Starmer Next Labour Leader

[Bilo]

Take a look at Angela Merkel's approval ratings. 

[Mike Oxlong]

6 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

It's looking very grim for the Tories, only being on 47% and only having a 12 point lead in this one poll.

Exciting times for Labour though, up 3% from the GE in December as opposed to the Tories who are, ummmm, up 3 1/2 % from the GE.

Truly astonishing times.

Meanwhile, there continue to be those who don’t think it would be a good thing for the country to have a decent opposition and a credible alternative 

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Meanwhile, there continue to be those who don’t think it would be a good thing for the country to have a decent opposition and a credible alternative 

Who has actually said that? 

 

A good opposition is always welcome, it brings better scrutiny and more importantly, better governance. 

[Mike Oxlong]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

Who has actually said that? 

 

A good opposition is always welcome, it brings better scrutiny and more importantly, better governance. 

The second part is what I’m getting at. A decent opposition should actually improve the performance of those who are governing as well as offering choice and providing greater accountability 

 

As to “who has actually said that” well no one in such stark terms obviously. 
 

But it doesn’t take too much interpretation to draw the conclusion from some posts/posters to come to that conclusion and also that some are getting twitchy about what is no more than a good start by Starmer

 

The post which I responded to is mocking a small gain by Labour and setting it against a greater gain for the Conservatives. I don’t have a clue who I’ll vote for at the next election but I really do hope that Labour make significant improvements in opposition 

[SecretPro]

3 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

The second part is what I’m getting at. A decent opposition should actually improve the performance of those who are governing as well as offering choice and providing greater accountability 

 

As to “who has actually said that” well no one in such stark terms obviously. 
 

But it doesn’t take too much interpretation to draw the conclusion from some posts/posters to come to that conclusion and also that some are getting twitchy about what is no more than a good start by Starmer

 

The post which I responded to is mocking a small gain by Labour and setting it against a greater gain for the Conservatives. I don’t have a clue who I’ll vote for at the next election but I really do hope that Labour make significant improvements in opposition 

Some people are certainly set in their ways - seems to be an age/lifestyle/cultural/wealth thing for sure. I've voted for both parties over the years, but actually voting for the party with the best qualities/policies is something a large chunk of the population seem unprepared to do.

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Some people are certainly set in their ways - seems to be an age/lifestyle/cultural/wealth thing for sure. I've voted for both parties over the years, but actually voting for the party with the best qualities/policies is something a large chunk of the population seem unprepared to do.

Do you think maybe that that's what people believe they're doing when they vote the way they do? 

[SecretPro]

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Do you think maybe that that's what people believe they're doing when they vote the way they do? 

Here is the issue. It might be what people believe they are doing, but it's more a question of why they believe that. It would be ridiculous to assume that everyone who votes does so on a well rounded, well informed basis. IE the boomers who vote without a second thought for the future of the planet or the generations to follow because they've lived their best life and couldn't give a toss, or those right wingers who have been brainwashed by ultra right parents or media banging on about immigrants stealing 'our' jobs etc.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, SecretPro said:

Here is the issue. It might be what people believe they are doing, but it's more a question of why they believe that. It would be ridiculous to assume that everyone who votes does so on a well rounded, well informed basis. IE the boomers who vote without a second thought for the future of the planet or the generations to follow because they've lived their best life and couldn't give a toss, or those right wingers who have been brainwashed by ultra right parents or media banging on about immigrants stealing 'our' jobs etc.

I see, there's only 1 truth, your opinion, and anyone who disagrees has been brain washed? Fair enough. 

[SecretPro]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I see, there's only 1 truth, your opinion, and anyone who disagrees has been brain washed? Fair enough. 

Sure, take my post out of context if you want. I couldn've give a monkeys.

 

I'm saying it happens in all walks of life, all voting ages, all backgrounds. It's just a fact of voting. If you truly believe everybody votes for the right party for the right reasons without any underlying bias going on then you are deluded. Has nothing to do with my opinion one iota.

