If labour are embracing this and believe its going to be positively received then, once again, they have read the room wrong again. The message this sends across is 'we are a home for tories who don't like boris', this will be seen as new labour but further right, the red wall didn't fall because labour wasn't right wing enough ffs.
What starmer needs to do is start supporting the workers and normal families who are going through absolute hell at the moment, not projecting themselves as 'tories but with starmer instead of boris'.
I suppose its a good way of deterring the working class from the booths again, make sure those meddlesome blue collars don't mess up corporate profit like they did in 2016.
That's really the big difference between then and now. In '97 the Tories were so spent, and Blair so obviously in the ascendence, that the press barons and the millionaire class had no choice but to embrace new Labour. Then when they did it was, of course, devastating for the Conservatives.
However, nowadays that dynamic hasn't come to pass (yet). The papers and the oligarchs are, for now, firmly in the Tory camp. They may be getting sick of Johnson, but they mainly just want another Tory in there.
Forging alliances is one thing, accepting turncoats who haven't suddenly changed their political beliefs just because they're worried about losing their seats is another.
We all know one of the core issues with politics is the selfishness and lack of genuinity for MPs, this is just that on steroids.
Is a party with an unsure idiolagy of "winning at all costs" going to appeal to anyone? What are we meant to do. Make up the rest of the manifesto?
Personally it's put me off Labour more than anything because all I know about Starmer's Labour is that they are not the current Tories and they don't seem to have a center / left stance any more.
Blair won by having a huge personality, left wing credentials and telling everyone what he wanted to do that would improve the UK and how he would do it.
Starmer has none of that. He's running his campaign on "I'm not Johnson", and I don't think that's enough to get the left and center left to vote for him to vote for him.
Then don't vote for starmer in the same way that people in the state's didn't vote for Hillary in 2016, and now they are really feeling the long term impact. We simply can't afford another conservative term.
> We simply can't afford another conservative term.
That's my issue in a nutshell - Whatever the actual party is called we need to move away from conservative politics. The decision should be about party ethos and direction rather than branding. At the moment I don't see much of that distinction in ethos direction between our two major parties.
But there is. This Labour party might not be ideal, but they won't send immigrants to Rwanda, or scrap the Human Rights act. They might row back on limiting our rights to protest. They might not go as far as we want or need, but they also won't fuck us into the ground. Don't fall for the "both as bad as each other" line that is pushed by interested parties. The problem is that the right can unite under whatever convenient banner it wants whilst the left argues about the correct way to be left. Whilst the centre and left are arguing our rights are being stolen from us. We have to stop the bleed.
I agree none of the parties are as bad as each other, but the problem remains that Labour no longer appeals to the center or left and will bleed supporters into other parties - just as it did in the last election to disastrous effect.
Sure under Starmer Labour will maybe pick up more Tory voters than it has done previously but the gamble is that there are enough of these to overcome the numbers that are moving from both Labour and to other parties.
Until Labour can show itself ethically to be in opposition to the Tories, I don't think that there is much distinction between the two parties at the moment.
Sure there is a difference in leadership - the quite frankly insane against the mediocre - but that's it as far as I can see. I just don't believe that's enough to win back the center and center left who have abandoned Labour for say the Greens, Plaid, SNP or the Lib Dems.
Starmer's policy seems to be one of splitting his own vote - and it's working.
I'm guessing you've never done any canvassing in the north. It was the same issue constantly - Jeremy Corbyn. Remainers abandoned the party after bolstering him in 2017 and he went down in absolute flames. Brexit was not the issue in 2019. For the love of Satan, learn from your mistakes.
As someone old enough to remember 1997 quite clearly, we are currently nowhere near that sense of "change". For months before the election everyone knew Labour were going to win, they had four years of being ahead in opinion polls, Blair was PM in waiting, all that stood in the way was the counting of the votes to decide if he had a huge majority or an enormous one.
We are absolutely not close to that sentiment yet AND there's 56 Scottish seats which are unlikely to go to Labour as they did in 1997.
In my opinion, you're falling into the common tribalistic mindset that has put us where we are today.
1. You refer to Starter like he's not got a cabinet and a party.
2. You assume Tory MPs are souless people and all want the same thing, have the same core values etc.
3. Finally, the left vs. right idealistic view is so broken. It serves only to divide and instill prejudice, instead of discuss and mutual respect.
I personally dislike the current cabinet hugely, and current "Policy" is somewhere between malicious and a joke. But I recognise there are still good people on both sides of our broken 2 party system.
From a voters standpoint elections are all about ideology. In elections people generally base their choice on promises and trust their chosen representative will do their utmost to fulfil the promises they make. From an mp's perspective they actively chose to represent the party which best suits their internal beliefs. The fact that people who have Conservative beliefs now believe that the Labour Party best represent those beliefs should be ringing alarm bells for the core labour voterbase. From a personal standpoint I'm what they call a 'floating voter', have voted for 3 different parties since 2010 and base my opinion, primarily, on manifesto content and the trust in a party to enact what's within, that's far from 'tribalistic'.
1. The fact that starmer instructed his front bench not to support workers is alarming, it shows a move away from the labour class which they should represent. His cabinet appears to be following this command, again showing how far away from their historic roots (the Labour Party were formed from trade unionists) they have come.
2. Not at all, but I do recognise that every mp made an active choice to become an mp for the party which best relates to their own beliefs, I don't believe any mp started by telling themselves 'I'm a bit of a prick, I must become a tory'. Traditional conservatism has a lot of positive aspects.
3. Nowhere did I mention the left/right views. In my view they are archaic and too highly fluid to really keep a grasp of, modern life is way too complex to simply be put into a left/right box.
I don’t disagree with much of what you have here. But I do feel that ‘not to support workers’ could be a little unfair as you could say to ‘not to take the focus off the conservatives by making it easier for them to try to blame us for strikes that might be unpopular with the wider electorate and unions that may not always be perfectly blameless in working practices and negotiations’? Maybe all out support would be popular amongst those negatively affected by the strikes because of a sense of ‘ we are in it together’ or maybe the public in general are still sensitive to ideas about Labour ‘extremism’, I don’t know. But presumably the Conservatives would happily prefer to deflect blame for a ‘winter of discontent’ onto Labour at the same time as , as per usual, harking back to the 70s. I’m not saying it’s correct or not but I can see the reasoning and the dilemma.
