74
Low general election turnout likely with ‘dull as dishwater’ Sunak and Starmer
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
74 points (97.4% liked)
UK Politics
3067 readers
149 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I am in a safe Labour seat but I'll be voting Green. Labour lost my vote when they continued drifting to the right.
At the end of the day they need to win the election.
At this point I’d 100% take a shitty labour government that’s compromising, because it’s the first step to moving things back to the left.
If we had a better voting system then go for it, but I just think it’s silly for someone to waste a vote (if they aren’t in a safe seat).
How? If labour get in while acting like tories, what exactly is encouraging them to move back left?
Funnily enoguh I'm in a Labour safe seat and commented in another post my thiking on the vote:
If you're in a safe seat then by all means.
But I'll say to everyone here the same thing I say to Americans. Yous need to be pushing hard for a better electoral system. First past the post shouldn't qualify as democracy, in my opinion. It's just that bad. IRV is the bare minimum that should be acceptable. But ideally, you should push for some sort of proportional system like STV or MMP.
Electoral reform should be every intelligent voter's highest priority, because without it you'll always be stuck with the same two parties doing the same dull shit.
Shame neither party are actually offering electoral reform (and why would they - the current form works perfectly well, for them)
With the right pressure, I think Labour might be convinced. The Conservatives only got a majority at the last election because of FPTP. The two elections before that were even worse for the Conservatives' overall vote.
This is especially true if Labour is only able to govern in coalition with LibDems and SNP.
Lmfao, ok.. You go ahead and pin your hopes on the person who has literally purged Labour of anyone even slightly left leaning, who thinks racism is a joke, who thinks how disabled people are treated is just fine, who doesn't give a fuck about the poor, who is only there to serve the establishment - to change the system that offers him the only shot at power. See how that works out for you...
Meanwhile those of us already targeted by the government, who know new labour isn't going to change a thing will continue to suffer while you folks pat yourselves on the back for picking the "lesser evil" because you're too scared of actually standing up for yourselves.
@DessertStorms @GreyShuck @Fudoshin @Zagorath
That's why I'm hoping that no party wins overall majority. PR is the only way things will change.
I doubt a coalition of the two (which Starmer would undoubtedly agree to) wouldn't be any better unfortunately..
The fact is the system isn't broken, it's working exactly as intended. Which is why we need to abolish it entirely. Hanging hopes on electoral politics is continuing to play the same rigged game hoping those in charge will change the rules.. They aren't going to.
@DessertStorms @GreyShuck @Fudoshin @Zagorath
You're right, but without a full-scale revolution how do we get there?
By accepting that a revolution is necessary. There is no fixing ("reforming") capitalism. Or a monarchy. Or a parliament that consists of an entire house of unelected "gentry". The system was never meant to serve us and it never will.
Capitalism has been reformed, repeatedly. There are different forms of it, it evolves all the time. That was a key part of Marx's philosophical stance, that capitalism was an ever-changing, revolutionary force, both destructive and creative; that was what he admired about it, in fact! Clement Attlee and other world leaders reformed capitalism with the Bretton Woods agreement and the many reforms we made post-war within countries. I think it's very doubtful that a post-war revolution in the UK would've turned out well, given how the other post-war revolutions shaped up. Even Thatcher 'reformed capitalism' in this country (very much for the worse, obviously!).
As to your specific points... we have reformed all those things, repeatedly. It's really quite odd to point to a country that has a constitutional monarchy, which used to be an absolute monarchy, and insist there's no reforming that monarchy. It's the way it is because we reformed it. In fact, we last reformed it in 2013. And the Lords was last reformed in 2015. The Commons was also reformed, for the better, in 2015 to allow recall of MPs.
Now, if you agree that these things are better than the alternative, that is the same thing as agreeing with reform. I think you and I probably agreee that the reforms didn't go far enough, or even that it would be better to do away with some of these things altogether, but it's not true to say that they can't be reformed; abolishing the monarchy would be a reform, albeit a major one. Barbados did it very recently, again without a revolution. Even changing the Lords to an elected chamber or getting rid of the last Hereditary Peers would be reforms, and I imagine we'd both welcome them, up to a point!
@DessertStorms @GreyShuck @Fudoshin @Zagorath
Yep
The thing to remember is that as scary and overwhelming as a revolution can seem, it isn't just on the front lines, it requires a lot more than just a violent uprising, it requires a base to fall back on as well as significantly more people working behind the scenes than are on the front lines.