Edited 19 May 2020 by SecretPro

[Webbo]

Just now, SecretPro said:

Sure, take me post out of context if you want. I couldn've give a monkeys.

 

I'm saying it happens in all walks of life, all voting ages, all backgrounds. It's just a fact of voting. If you truly believe everybody votes for the right party for the right reasons without any underlying bias going on then you are deluded. Has nothing to do with my opinion one iota.

We all have underlying biases, even you. 

[SecretPro]

Just now, Webbo said:

We all have underlying biases, even you. 

Obviously. I'm not denying that. But those biases havn't stopped me voting for multiple different parties over the years. Clearly what I'm saying is that some people will always vote for the same party, regardless of the actual politics. Others will vote based on who their parents and peers vote for rather than looking at the actual policies/politics. It's a given in any voting system.

[Dahnsouff]

37 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Here is the issue. It might be what people believe they are doing, but it's more a question of why they believe that. It would be ridiculous to assume that everyone who votes does so on a well rounded, well informed basis. IE the boomers who vote without a second thought for the future of the planet or the generations to follow because they've lived their best life and couldn't give a toss, or those right wingers who have been brainwashed by ultra right parents or media banging on about immigrants stealing 'our' jobs etc.

You are surely being ironic? 

 

Anyway, I retract the question, seems it has been done to death.

Edited 19 May 2020 by Dahnsouff

[Mike Oxlong]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

Do you think maybe that that's what people believe they're doing when they vote the way they do? 

Of course some do and for others it’s just ingrained - the my family has always voted for x or y therefore approach 

 

Brexit shifted that dynamic at the last election where many leave supporters couldn’t bring themselves to vote Labour 

 

 Informed decision making has to be based on effective scrutiny of government and when it Is lacking due to ineffective opposition or by those in power avoiding access to the media then democracy suffers

 

49 minutes ago, Webbo said:

We all have underlying biases, even you. 

 I agree that you do 

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Of course some do and for others it’s just ingrained - the my family has always voted for x or y therefore approach 

 

Brexit shifted that dynamic at the last election where many leave supporters couldn’t bring themselves to vote Labour 

 

 Informed decision making has to be based on effective scrutiny of government and when it Is lacking due to ineffective opposition or by those in power avoiding access to the media then democracy suffers

 

 I agree that you do 

I'm trying to avoid anything party political, so I'm not going into anything specific. It's the people won't vote for who'll do the best job. As if you'd think the party you were going to vote for were going to do a bad job but you'd vote for them anyway. You can't actually disagree with someone unless you've been brainwashed. It's extremely conceited. 

 

Nobody has opinions that they think are wrong or they'd think something else. I disagree with a lot of people but I'm not that arrogant to think if they were a bit cleverer they'd agree with me. 

[SecretPro]

1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said:

You are surely being ironic? 

It's not ironic. I have my own biases, granted. Everybody does. But some people rely wholly on those biases whilst others pay more attention to policy and are willing to change opinion/voting intention. In this thread we've established that Starmer, though it is early days, is looking like the most credible leader of the Labour party in a decade and yet there are posters that will simply mock/take the piss at every opportunity because the thought of 'voting labour' pains them, and dare I say it, vice versa. That's fine, voting will always be this way. In much the same way that most voters will try and vote for what they perceive is the best deal for them on a personal level, rather than for society as a whole, which is fine. Humans are a selfish species. We all do it. Whilst there is a two party system it's always going to be a 'my side are better than your side' argument and everything is washed down, even in the commons, to petty back and fourth arguments.

 

For instance, I've voted for different parties at different points in my life and I've always tried to do so with a mix of my best interests, the countries best interests, taking into account policy etc. I'd rather not vote based on a politicians 'character' but in modern times this has become a big thing, probably the biggest, to a large percentage of voters. Again, I'm guilty of this in some respects as the majority of others are, but this isn't good for politics.