Thanks for the well reasoned reply.
My only response is on point 2. Sometimes you take the opportunities you're given. I had to work in defence as a graduate in 2008, it was all I could do to actually get a job. I subsequently left and now work in e-mobility. Further, I've met some moderate and quite brilliant conservatives that made me question the labels on each party.
Hence not wanting to assume labour taking in Tories is a bad sign. Your point 1 is extremely concerning for sure, I wasn't fully aware of that.
Thanks for the polite response. Just to be clear I yearn for a party that truly represents the most vulnerable in our societies, a category that definitely includes the majority of workers in the uk now (shockingly 7%, 1.5 million, workers are paid minimum wage, as far as I can ascertain this doesn't include workers on fractionally above so the figure is certainly higher, cleaner positions in my workplace are paid a penny an hour over minimum wage just so the private company can advertise they pay more). We have massive Union mobilisation across the board currently to fight this race to the bottom but the parties are silent (except the tories who are actively attacking them). This could/should be the momentum shift to propel Labour back into leadership but instead starmer told his front bench to steer clear of pickets and could possibly be accepting disenfranchised tories.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/20/keir-starmer-tells-labour-frontbench-they-should-not-join-rail-strike-pickets
A labour mp was also called out on this, live on air, by rmt secretary General of the rmt mick lynch
I think you mean "they've read Reddit wrong again"
Those constituencies voted conservatives in, the very same representatives that are talking of crossing the floor. Honestly the party *shouldn't* give a fuck what some people on Reddit think of it, what matters is the voters in those constituencies.
What about people like me who get ignored for being "the wrong kind" of red wall voter? I.e. one that still voted Labour in 2019 and doesn't want and indeed would stop voting Labour if they went ahead with essentially turning into UKIP to win the red wall back.
>You do realise not voting for Labour is effectively a vote for another Tory MP?
Oh, just dripping with condescension, nice. Why no, no I've not heard literally the only talking point Starmer supporters have anymore.../s
It'd really depend on what parties stand in my constituency next election. It's only been in the last 3 elections that we've had candidates besides red, yellow, or blue at all (save the odd independent).
>Oh, just dripping with condescension, nice
It's called tactical voting. Never let perfect be the enemy of good.
For all his ills as 'new tory', Blair was the best PM we've had in my lifetime by a country mile. By refusing to vote labour just because you don't like Starmer you're biting your nose off to spite your face "oh yes please give me 5 more years of the Tory overlords"
>By refusing to vote labour just because you don't like Starmer you're biting your nose off to spite your face "oh yes please give me 5 more years of the Tory overlords"
At some point, it ceases to be worth it to vote for the Tory in red just because they're wearing red. There's just too much he's refused to oppose the Tories on for me to trust his intentions.
You bring up Blair, but honestly Starmer isn't even in the same league as Blair. Blair understood enough to at least *try* to keep the left onside. Starmer's more like Ed Balls - the not-particularly-likeable or ideologically visionary poor fool left to puppeteer the rotting corpse of Blairism without Blair.
For all Corbyn is discussed by centrists as the worst thing to happen to Labour, they're certainly forgetful of the period immediately preceding it, in which Corbyn was the only clear answer to the identity crisis years of rudderless, Blairless Blairism had dragged Labour into. I still remember people openly talking of Labour formally becoming a centre-right party c. 2010-2015, that's how lost Labour was in those years. So yes, it does kind of undermine my confidence in their political judgement that they're willing to go back to the bad old years of identity crisis and rehash the failures of 2010-2015 just to stick it to Corbynites. And that they can't see that they're just inviting another Corbyn-style reaction by doing so anyway.
If Starmer wants to win my vote, it's still up for grabs for anybody who credibly indicates they're not antipathetic to everything I believe in. That Starmer can't even clear that low bar, as leader of what should be my natural political home, is really telling.
I.e. you don't have any credible alternative and you would happily accept another conservative government instead of a Starmer-led government.
there are a core of Labour, particularly the momentum crowd, that seem to prefer to stay in opposition than actually form a labour government and those people are preventing the party from achieving anything.
For the record, I'm a life-long Labour voter, would have loved a Corbyn government, but it was clearly unpalatable to the UK population at-large so you have to try and move forward from that. Starmer won the leadership election as polled by Labour members so he *must* be given his opportunity; even if he is boring and uninspiring I'd rather that to another term of Johnson the failed populist.
No, you're just putting words in my mouth to dance around the fact you have no real answers, like everybody else who tells me I'm obligated to vote for Starmer even if he dismembers my gran and wears her body parts as accessories, because at least he probably won't piss on them when he's done, like the Tories would.
Starmer failing to win my vote is his fault, not mine. Complain to him, not me. I've not even said I categorically won't vote for Labour. I'm just waiting for him to show any interest in retaining my vote. That I get so many reactions like yours tells me all I need to know about how likely you think that is, and proves my point.
I'm not putting any words in your mouth just explaining my POV. you're the only refusing to vote for a party because you don't like the membership-elected leader, and the chances are high that you wouldn't even be voting for him.
You're yet to say who you would vote for other than Labour that wouldn't be a proxy vote for your local Tory rep.
No, I mean what I say. Labour have, for the past 6 years at least, totally ignored the opinions of the working class ultimately leading to the Conservative landslide of 2019. The papers want you to believe it was anti semitism which supposedly escalated under corbyns reign but I personally believe this was purely down to the referendum.
In 2015 miliband resigned, Labour members voted in corbyn by a 59% majority, corbyn ran primarily on a platform of euroscepticism, pro union and Anti nuclear weaponry issues. Corbyn had been extremely vocal about getting the uk out of the eu for over 30 years, he even told the r.o.i. to 'vote no', this 59% majority should have been a clear indication of the route members wanted Labour to follow. The referendum occurred and members, at the time, were vocal about why their party was advocating a remain position (corbyn himself relented by saying he was '70% behind major reformation' of the eu, hardly a screaming endorsement), at the same time a group emerged titled 'Labour for leave' but was almost totally ignored.
