“Free Gear Starmer”

@divegeester said
11 million votes vs Reform 4 million. Labour got 411 seats, Reform got 5.
Starmer’s Labour got less votes than Corbyn did. It’s a freak result which exposed the broken FPTP system.

Yes, I agree. First-past-the-post must go. It does not accurately represent what British voters want.

@divegeester said
It’s been called the “loveless landslide”, even many Labour voters are already dismayed with the decisions, the tone and the attitude of this cabinet.

They’ve caved into the unions already with no productivity negotiations, cut the pensioners winter fuel allowance within days … days… of coming to power whilst giving train drivers a 15% pay rise (£10,000), closed a ste ...[text shortened]... HS in this Parliament (except wage increases via unions strikes already done)

It beggars belief.

Neither the Tories nor Labour (since Blair) have been listening to what Britons want. What they wanted was not actually to leave the European economic union, which was overwhelmingly beneficial to the UK. What they wanted was to opt out of Angelika Merkel's unilateral decision in favor of 'open borders' for ME refugees--after Bush and Blair had created a refugee crisis by stupidly invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

@shavixmir said
No, that is racist profiling.

It’s because the level of security you can achieve is in direct proportion to the size of the group and how open a space is.

You seem to be fine with a Party leader accepting £40,000 in free corporate hospitality from an institution under scrutiny and review from the that same Party leader.

OK, I’ll remember that 😉

@vivify said
Lmao.

You said there's been 2 months of "hard left socialism". Provide an example. Any example.

I'll quit now, the point was made. You just want to laugh at the political opponents. Fine and dandy. But claiming Starmer was brought down by "hard left socialism" is proof you don't know what it is. If anything, Starmer's done the exact opposite by cutting fuel payments.

You can “quit” anytime, no need to announce it.

As I said, if all you want to do is petty about the definition of socialism then you are probably better off quitting.

@moonbus said
Neither the Tories nor Labour (since Blair) have been listening to what Britons want. What they wanted was not actually to leave the European economic union, which was overwhelmingly beneficial to the UK. What they wanted was to opt out of Angelika Merkel's unilateral decision in favor of 'open borders' for ME refugees--after Bush and Blair had created a refugee crisis by stupidly invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

We seem to be agreeing here on some basic fundamentals.

Yes that is pretty much what all brexit voters wanted, at least all the thousands I’ve seen writing and have conversed with over the years.

The Party which presents the best solution to the immigration crisis will win power, not just in the UK but in all European counties in time. Often the only ones putting up a meaningful solution hitch resonates are right wing, sometimes extreme right wing. The sooner the left get their heads around this phenomena the sooner they might come up with some ideas on the topic which are worth voting for.

@divegeester said
You can “quit” anytime, no need to announce it.

I meant quit trying to get you to provide an example of Keir's "hard left socialism". It's clear you can't. Nor do you know what that would look like.

Hint: cutting winter fuel payments to the elderly is not "hard left socialism".

@divegeester said
We seem to be agreeing here on some basic fundamentals.

Yes that is pretty much what all brexit voters wanted, at least all the thousands I’ve seen writing and have conversed with over the years.

The Party which presents the best solution to the immigration crisis will win power, not just in the UK but in all European counties in time. Often the only ones putting ...[text shortened]... his phenomena the sooner they might come up with some ideas on the topic which are worth voting for.

It's awfully hard to present the case for limiting migration without being shunted onto the track of racist-fascist loonies, and this is largely because the only parties which actually propose strong steps to limit migration attract racist-fascist loonies. The Tories and Labour talk about limiting migration, but don't actually implement it, which has led to widespread disillusionment.

The problem with Tommy Robinson is Tommy Robinson. He sets people's teeth on edge because he is so belligerent and has such a dubious past with the law.

One of the few sensible people discussing the issue is Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe is a good read. I recommend it.

@moonbus said
It's awfully hard to present the case for limiting migration without being shunted onto the track of racist-fascist loonies, and this is largely because the only parties which actually propose strong steps to limit migration attract racist-fascist loonies. The Tories and Labour talk about limiting migration, but don't actually implement it, which has led to widespread disillu ...[text shortened]... discussing the issue is Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe is a good read. I recommend it.

Thumbs up.

@moonbus said
It's awfully hard to present the case for limiting migration without being shunted onto the track of racist-fascist loonies, and this is largely because the only parties which actually propose strong steps to limit migration attract racist-fascist loonies. The Tories and Labour talk about limiting migration, but don't actually implement it, which has led to widespread disillu ...[text shortened]... discussing the issue is Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe is a good read. I recommend it.

Every time I've mentioned how I'm for limiting migration it always has to be followed by three or four lengthy posts explaining that is has nothing to do with discrimination toward any group, and that I'm simply for effective ways to integrate migrants. Limiting migration is the only way to do that.

Unfortunately this always attracts someone who has to make some sort of xenophobic comment, causing me to be lumped in with them. So I completely agree with your take that sensible migration talks are difficult because of "being shunted onto the track of racist-fascist loonies".

@vivify said
I meant quit trying to get you to provide an example of Keir's "hard left socialism". It's clear you can't. Nor do you know what that would look like.

Hint: cutting winter fuel payments to the elderly is not "hard left socialism".

Does it matter that I can’t define “hard left socialism”? Is that what’s most important to you, a definition?

Labour describe themselves as a left wing socialist political party and therefore their policies, by their own definition, are left wing socialism.

What do you want to discuss now, the definition of “hard”?

@divegeester said
Does it matter that I can’t define “hard left socialism”? Is that what’s most important to you, a definition?

Labour describe themselves as a left wing socialist political party and therefore their policies, by their own definition, are left wing socialism.

What do you want to discuss now, the definition of “hard”?

The definition is not what matters it's the fact that your claims about Starmer already prove you don't know what it is. I never asked you to define what socialism is, it's clear from your post.

Labor can call themselves anything they want, it's their actual policies that define them, not their own claims. In these 2 months since they won, nothing Labor has passed comes close to what you define as "hard left socialism".

You should've just laughed at Starmer for accepting expensive gifts. That would've been fine. But you just had to inject false right-wing claims.

@divegeester said
Does it matter that I can’t define “hard left socialism”? Is that what’s most important to you, a definition?

Labour describe themselves as a left wing socialist political party and therefore their policies, by their own definition, are left wing socialism.

What do you want to discuss now, the definition of “hard”?

Shocking news flash: Britain has been socialist since Clement Attlee.

@vivify said
The definition is not what matters it's the fact that your claims about Starmer already prove you don't know what it is. I never asked you to define what socialism is, it's clear from your post.

Labor can call themselves anything they want, it's their actual policies that define them, not their own claims. In these 2 months since they won, nothing Labor has passed comes ...[text shortened]... ting expensive gifts. That would've been fine. But you just had to inject false right-wing claims.

But you’ve been asking me to define what hard left socialism is, and I’ve been explaining to you several times now, that Labour define themselves as a left wing socialist party and I’m commenting on that in terms of what decisions they are making.

I’m sorry you don’t like that 🙂

@moonbus said
Shocking news flash: Britain has been socialist since Clement Attlee.

Vivify will be along shortly to demand that you define that.

@divegeester said
But you’ve been asking me to define what hard left socialism is,

Nope. Not one time have I asked you to define socialism. I already know you can't.

What I did ask: name one of these so called hard left policies you claim brought down Labor. You haven't because you can't.