 

If I voted with my heart rather than my head then I wouldn't vote for either Labour or Tory, but the nature of the system dictates that I should vote for one or the other if I actually want anything to get done and compromise where necessary. It's counterintuitive to what I've already said because this means I'm not voting purely on 'policy' but then you have to take into consideration the chances of realistic success and this is where the critical thinking comes in and not letting biases take over etc. I'm a conservation ecologist by trade - my life revolves around natural history and the environment. I'm educated enough to know that in the grand scheme of things brexit, corona etc mean very little, they are superficial (as disrespectful as that may sound), in terms of the bigger picture. Now that should mean that the thread on here 'Gardening and Wildlife' would be my go-to thread when I log on - it isn't, in fact it's the opposite, because whenever I take a look I realise the majority of people in that thread know very little about nature, ecology, biodiversity and how every ounce of it has an immeasurable impact on our lives. That's not me being rude to the people on that thread - I don't know anything about cars, or James Bond etc, but if I extrapolate the opinions on that thread to the wider population then it becomes clear (and it is clear, from my line of work) ecology ranks very low in public concern and more importantly understanding. Thus in much the same way that the 'gardening and wildlife' thread is not my go-to place, the party that I want to vote for isn't my go-to party because voting that way isn't going to achieve anyting. This is disheartening, massively, but that's politics. In the words of Aldo Leopold "One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise".

 

When it is so obvious how complex voting and making the right decision is, it then irks when people water it down to an 'us or them' and take every opportunity to mock or belittle the 'other side' because people are so set in their ways rather than being prepared to stand back, see the wider picture, accept failures along with successes, show appreciation, share ideas, broaden horizons, change opinions...I just don't get the need right now for the mindset of 'I'm a Tory' or 'I'm Labour' and that's all that matters. I've certainly been guilty of it, in fact I was a total arse in the run up the GE because of various frustrations that have built up over time, both in a personal context and a wider one. I was probably very horrible to @MattP amongst others, I probably got sucked into lots of petty argument and debate and mud-slinging. BUT it wasn't that long ago that I myself voted Tory. Even so, it's time to accept that things need to change and I just hope more people use critical thinking to try and achieve a greater good rather than stick to old party lines, loyalties and pre-conceived ideas/influences. Whoever you vote for, having Starmer around looks to be a good thing for politics in general. Surely the better our politicians the better our politics. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Having said all that. I'd rather vote for a turd than a Tory again. (I'm joshing)

[Dahnsouff]

17 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

-- loads of sensible stuff, but seems like he is leaning left, so I redacted it ---

 

Having said all that. I'd rather vote for a turd than a Tory again. (I'm joshing)

Fair play, nicely put, and agree that we all face a challenge to shake off our own biases, to leave behind the many assumptions and generational preferences we inherit and nurture ourselves.

I too have voted for many differing parties over my voting eligible lifetime, not all of which I can look back on with any level of pride, but we as individuals are products of so many things, some of which are reactionary, some are more thoughtful.

As stated before, I feel a strong opposition is always required and it is negligence when the party in opposition is not considered viable.

Now we begin to see the start of what looks to be such a viable opposition and that cannot be anything but great for the country.

 

Edited 19 May 2020 by Dahnsouff

[Mike Oxlong]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I'm trying to avoid anything party political, so I'm not going into anything specific. It's the people won't vote for who'll do the best job. As if you'd think the party you were going to vote for were going to do a bad job but you'd vote for them anyway. You can't actually disagree with someone unless you've been brainwashed. It's extremely conceited. 

 

Nobody has opinions that they think are wrong or they'd think something else. I disagree with a lot of people but I'm not that arrogant to think if they were a bit cleverer they'd agree with me. 

Interesting references to conceit and arrogance. Quite clearly there are people who have voted in an habitual way according to their roots or family tradition. Others will vote for the same party time after time because it fits with their fundamental viewpoint (eg taxation v spending) although the lines between the two main parties appear to be much closer now than previously. Others will vote on their assessment of the specific performance of a party at a given time. There are those who will listen to a wide range of debate and analysis and others who will vote largely according to what they read in the Sun or the Guardian. 