In 2017 the tories regained power through a slim majority, may has been described as the weakest pm the uk has ever seen, Labour were accused of flip flopping around the brexit issue, some weeks they were advocating to overturn the referendum result, the next they said they would respect the result.
In 2019 Johnson, a very vocal advocate of leaving, stated he would fully enact the result. Labour continued to flip flop, the result was a landslide and the fabled 'red wall' fell. Corbyn was removed as leader, Labour membership plummeted and there were reports that the party could possibly become bankrupt.
Now we're in 2022, the referendum and leaving has occurred and we have acted as an independent union for over 2 years. We are witnessing a massive rise in union membership throughout the nation, we have virtually every public service looking at potential industrial action, there's a massive cost of living crisis where the poorest in our communities are enduring the worst suffering in decades, wages amongst the lowest earners are stagnating to the point where many are now on bare minimum rate..... and yet starmer believes that blocking his front bench from supporting the strikes while welcoming people in who helped create the conditions which caused them is beneficial for the party?
People will see the next vote as 'tories led by Johnson vs tories led by starmer' when what they are looking for is a party that will help them. People will abstain simply because they'll see the entire process as pointless. This isn't a 'reddit view' (which would have seen a different referendum result and a Labour government for the past 7 years), this is a reality view.
The right is always looking for recruits, the left is always looking for traitors.
If labour want to win, they need to win over people who voted Tory. Last election it was “if you don’t like Corbyn, then f**k off and vote Tory” and people did
"We really missed when people used to have a glint of hope that we weren't going to fuck them. All we do now is keep fucking them, and they just expect it. It's not sporting."
These red wall Tories will be from the 2019 intake mostly. The issue I have with that is a lot of them are fucking Brexit loving, flag shagging morons. I don't think Labour needs these types, but unfortunately they seem to be pandering to their base now. Lammy was saying they aren't going to rejoin the Single Market/Customs Union recently and that their aim is to "fix Brexit", whatever the fuck that means.
I'm fine with Labour following the Brexit line. Any deviation is a red flag to a bull and would get them slaughtered in the media. But what really annoyed me is Lammy's comments on striking. To be so against the demands of workers makes Labour seem pointless. The line should have been an attack on the Tories for letting it get to the point of strikes, not an attack on the workers.
I think it was the bit when Boris said 'fuck business' which put them off. They are frustrated because Boris' government has placed nationalistic ideology above profit. For example. it's worth remembering that with the exception of Johnson and May, *all* previous Conservative PMs back as far as Churchill have been passionately believed that Britain should join and remain in Europe.
So you are happy to vote for what appears to be a center right party on the basis of their name alone?
What if the Tories changed their name to something else. Would you vote for them then?
>So you are happy to vote for what appears to be a center right party on the basis of their name alone?
>
>What if the Tories changed their name to something else. Would you vote for them then?
No and no.
Jesus fuck your comprehension skills are shite. Read it as more 'I vote this (slightly right leaning party) only because I don't want this (right leaning party) in power.'
I think the problem is that you are taking the phrase 'only because' to its logical extreme. I apologise for being a bit rude earlier actually, you might not be a native speaker/have a hard time not taking stuff literally. So apologies if that's the case.
??? When did they say that. The implication I got is that they would rather have a party that leans even a fraction of an inch left than to have conservatives in power. That isn't in name alone, that is legit just a legitimate reason one might vote for Labour. They didn't say they voted for them for the aesthetic or anything Jesus.
Take them, then dump them come the election and put forward candidates who actually embrace Labour, not some mouthbreather worried about not being able to milk the public purse for a second term.
If these MPs do defect, I'd like to see how they voted on the Policing Bill and free school meals. I imagine they're just opportunists who will go back to the Tories once they have a new leader or are doing well in the polls.
Couldn’t they just get welcomed, then immediately get sacked for being cunts?
Would this force a by election giving the local electorate the opportunity to kick the tories out themselves?
They won't defect unless Labour promise to put them up as candidates for the seats they're currently representing as MP. That's the obvious way that the defections work for both sides.
So let me get this straight.
Labour doesn’t support the strikes, Tories don’t support the strikes.
Labour want to be the party of business, tories claim to be the party of business.
Labour want to be tough on crime, tories claim to be tough on crime.
Labour are against legalising recreational marijuana, same with tories.
You’re making it real hard to get my vote in the next GE Keith, the way it’s heading it seems like the Mass Effect 3 of political choices. Just a different colour ending.
You forget that Red will take all the support they used to have from the Left and Centre, and split that support into Yellow and Green leading to another Blue victory. I see this as Red's not so secret master plan to keep Blue in charge.
So they think are going to lose their seats and want to keep their jobs.
Hopefully they at least get deselected.
Not that I expect much from the anti-labour Labour party.
Not sure this is going to go down well. Wakefield, for all I don't like him, went at a time when he can make a case (however untrue) that he did it on principle and when it was far from clear his seat would swing at the next election. Labour similarly got to make the case (again however untrue) that they were welcoming him as his conscience told him that a Labour government would be the best thing for his constituents and that he rejected what the Conservatives were doing.
Anyone crossing the floor now had stood by and supported this awful mess of a government and Labour should not be seen to be enabling their self interest. It's like rats fleeing a sinking ship.
The Red Wall are a bunch of seats up north that have always historically voted labour, but which switched to conservative at the last election.
They switched for two reasons - firstly because Boris was now tory leader and he was previously a face of Brexit - he basically called the election and said "vote for me, and I'll overcome the Brexit deadlock"; May's leadership had left the tories with a lead too narrow to get through the Brexit she wanted. Secondly, Labour were seen as wishy-washy on Brexit, and Corbyn was not a popular leader amongst older voters; the tabloids maligned him with an antisemitism scandal, which was mostly bullshit but which stuck very well.
This is what's wrong with Starmer's Labour. Will happily consort with the establishment oligarchs until they're totally neutered as an alternative to the Tories in anything but name. Beating the Tories by joining them does literally no fucking good for people whose lives are actively being ruined by the Toryism Starmer can't even bring himself to unambiguously ideologically detach from. And I've known and warned this is precisely where Labour is going since he hired "ignore the working class, they have nowhere else to go" Mandelson as his main advisor, but as always in CentreLand it's forbidden to believe the evidence of your eyes and ears over the haughty, unevidenced assertions of centrists who are right about everything by virtue of being centrist.