Building up communities that care about and for each other, spreading information and solidarity, building dual powers (communal services to replace the failing/for profit ones we're made to rely on, from food banks to money banks to childcare to healthcare), spreading propaganda and so on, all are vital and need to be happening before any hypothetical storming of any institution could even happen.
We can do it.
@DessertStorms @GreyShuck @Fudoshin @Zagorath
I agree that starmer would work with the Tories, but I don't think the Tories will work with Labour.
Our only chance of PR is a coalition between Labour and Lib Dems/Greens.
Labour in coalition is definitely the best chance it has of happening.
That dude's idea that Labour and the Conservatives would govern in coalition is laughable. In a wartime emergency, maybe, but the two parties just do not get along enough to do it if there is any other option.
I think Labour could probably be talked into getting on board with it over time, too. UK politics is at a point now where Labour is being hurt by FPTP. I think convincing them to go with PR (rather than IRV) is more difficult, but even that would be a big step up.
First of all, I'm not a fucking dude, second off all, have you been paying any attention to new Labour as opposition??? They literally oppose nothing the Tories are doing. NOTHING
They represent the same people, and those people aren't you
Labour are more right wing than I would like, so I agree with you up to a point.
However, to say Labour 'literally oppose nothing the Tories are doing' is plainly untrue. They voted against the Rwanda bill just two days ago, for example, and have promised to repeal it when they come into power (assuming it passes the Lords). If voting against something, arguing against it and promising to repeal it don't constitute opposing the Tories, I don't know know what does!
There's really no chance, short of WWIII, that Labour would enter a coalition with the Tories or vice-versa, and I don't really understand why you think there could be.
IIRC, Starmer said some time ago that if Labour didn't win a majority, they would form a minority government rather than a coalition with anyone (also relevant to [email protected]'s comment).
they will do whatever keeps them in power.
"Drifting to the right" relative to what? Corbyn?
To put it simply I'll point out on Political Compass that I'm in the lower left quadrant (left-libertarian). The parties that have consistently appeared there are Greens and, yes, Corbyn's Labour:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2019
To give you an idea of how right-wing Labour really are check this older compass from back in 2010 - Labour and Conservatoives are barely any fucking different:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010
Labour of 2017 & 2019 offered a genuine change to the political landscape. That's now gone and Starmer has drifted back to neo-liberal authoritarianism. Th Greens are the only party offering what Labour used to offer.
There's no clearer example of the rightward shift of the Overton window than look at how policies have morphed over to the right in those graphics. Compare them to parties in other countries. You'll see that parties can exist and run a country in the left quadrants without an apocalypse.
The establishment eviscerated Corbyn massively because it rocked the boat far too much. Even the 'left wing' Guardian was found to be biased against him. London School of Economics did a great study into it: https://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/research/research-projects/representations-of-jeremy-corbyn
There's also a great video where they did vox pop interviews with members of the ublic asking if they liked "policy X". Huge amount of support for the policies but when they found out it was a Corbyn's Labour policy they blanched and changed their mind.
So scrap Corbyn - I don't care aboiut him personally. I do care about the Labour policies of that period though. They were a genuine fuckign change from the status quo.
I'm sure Starmers Labour will be better than the Tories but not by much. It will just be a slower decline rather than a change of direction.
Socially I'm more Lib Dem but economically I'm old Labour. Black Rose Labour (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism)
If pushed, I'd also describe myself as libertarian socialist. Nice to have something in common!
Now, for the diagreements...
The central plank of Labour's economic policy from Gordon Brown to the present day has been to borrow for investment but not for day-to-day spending. That's consistently been the argument under Brown, Miliband, Corbyn and Starmer (and Harman, in the two interregnums). The differences after that are really just window dressing and changing with the times. A bit more Green stuff here; a bit more planning reform there. Starmer's current trade union policies are more pro-union than Corbyn's were, they're just dressed in a nice suit!
The Greens are, frankly, just dreadful. They are just a Green NIMBY party. They even oppose pro-environmental policies if they'll spoil some rich guy's view and that is a reflection of who they are as a party, in terms of their members and their financial backers.
We need to not get caught up in rhetoric and presentation. What we have is what we've always had: one party funded by trade unions and co-ops and a bunch of others funded by the wealthy. That's the key difference.
Thanks for your response which is much better than the tit who simply commented "Political Compass == Shit" with nothing to add.