 

Personally, I find it hard to conceive how anyone could think that Corbyn would have made a good PM. Yet millions still voted for him to become leader of the nation. 

 

Going back to your response to Secret Pro you asked whether he thought people think that they are voting for the best policies/qualities when they cast their ballot. I’m sure they do but the basis of that belief is variable. To inform my belief I want effective opposition and proper scrutiny. If I thought that Boris was going to be give us 50,000 more nurses that would be a credit in the balance sheet as to whether I would vote for him. But if I thought that he was misleading the electorate that would be entirely different 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-tories-new-nurses-promise-50000-31000-a9237676.html

 

Scrutiny won’t change the mind of many voters as to who they’d vote for and their vote has exactly the same value as mine. However, to act as a check and balance on government and to inform my own voting intentions I wish it was far better than has been the case.

[Strokes]

2 hours ago, SecretPro said:

Obviously. I'm not denying that. But those biases havn't stopped me voting for multiple different parties over the years. Clearly what I'm saying is that some people will always vote for the same party, regardless of the actual politics. Others will vote based on who their parents and peers vote for rather than looking at the actual policies/politics. It's a given in any voting system.

So, I’m interested.

If you can remember, when did you vote different from Labour, who did you vote for? And why did you think they would be better and ultimately, do you now with hindsight think you made the right choice?

 

Its not a trick or a set up, genuinely interested in it. 
Apart from spoiling ballots, I’ve never not voted conservatives in a GE but I’m open to it.

Edited 19 May 2020 by Strokes

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

Yeah its happening all over the world, look at the terrible press Moon Jae-in is getting, the bastard.

Thought I'd leave a harder target for the detractors to debunk...

[Webbo]

52 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Interesting references to conceit and arrogance. Quite clearly there are people who have voted in an habitual way according to their roots or family tradition. Others will vote for the same party time after time because it fits with their fundamental viewpoint (eg taxation v spending) although the lines between the two main parties appear to be much closer now than previously. Others will vote on their assessment of the specific performance of a party at a given time. There are those who will listen to a wide range of debate and analysis and others who will vote largely according to what they read in the Sun or the Guardian. 

 

Personally, I find it hard to conceive how anyone could think that Corbyn would have made a good PM. Yet millions still voted for him to become leader of the nation. 

 

Going back to your response to Secret Pro you asked whether he thought people think that they are voting for the best policies/qualities when they cast their ballot. I’m sure they do but the basis of that belief is variable. To inform my belief I want effective opposition and proper scrutiny. If I thought that Boris was going to be give us 50,000 more nurses that would be a credit in the balance sheet as to whether I would vote for him. But if I thought that he was misleading the electorate that would be entirely different 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-tories-new-nurses-promise-50000-31000-a9237676.html

 

Scrutiny won’t change the mind of many voters as to who they’d vote for and their vote has exactly the same value as mine. However, to act as a check and balance on government and to inform my own voting intentions I wish it was far better than has been the case.

I vote Conservative because I believe in small govt and the freedom of the individual. There's never going to be a time when Labour are the better option for that. Does that mean I agree with everything this govt does? No. Am I sometimes disappointed with them? Often. 

 

There are people with the opposite instincts to me, govt knows best collectivism, they tend to vote Labour and if that's what they believe, good luck to them. I wouldn't say they were stupid, evil or brainwashed. They just have a different POV. 

[Mike Oxlong]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I vote Conservative because I believe in small govt and the freedom of the individual. There's never going to be a time when Labour are the better option for that. Does that mean I agree with everything this govt does? No. Am I sometimes disappointed with them? Often. 

 

There are people with the opposite instincts to me, govt knows best collectivism, they tend to vote Labour and if that's what they believe, good luck to them. I I wouldn't say they were stupid, evil or brainwashed. They just have a different POV. 

Who has ? 

 

Has anyone mentioned any of these things other than you ? 
 

Do you wish to see an effective opposition and the government held to account or not ? 

[SecretPro]

7 minutes ago, Strokes said:

So, I’m interested.