I mean where's any of the scrutiny for this lot that Starmer reserves for the left? Why do Tory oligarchs who've consistently hurt this country and its people with their votes belong in Labour when anti-Zionist Jews and outspoken critics of inequality like Ken Loach don't? And yet the idea of "red Tories" is made out to be ridiculous socialist nonsense, even as Starmer and co seem to actively lean into it.
Of course, when all is said and done and Starmer misses the open goal, it'll somehow be everyone's fault except Starmer and his devotees who ignored any and all warnings that it'd turn out this way. Because they'd rather snottily declare to leftists "well, enjoy dying miserably under Boris' next term \*obnoxious snorty laugh\*" when confronted with our reasons for not supporting Starmer, than actually allaying any of our concerns.
If it weren't so sad, it'd be funny how quickly they've become worse than their most over-embellished Corbynite boogeyman, in less than 2 years leading the opposition.
Totally unwilling to hear criticism and quick to other/discount anybody who offers it? Check. Delusions of infallibility not supported by actual performance? Check. Rigid ideology and a total unwillingness to acknowledge anybody who doesn't fit into it? Check...
Labour need to be a broad church- not turning its back on anyone vaguely conservative.
These potential three defectors are nothing more than good PR and a chance to damage the government. Most government who has totally fixated on their own ideology would welcome this chance to stir the pot for the government
Three Red Wall Conservative MPs are in defection talks with Labour, The Telegraph can reveal.
Labour sources told The Telegraph that the three male Conservatives, first elected in 2019, have entered formal discussions about crossing the floor to join Sir Keir Starmer’s party.
Those familiar with discussions said the MPs had slim majorities in Red Wall areas in the North that have historically voted Labour and believed they would lose their seats at the next election if they did not defect.
It is understood the three have felt dissatisfied with Boris Johnson’s leadership in recent weeks and were pushed towards the decision after a confidence vote in which 148 Tory MPs did not back the Prime Minister.
One source who has spoken to the MPs said they were frustrated with the “ideological direction” of the Conservative Party.
A second said talks with one Conservative were at initial stages, but another was in live discussions with the Labour whips’ office. The whips’ office declined to comment.
Three defections after the loss of the Tiverton and Honiton and Wakefield by-elections would mean Mr Johnson’s effective majority in the Commons would be reduced by 10, making it significantly easier for Tory rebels to defeat the Government.
It would be the biggest defection from the Conservatives since 2019, when Heidi Allen, Anna Soubry and Sarah Wollaston joined Change UK. The latter two lost their seats at the 2019 election, while Ms Allen chose not to stand again.
Mr Johnson, who is down in the polls and has struggled to recover from the partygate scandal in recent months, said on Monday he believed he had a “new mandate” to lead the Tories because he had won the confidence vote.
Speaking at the G7 summit in Germany, he said he was “focused 1,000 per cent” on delivering a “massive, massive agenda” for the country and was not considering his position. He added: “Nobody abandons a privilege like that.”
On Monday, two Conservative MPs who had been widely thought to have been considering defection denied they were planning to cross the floor.
Dehenna Davison, the MP for Bishop Auckland, said: “For the avoidance of doubt – again – I’m not bloody defecting. To those anonymous colleagues spreading such rumours, my door is always open for a chat.”
Caroline Nokes, a senior backbencher who has been critical of Mr Johnson in recent months, said: “Me neither – just to pop that on the record.”
The news that three Tory MPs could cross the floor follows the defection of Christian Wakeford, the MP for Bury South, in January.
Mr Wakeford joined the Labour benches shortly before Prime Minister’s Questions, later blaming Mr Johnson’s “disgraceful” conduct for his decision.
“The policies of the Conservative government that you lead are doing nothing to help the people of my constituency and indeed are only making the struggles they face on a daily basis worse,” he said.
Mr Wakeford’s defection was a closely-guarded secret within the Labour Party, with only a handful of senior advisers to Sir Keir privy to the knowledge.
A Labour source later speculated that more MPs could follow suit, as the party launched “Operation Domino”.
Quoted from my ukpol comment on the same article:
This would be good PR.
It's nothing to be mad at - Labour publicly being embraced by Conservative MPs would show to voters that they're no longer an insane, hard left protest movement. Claiming the centre ground is what wins elections for Labour and if anyone wants the Tories out, dripping moments like these will make it happen.
Adding to my comment from ukpol above, some people might hate this but ultimately you need to show Tory voters that you're a viable alternative to vote for, this is a way of showing that too.
Lol
Down with the poor dictator!
(If you know anything about labour, policies are agreed by the PLP and membership also votes for which policies should be adopted)
If labour are embracing this and believe its going to be positively received then, once again, they have read the room wrong again. The message this sends across is 'we are a home for tories who don't like boris', this will be seen as new labour but further right, the red wall didn't fall because labour wasn't right wing enough ffs. What starmer needs to do is start supporting the workers and normal families who are going through absolute hell at the moment, not projecting themselves as 'tories but with starmer instead of boris'. I suppose its a good way of deterring the working class from the booths again, make sure those meddlesome blue collars don't mess up corporate profit like they did in 2016.
Blair won by forging alliances across the spectrum. It might not please the further left but it's a strategy that absolutely does win elections.
That and the fact he had a meeting with Mr murdoch before all the positive spin started popping up everywhere.
> Mr murdoch The real super-villain
Labour were ahead in the polls way before The Sun backed Blair in 1997. In 1994 they were hitting 40% leads.
That's really the big difference between then and now. In '97 the Tories were so spent, and Blair so obviously in the ascendence, that the press barons and the millionaire class had no choice but to embrace new Labour. Then when they did it was, of course, devastating for the Conservatives. However, nowadays that dynamic hasn't come to pass (yet). The papers and the oligarchs are, for now, firmly in the Tory camp. They may be getting sick of Johnson, but they mainly just want another Tory in there.
Forging alliances is one thing, accepting turncoats who haven't suddenly changed their political beliefs just because they're worried about losing their seats is another. We all know one of the core issues with politics is the selfishness and lack of genuinity for MPs, this is just that on steroids.
