bottle but the noise can be turned down considerably. For example the government could process the asylum claims backlog or set up a processing centre in France (as they offered). IMO is also good politics as it is reform and indeed the tory's main wedge issue.

As for Starmer. I am unconvinced by the man to date if not outright disappointed by a lot of his stances. The argument made that the best approach is to keep your head down until elected may be true but I am more of the opinion that these are his genuine opinions. I hope I am wrong because being a less brick version of the tories will wear thin soon enough. Anyway I'll judge him on his performance rather than his rhetoric.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Labour could defang the refugee/asylum seeker issue with a few fairly straightforward changes. Accepting refugees and aslyum seekers needs to be decoupled from the wider immigration discussion IMO. The right have full control of the narrative around this and have successfully conflated the two. And actually the story about immigration is that it is a net good to the UK, and you need immigrants to make the country function both now and even more so in the future, but those key points are buried under talk about Rwanda and small boats. Labour needs to change the soundtrack here.

Not often I agree with you and I don't think I ever have on immigration but I do today.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

There will be a lot of frustrated voters who have put their cross next to reform because neither Labour, tory or lib Dems are listening to them.
And it's not to do with immigration.
A significant amount of the country are feeling ignored by government at every level, from local government, devolved admistartions to the national government.
Has the SNP lost all those seats because of immigration, no it's because we feel like they're not listening to the voters.
Farage was too scared to even come up to Scotland, they put up a lot of paper candidates and yet they exceeded the expectations of everyone in Scotland.
Why, because people wanted to make a statement.

I voted leave and know a lot of people that did. Immigration was like 4th or 5th on list of reasons to vote leave.

Your right to say it is more then just immigration that people protest vote.

 

[glasgowspur]

I voted leave and know a lot of people that did. Immigration was like 4th or 5th on list of reasons to vote leave.

Your right to say it is more then just immigration that people protest vote.

People are realising that's it's the same poo they all serve up, just in a different coloured wrapper.
Being the new kid on the block Reform don't have that baggage, yet. They will soon enough.

 

[Rorschach]

Was going to post something similar but you already eloquently beat me to it. We absolutely need immigrants but there also needs to be a serious conversation about how many is too many. We have the space for more people, space for new houses etc, that’s not the issue, it’s resources. And as you said, it’s not just an issue in this country, a lot of western democracies like USA, France etc have similar issues.

There is a limit, no doubt, but the UK is nowhere near it. The ratio of workers to pensioners is going the wrong way for the UK. 4 to 1 in the 80s , now about 3 to 1 and moving fast towards 2 to 1. That means less services (resources?) rather than more. As I mentioned above Labour need to retell this story.

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

More surprising than the Reform vote to me was the number of independent wins for pro Gaza candidates

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

There is a limit, no doubt, but the UK is nowhere near it. The ratio of workers to pensioners is going the wrong way for the UK. 4 to 1 in the 80s , now about 3 to 1 and moving fast towards 2 to 1. That means less services (resources?) rather than more. As I mentioned above Labour need to retell this story.

Don't worry many us old farts will soon be gone, lots of us before our multi postponed hospital appointments, so a double whammy.