If you can remember, when did you vote different from Labour, who did you vote for? And why did you think they would be better and ultimately, do you now with hindsight think you made the right choice?

 

Its not a trick or a set up, genuinely interested in it. 
Apart from spoiling ballots, I’ve never not voted conservatives in a GE but I’m open to it.

Sure.

 

I voted Cameron in. I was at a stage in life where I had become disillusioned with Labour, especially at the back end of Blair and then Browns reign. As far as I could tell at the time, Labour were doing nothing for young (ish) working class and I felt they were rewarding laziness with welfare (the biggoted views of my peers/elders fed into this and I lacked critical thinking). The perception that they had spent all the money and ruined the economy which was widely peddled at the time (and still is) definitely played a part. They were simply not paying attention to many of the things that were important to me at the time. Voting Conservative had always been a bit unpallatable in our family (how times change, let me tell thee) but I saw that Cameron was a lot more left-leaning or at least centrist than what I had been used to with the Tories. His grasp of environmental matters was (seemingly) better and though I was well on the way to understanding ecological and enviornmental concepts, my view of the 'countryside' and 'rural' affairs at the time was different to what it is now. His 'fairer society' campaign rang true with me too. I was swept along with a lot of false hope and promises, naivety in the run-up to a GE when I was already in a disillusioned state. I knew I wasn't voting for Labour but at the same time it didn't feel like I was voting out-and-out Conservatism. It was a strange one, and I look back at that time with a fair amount of regret and disbelief.

 

I made the wrong choice for obvious reasons now. To be fair though, I didn't particularly mind Cameron as a person. He and the cabinet then seemed of a better ilc than it is now, in terms of professionalism and skill. There were some major things that went wrong in the end for me, Brexit being the main one, and May pushing through the snoopers charter unchallenged whilst the world was busy watching ebola. (I thought May was a good home sec actually, but a terrible PM). The reduction in funding, staff and a watered down remit to Natural England (which is pretty much crippled now, in a time when we need a good environmental bodies most) was also a big one for me. 

 

I generally don't like the current crop. As people, as politicians. I think there is a lack of skill and nouse in the cabinet now, and it's fair to say I don't rate Boris one iota.

 

But all that doesn't mean times won't change and I won't vote conservative again. I'm happy to admit errors and embarassing mistakes, I'm happy to change my mind. I don't really see politics as a party thing now, because many of the characters within it are all the same. I'm naturally left-leaning in many aspects so I guess that plays a large role in my voting decisions but it's not always the case.

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Who has ? 

 

Has anyone mentioned any of these things other than you ? 
 

Do you wish to see an effective opposition and the government held to account or not ? 

 

2 hours ago, SecretPro said:

Here is the issue. It might be what people believe they are doing, but it's more a question of why they believe that. It would be ridiculous to assume that everyone who votes does so on a well rounded, well informed basis. IE the boomers who vote without a second thought for the future of the planet or the generations to follow because they've lived their best life and couldn't give a toss, or those right wingers who have been brainwashed by ultra right parents or media banging on about immigrants stealing 'our' jobs etc.

As for the second bit, I don't want to live in a 1 party state but  we have a govt with a big majority and 4 years until the next election atm I'm not that bothered.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

3 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Meanwhile, there continue to be those who don’t think it would be a good thing for the country to have a decent opposition and a credible alternative 

 

3 hours ago, MattP said:

Who has actually said that? 

A good opposition is always welcome, it brings better scrutiny and more importantly, better governance. 

Correct.

[Mike Oxlong]

Just now, Webbo said:

 

As for the second bit, I don't want to live in a 1 party state but  we have a govt with a big majority and 4 years until the next election atm I'm not that bothered.

Fair enough re the quote - I can only speak for myself 

 

Although I’ve voted Tory more than once in the past I do have concerns about this government and their honesty and it would be nice to have a credible alternative which is something that has been lacking for years 

 

That brings me back to my original point about welcoming Starmer’s decent early start and my point about it appearing to me that there are those who don’t want an effective opposition