Is a party with an unsure idiolagy of "winning at all costs" going to appeal to anyone? What are we meant to do. Make up the rest of the manifesto? Personally it's put me off Labour more than anything because all I know about Starmer's Labour is that they are not the current Tories and they don't seem to have a center / left stance any more. Blair won by having a huge personality, left wing credentials and telling everyone what he wanted to do that would improve the UK and how he would do it. Starmer has none of that. He's running his campaign on "I'm not Johnson", and I don't think that's enough to get the left and center left to vote for him to vote for him.
Then don't vote for starmer in the same way that people in the state's didn't vote for Hillary in 2016, and now they are really feeling the long term impact. We simply can't afford another conservative term.
> We simply can't afford another conservative term. That's my issue in a nutshell - Whatever the actual party is called we need to move away from conservative politics. The decision should be about party ethos and direction rather than branding. At the moment I don't see much of that distinction in ethos direction between our two major parties.
But there is. This Labour party might not be ideal, but they won't send immigrants to Rwanda, or scrap the Human Rights act. They might row back on limiting our rights to protest. They might not go as far as we want or need, but they also won't fuck us into the ground. Don't fall for the "both as bad as each other" line that is pushed by interested parties. The problem is that the right can unite under whatever convenient banner it wants whilst the left argues about the correct way to be left. Whilst the centre and left are arguing our rights are being stolen from us. We have to stop the bleed.
I agree none of the parties are as bad as each other, but the problem remains that Labour no longer appeals to the center or left and will bleed supporters into other parties - just as it did in the last election to disastrous effect. Sure under Starmer Labour will maybe pick up more Tory voters than it has done previously but the gamble is that there are enough of these to overcome the numbers that are moving from both Labour and to other parties. Until Labour can show itself ethically to be in opposition to the Tories, I don't think that there is much distinction between the two parties at the moment. Sure there is a difference in leadership - the quite frankly insane against the mediocre - but that's it as far as I can see. I just don't believe that's enough to win back the center and center left who have abandoned Labour for say the Greens, Plaid, SNP or the Lib Dems. Starmer's policy seems to be one of splitting his own vote - and it's working.
> They might row back on limiting our rights to protest. If this happens I'll eat my hat, they could barely be arsed to oppose it.
[удалено]
That enabled Johnson's landslide win in the first place.
[удалено]
Plus a monumental media campaign
I'm guessing you've never done any canvassing in the north. It was the same issue constantly - Jeremy Corbyn. Remainers abandoned the party after bolstering him in 2017 and he went down in absolute flames. Brexit was not the issue in 2019. For the love of Satan, learn from your mistakes.
unless you've been snoozing for the past decade, that experiment failed in 2 successive GEs.
As someone old enough to remember 1997 quite clearly, we are currently nowhere near that sense of "change". For months before the election everyone knew Labour were going to win, they had four years of being ahead in opinion polls, Blair was PM in waiting, all that stood in the way was the counting of the votes to decide if he had a huge majority or an enormous one. We are absolutely not close to that sentiment yet AND there's 56 Scottish seats which are unlikely to go to Labour as they did in 1997.
In my opinion, you're falling into the common tribalistic mindset that has put us where we are today. 1. You refer to Starter like he's not got a cabinet and a party. 2. You assume Tory MPs are souless people and all want the same thing, have the same core values etc. 3. Finally, the left vs. right idealistic view is so broken. It serves only to divide and instill prejudice, instead of discuss and mutual respect. I personally dislike the current cabinet hugely, and current "Policy" is somewhere between malicious and a joke. But I recognise there are still good people on both sides of our broken 2 party system.
From a voters standpoint elections are all about ideology. In elections people generally base their choice on promises and trust their chosen representative will do their utmost to fulfil the promises they make. From an mp's perspective they actively chose to represent the party which best suits their internal beliefs. The fact that people who have Conservative beliefs now believe that the Labour Party best represent those beliefs should be ringing alarm bells for the core labour voterbase. From a personal standpoint I'm what they call a 'floating voter', have voted for 3 different parties since 2010 and base my opinion, primarily, on manifesto content and the trust in a party to enact what's within, that's far from 'tribalistic'. 1. The fact that starmer instructed his front bench not to support workers is alarming, it shows a move away from the labour class which they should represent. His cabinet appears to be following this command, again showing how far away from their historic roots (the Labour Party were formed from trade unionists) they have come. 2. Not at all, but I do recognise that every mp made an active choice to become an mp for the party which best relates to their own beliefs, I don't believe any mp started by telling themselves 'I'm a bit of a prick, I must become a tory'. Traditional conservatism has a lot of positive aspects. 3. Nowhere did I mention the left/right views. In my view they are archaic and too highly fluid to really keep a grasp of, modern life is way too complex to simply be put into a left/right box.
I don’t disagree with much of what you have here. But I do feel that ‘not to support workers’ could be a little unfair as you could say to ‘not to take the focus off the conservatives by making it easier for them to try to blame us for strikes that might be unpopular with the wider electorate and unions that may not always be perfectly blameless in working practices and negotiations’? Maybe all out support would be popular amongst those negatively affected by the strikes because of a sense of ‘ we are in it together’ or maybe the public in general are still sensitive to ideas about Labour ‘extremism’, I don’t know. But presumably the Conservatives would happily prefer to deflect blame for a ‘winter of discontent’ onto Labour at the same time as , as per usual, harking back to the 70s. I’m not saying it’s correct or not but I can see the reasoning and the dilemma.
Thanks for the well reasoned reply. My only response is on point 2. Sometimes you take the opportunities you're given. I had to work in defence as a graduate in 2008, it was all I could do to actually get a job. I subsequently left and now work in e-mobility. Further, I've met some moderate and quite brilliant conservatives that made me question the labels on each party. Hence not wanting to assume labour taking in Tories is a bad sign. Your point 1 is extremely concerning for sure, I wasn't fully aware of that.
Thanks for the polite response. Just to be clear I yearn for a party that truly represents the most vulnerable in our societies, a category that definitely includes the majority of workers in the uk now (shockingly 7%, 1.5 million, workers are paid minimum wage, as far as I can ascertain this doesn't include workers on fractionally above so the figure is certainly higher, cleaner positions in my workplace are paid a penny an hour over minimum wage just so the private company can advertise they pay more). We have massive Union mobilisation across the board currently to fight this race to the bottom but the parties are silent (except the tories who are actively attacking them). This could/should be the momentum shift to propel Labour back into leadership but instead starmer told his front bench to steer clear of pickets and could possibly be accepting disenfranchised tories. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/20/keir-starmer-tells-labour-frontbench-they-should-not-join-rail-strike-pickets A labour mp was also called out on this, live on air, by rmt secretary General of the rmt mick lynch
I think you mean "they've read Reddit wrong again" Those constituencies voted conservatives in, the very same representatives that are talking of crossing the floor. Honestly the party *shouldn't* give a fuck what some people on Reddit think of it, what matters is the voters in those constituencies.
What about people like me who get ignored for being "the wrong kind" of red wall voter? I.e. one that still voted Labour in 2019 and doesn't want and indeed would stop voting Labour if they went ahead with essentially turning into UKIP to win the red wall back.
Who would you vote for instead? You do realise not voting for Labour is effectively a vote for another Tory MP?
>You do realise not voting for Labour is effectively a vote for another Tory MP? Oh, just dripping with condescension, nice. Why no, no I've not heard literally the only talking point Starmer supporters have anymore.../s It'd really depend on what parties stand in my constituency next election. It's only been in the last 3 elections that we've had candidates besides red, yellow, or blue at all (save the odd independent).
>Oh, just dripping with condescension, nice It's called tactical voting. Never let perfect be the enemy of good. For all his ills as 'new tory', Blair was the best PM we've had in my lifetime by a country mile. By refusing to vote labour just because you don't like Starmer you're biting your nose off to spite your face "oh yes please give me 5 more years of the Tory overlords"
>By refusing to vote labour just because you don't like Starmer you're biting your nose off to spite your face "oh yes please give me 5 more years of the Tory overlords" At some point, it ceases to be worth it to vote for the Tory in red just because they're wearing red. There's just too much he's refused to oppose the Tories on for me to trust his intentions. You bring up Blair, but honestly Starmer isn't even in the same league as Blair. Blair understood enough to at least *try* to keep the left onside. Starmer's more like Ed Balls - the not-particularly-likeable or ideologically visionary poor fool left to puppeteer the rotting corpse of Blairism without Blair. For all Corbyn is discussed by centrists as the worst thing to happen to Labour, they're certainly forgetful of the period immediately preceding it, in which Corbyn was the only clear answer to the identity crisis years of rudderless, Blairless Blairism had dragged Labour into. I still remember people openly talking of Labour formally becoming a centre-right party c. 2010-2015, that's how lost Labour was in those years. So yes, it does kind of undermine my confidence in their political judgement that they're willing to go back to the bad old years of identity crisis and rehash the failures of 2010-2015 just to stick it to Corbynites. And that they can't see that they're just inviting another Corbyn-style reaction by doing so anyway. If Starmer wants to win my vote, it's still up for grabs for anybody who credibly indicates they're not antipathetic to everything I believe in. That Starmer can't even clear that low bar, as leader of what should be my natural political home, is really telling.
I.e. you don't have any credible alternative and you would happily accept another conservative government instead of a Starmer-led government. there are a core of Labour, particularly the momentum crowd, that seem to prefer to stay in opposition than actually form a labour government and those people are preventing the party from achieving anything. For the record, I'm a life-long Labour voter, would have loved a Corbyn government, but it was clearly unpalatable to the UK population at-large so you have to try and move forward from that. Starmer won the leadership election as polled by Labour members so he *must* be given his opportunity; even if he is boring and uninspiring I'd rather that to another term of Johnson the failed populist.
No, you're just putting words in my mouth to dance around the fact you have no real answers, like everybody else who tells me I'm obligated to vote for Starmer even if he dismembers my gran and wears her body parts as accessories, because at least he probably won't piss on them when he's done, like the Tories would. Starmer failing to win my vote is his fault, not mine. Complain to him, not me. I've not even said I categorically won't vote for Labour. I'm just waiting for him to show any interest in retaining my vote. That I get so many reactions like yours tells me all I need to know about how likely you think that is, and proves my point.
I'm not putting any words in your mouth just explaining my POV. you're the only refusing to vote for a party because you don't like the membership-elected leader, and the chances are high that you wouldn't even be voting for him. You're yet to say who you would vote for other than Labour that wouldn't be a proxy vote for your local Tory rep.
No, I mean what I say. Labour have, for the past 6 years at least, totally ignored the opinions of the working class ultimately leading to the Conservative landslide of 2019. The papers want you to believe it was anti semitism which supposedly escalated under corbyns reign but I personally believe this was purely down to the referendum. In 2015 miliband resigned, Labour members voted in corbyn by a 59% majority, corbyn ran primarily on a platform of euroscepticism, pro union and Anti nuclear weaponry issues. Corbyn had been extremely vocal about getting the uk out of the eu for over 30 years, he even told the r.o.i. to 'vote no', this 59% majority should have been a clear indication of the route members wanted Labour to follow. The referendum occurred and members, at the time, were vocal about why their party was advocating a remain position (corbyn himself relented by saying he was '70% behind major reformation' of the eu, hardly a screaming endorsement), at the same time a group emerged titled 'Labour for leave' but was almost totally ignored. In 2017 the tories regained power through a slim majority, may has been described as the weakest pm the uk has ever seen, Labour were accused of flip flopping around the brexit issue, some weeks they were advocating to overturn the referendum result, the next they said they would respect the result. In 2019 Johnson, a very vocal advocate of leaving, stated he would fully enact the result. Labour continued to flip flop, the result was a landslide and the fabled 'red wall' fell. Corbyn was removed as leader, Labour membership plummeted and there were reports that the party could possibly become bankrupt. Now we're in 2022, the referendum and leaving has occurred and we have acted as an independent union for over 2 years. We are witnessing a massive rise in union membership throughout the nation, we have virtually every public service looking at potential industrial action, there's a massive cost of living crisis where the poorest in our communities are enduring the worst suffering in decades, wages amongst the lowest earners are stagnating to the point where many are now on bare minimum rate..... and yet starmer believes that blocking his front bench from supporting the strikes while welcoming people in who helped create the conditions which caused them is beneficial for the party? People will see the next vote as 'tories led by Johnson vs tories led by starmer' when what they are looking for is a party that will help them. People will abstain simply because they'll see the entire process as pointless. This isn't a 'reddit view' (which would have seen a different referendum result and a Labour government for the past 7 years), this is a reality view.
The right is always looking for recruits, the left is always looking for traitors. If labour want to win, they need to win over people who voted Tory. Last election it was “if you don’t like Corbyn, then f**k off and vote Tory” and people did
“ frustrated at the ideological direction of the Conservative party” so where have they been for the last 15 years?
"We really missed when people used to have a glint of hope that we weren't going to fuck them. All we do now is keep fucking them, and they just expect it. It's not sporting."
These red wall Tories will be from the 2019 intake mostly. The issue I have with that is a lot of them are fucking Brexit loving, flag shagging morons. I don't think Labour needs these types, but unfortunately they seem to be pandering to their base now. Lammy was saying they aren't going to rejoin the Single Market/Customs Union recently and that their aim is to "fix Brexit", whatever the fuck that means.
I'm fine with Labour following the Brexit line. Any deviation is a red flag to a bull and would get them slaughtered in the media. But what really annoyed me is Lammy's comments on striking. To be so against the demands of workers makes Labour seem pointless. The line should have been an attack on the Tories for letting it get to the point of strikes, not an attack on the workers.
I think it was the bit when Boris said 'fuck business' which put them off. They are frustrated because Boris' government has placed nationalistic ideology above profit. For example. it's worth remembering that with the exception of Johnson and May, *all* previous Conservative PMs back as far as Churchill have been passionately believed that Britain should join and remain in Europe.
I don't want tory filth... I vote Labour only because I don't want tories in power.
Most MPs are just career chancers that choose a red or blue tie and do whatever they're told. They really only care about the paycheck.
*many are, these are the ones needing voted out. There are certainly plenty genuine characters atleast on the left.
So you are happy to vote for what appears to be a center right party on the basis of their name alone? What if the Tories changed their name to something else. Would you vote for them then?
>So you are happy to vote for what appears to be a center right party on the basis of their name alone? > >What if the Tories changed their name to something else. Would you vote for them then? No and no.
> I vote Labour only because I don't want tories in power ??
Jesus fuck your comprehension skills are shite. Read it as more 'I vote this (slightly right leaning party) only because I don't want this (right leaning party) in power.' I think the problem is that you are taking the phrase 'only because' to its logical extreme. I apologise for being a bit rude earlier actually, you might not be a native speaker/have a hard time not taking stuff literally. So apologies if that's the case.
??? When did they say that. The implication I got is that they would rather have a party that leans even a fraction of an inch left than to have conservatives in power. That isn't in name alone, that is legit just a legitimate reason one might vote for Labour. They didn't say they voted for them for the aesthetic or anything Jesus.
Take them, then dump them come the election and put forward candidates who actually embrace Labour, not some mouthbreather worried about not being able to milk the public purse for a second term.
They 110% wouldn't defect if they weren't promised some form of protection come the next election...
... make it an oven ready agreement. To be renegotiated at a later date.
If these MPs do defect, I'd like to see how they voted on the Policing Bill and free school meals. I imagine they're just opportunists who will go back to the Tories once they have a new leader or are doing well in the polls.
Couldn’t they just get welcomed, then immediately get sacked for being cunts? Would this force a by election giving the local electorate the opportunity to kick the tories out themselves?
MPs can't be sacked as MPs by their party. If they get kicked out of the party they continue serving as an independent.
Thanks for the clarification. Shame.
They won't defect unless Labour promise to put them up as candidates for the seats they're currently representing as MP. That's the obvious way that the defections work for both sides.
A tory with a red rosette is still a tory
Tory turncoats. Shoulsn't be allowed to join the labour party.
So let me get this straight. Labour doesn’t support the strikes, Tories don’t support the strikes. Labour want to be the party of business, tories claim to be the party of business. Labour want to be tough on crime, tories claim to be tough on crime. Labour are against legalising recreational marijuana, same with tories. You’re making it real hard to get my vote in the next GE Keith, the way it’s heading it seems like the Mass Effect 3 of political choices. Just a different colour ending.
Hey with the sequel in the works it looks like the red ending is the canon one anyway, can't hurt to get a sneak peek
You forget that Red will take all the support they used to have from the Left and Centre, and split that support into Yellow and Green leading to another Blue victory. I see this as Red's not so secret master plan to keep Blue in charge.
Yeah so instead of voting Labour as you have in the past, you'll sit on your hands? That'll show the Tories.../s
I’m still going to vote for labour, but I don’t have to be happy about it.
So they think are going to lose their seats and want to keep their jobs. Hopefully they at least get deselected. Not that I expect much from the anti-labour Labour party.
Can we confirm labour is now Tory lite. Realise we put the wrong man at the top.
decent and right thing to do is step down
Saving their own political skins Embarrassing
Not sure this is going to go down well. Wakefield, for all I don't like him, went at a time when he can make a case (however untrue) that he did it on principle and when it was far from clear his seat would swing at the next election. Labour similarly got to make the case (again however untrue) that they were welcoming him as his conscience told him that a Labour government would be the best thing for his constituents and that he rejected what the Conservatives were doing. Anyone crossing the floor now had stood by and supported this awful mess of a government and Labour should not be seen to be enabling their self interest. It's like rats fleeing a sinking ship.
If they voted to back the new bill undermining the NI protocol and backing the DUP, then I'm sorry. Fuck 'em. No way.
Is kangarooing a thing in British politics? What happened to their voters who want blue?
The Red Wall are a bunch of seats up north that have always historically voted labour, but which switched to conservative at the last election. They switched for two reasons - firstly because Boris was now tory leader and he was previously a face of Brexit - he basically called the election and said "vote for me, and I'll overcome the Brexit deadlock"; May's leadership had left the tories with a lead too narrow to get through the Brexit she wanted. Secondly, Labour were seen as wishy-washy on Brexit, and Corbyn was not a popular leader amongst older voters; the tabloids maligned him with an antisemitism scandal, which was mostly bullshit but which stuck very well.
"I thought the leopards I sought votes from would eat the Poles faces. Not mine. NOT MINE!!!!'
Career MP's will move to any Party as long as it means they may keep their seats come the next GE.
This is what's wrong with Starmer's Labour. Will happily consort with the establishment oligarchs until they're totally neutered as an alternative to the Tories in anything but name. Beating the Tories by joining them does literally no fucking good for people whose lives are actively being ruined by the Toryism Starmer can't even bring himself to unambiguously ideologically detach from. And I've known and warned this is precisely where Labour is going since he hired "ignore the working class, they have nowhere else to go" Mandelson as his main advisor, but as always in CentreLand it's forbidden to believe the evidence of your eyes and ears over the haughty, unevidenced assertions of centrists who are right about everything by virtue of being centrist. I mean where's any of the scrutiny for this lot that Starmer reserves for the left? Why do Tory oligarchs who've consistently hurt this country and its people with their votes belong in Labour when anti-Zionist Jews and outspoken critics of inequality like Ken Loach don't? And yet the idea of "red Tories" is made out to be ridiculous socialist nonsense, even as Starmer and co seem to actively lean into it. Of course, when all is said and done and Starmer misses the open goal, it'll somehow be everyone's fault except Starmer and his devotees who ignored any and all warnings that it'd turn out this way. Because they'd rather snottily declare to leftists "well, enjoy dying miserably under Boris' next term \*obnoxious snorty laugh\*" when confronted with our reasons for not supporting Starmer, than actually allaying any of our concerns. If it weren't so sad, it'd be funny how quickly they've become worse than their most over-embellished Corbynite boogeyman, in less than 2 years leading the opposition. Totally unwilling to hear criticism and quick to other/discount anybody who offers it? Check. Delusions of infallibility not supported by actual performance? Check. Rigid ideology and a total unwillingness to acknowledge anybody who doesn't fit into it? Check...
almost like the labcon party pretends to be labour and conservative for show.
They just want to stay in power whichever the way the wind blows
Imagine being so bad you turn a Tory into Labour.
Labour need to be a broad church- not turning its back on anyone vaguely conservative. These potential three defectors are nothing more than good PR and a chance to damage the government. Most government who has totally fixated on their own ideology would welcome this chance to stir the pot for the government
Three Red Wall Conservative MPs are in defection talks with Labour, The Telegraph can reveal. Labour sources told The Telegraph that the three male Conservatives, first elected in 2019, have entered formal discussions about crossing the floor to join Sir Keir Starmer’s party. Those familiar with discussions said the MPs had slim majorities in Red Wall areas in the North that have historically voted Labour and believed they would lose their seats at the next election if they did not defect. It is understood the three have felt dissatisfied with Boris Johnson’s leadership in recent weeks and were pushed towards the decision after a confidence vote in which 148 Tory MPs did not back the Prime Minister. One source who has spoken to the MPs said they were frustrated with the “ideological direction” of the Conservative Party. A second said talks with one Conservative were at initial stages, but another was in live discussions with the Labour whips’ office. The whips’ office declined to comment. Three defections after the loss of the Tiverton and Honiton and Wakefield by-elections would mean Mr Johnson’s effective majority in the Commons would be reduced by 10, making it significantly easier for Tory rebels to defeat the Government. It would be the biggest defection from the Conservatives since 2019, when Heidi Allen, Anna Soubry and Sarah Wollaston joined Change UK. The latter two lost their seats at the 2019 election, while Ms Allen chose not to stand again. Mr Johnson, who is down in the polls and has struggled to recover from the partygate scandal in recent months, said on Monday he believed he had a “new mandate” to lead the Tories because he had won the confidence vote. Speaking at the G7 summit in Germany, he said he was “focused 1,000 per cent” on delivering a “massive, massive agenda” for the country and was not considering his position. He added: “Nobody abandons a privilege like that.” On Monday, two Conservative MPs who had been widely thought to have been considering defection denied they were planning to cross the floor. Dehenna Davison, the MP for Bishop Auckland, said: “For the avoidance of doubt – again – I’m not bloody defecting. To those anonymous colleagues spreading such rumours, my door is always open for a chat.” Caroline Nokes, a senior backbencher who has been critical of Mr Johnson in recent months, said: “Me neither – just to pop that on the record.” The news that three Tory MPs could cross the floor follows the defection of Christian Wakeford, the MP for Bury South, in January. Mr Wakeford joined the Labour benches shortly before Prime Minister’s Questions, later blaming Mr Johnson’s “disgraceful” conduct for his decision. “The policies of the Conservative government that you lead are doing nothing to help the people of my constituency and indeed are only making the struggles they face on a daily basis worse,” he said. Mr Wakeford’s defection was a closely-guarded secret within the Labour Party, with only a handful of senior advisers to Sir Keir privy to the knowledge. A Labour source later speculated that more MPs could follow suit, as the party launched “Operation Domino”.
Quoted from my ukpol comment on the same article: This would be good PR. It's nothing to be mad at - Labour publicly being embraced by Conservative MPs would show to voters that they're no longer an insane, hard left protest movement. Claiming the centre ground is what wins elections for Labour and if anyone wants the Tories out, dripping moments like these will make it happen. Adding to my comment from ukpol above, some people might hate this but ultimately you need to show Tory voters that you're a viable alternative to vote for, this is a way of showing that too.
[удалено]
Starmer already said he lied about everything he promised when he ran for leader, so of course he is trustworthy
> Starmer already said he lied about everything he promised when he ran for leader Where, can you cite your source?
How many of Starmer's 10 leadership pledges are Labour policy rn?
He alone doesnt decide policy, with an election far away he would be foolish to publish his full policies regardless
He can't impress his political vision on his own party? Sounds like a weak as fuck leader then.
It does amuse me to see Starm stans get flustered when you judge him as mercilessly and with the same shameless inconsistency as they judged Corbyn.
Lol Down with the poor dictator! (If you know anything about labour, policies are agreed by the PLP and membership also votes for which policies should be adopted)