That may have been the case but not anymore that I can see. Why have Labour walked back and reversed all of their pledges on infrastructure spending (E.g. environment pledge, HS2, etc)? Because they just want to continue the same policies as the Tories but more competently.
If by chaning with the times you mean Starmer admitting we've got to carry on Tory policy because the country has no money - then yeah I guess. But that['s not "window dressing". Actually, no, it IS window dressing. It's a Tory wearing a red rose and tie. That's the window dressing.
I don't see Nordic-model social democracy here. I see Wes Streeting vowing to "open the door wide to the private sector". A policy that has been proven detrimental to the NHS since it was floated by Major and implemented by Blair.
Wes Streeting looks at Singapore as a model for the UK NHS. A country with great hospitals but it's also a low-tax, one-party dictatorship with eye-watering income inequality. That'd be like looking at North Korea's labour camps and saying we need to import their excellant work ethic.
I'm wondering if we're talking about the same Labour party. You mean Starmer who veto'd public support of the Unions? Starmer who sacked MPs for speaking on it or showing at pickets? I must admit I initially bought the bullshit he spouted about Labour needing to represent the whole country (business and unions) but seeing the suffering going on in the NHS and the shit doctors and nurses are going through - he's morally wrong. It's not about being a "party of government" it's about makign a moral stand for what's right. Something Starmer seems allergic to.
I used to agree. I used to say Starmer is just saying what he needs to win. But I can't anymore after a year of him flip-flopping, reversals, transphobia, kissing corporate arse, banning open union support, party purges of anyone left of centre, Palestine, privatisationpolicy
You're absolutely right it's just window dressing - They're just competent Tories.
In fact there's actually Tories that are more left wing than current Labour. One Nation Tories like Theresa May wanted to have workers reps on company boards until it got shot down by all parties concerned. Heaven forbid we implement a policy that has worked well on the "Commie continent".
In a decade when the country is in a worse state people will scrabble around wondering who to vote for and their only choice will be - the same shits with a different coloured tie.
I'm sorry to be blunt, but most of what you've written here just isn't true. Labour are entirely committed to greater spending on rail and environmental policies, and that's exactly what Labour politicians are doing, right now, in Wales, London and Manchester (and everywhere else they're in power).
What they're not committed to is doing so through the kind of borrowing that will cause interest rates to surge and lead to people defaulting on their mortgages. This isn't hypothetical: it's what happened when Liz Truss committed to over-borrowing with no clear end in sight. If that means Labour spend 'only' £20 billion a year on green policies, will that make much of a difference compared with £28 billion? I think not - certainly not compared to the difference that would be made by causing mass loan defaults!
The last Labour government enormously improved the NHS. We had dozens of new hospitals, we had well-trained staff, we had the lowest waiting lists in history. To say, as you have, that Blair's policies 'proved detrimental' isn't true. It was the Andrew Lansley reforms under David Cameron that wrecked it, and the consistent underspending has kept it in a poor state (and, of course, Covid played a role, which can't really be helped).
Regarding the unions, I'm afraid you are being distracted by the window dressing. Does an MP on a picket line help a union win a dispute? No: it's all for show. The actual policies, to have collective bargaining across every sector, empower unions to negotiate fair pay deals, ensure reps get facility time, introduce secure electronic ballotting, etc., etc.: that's what will make the difference. It is not 'a fact' that there are Tories more leftwing than Labour on any of these policies (or, indeed, on any policy whatsoever).
All this other stuff about ties and whatever is just empty rhetoric. People have been saying this about Labour for a century, but every time Labour get into power we make the country better. Now, that is a fact. You keep talking about how bad the NHS is now, and you're right to. But what you're implictly comparing it with is the NHS under Labour - when it was good!
If the country votes Labour at the next election, which is in no way guaranteed, we'll get green investment, green planning reform and stronger worker protections. Those are all worth fighting for.
EDIT: Sorry, lastly, as to your point about doing what's right: would it be 'right' to lose the election on a 'moral' platform and thus achieve nothing for anyone? It is morally right for politicians to compromise and negotiate. That is actually the thing we want from them; it's the whole point of a parliamentary system in a democracy.
Also, Political Compass is a bit rubbish. Sorry. It's a fun game, but it's not something on which we should base our actual actions.
The Political Compass is a joke though.
Did you miss the bit where it says Labour were more right-wing than the BNP?
It's based on responses (policies) to a standardised test. It's also set on two axes so it's possible for a party such as UKIP for example to appear left-wing economically than you'd think because some of their policies were made to attract the low income working class vote.
Which is precisely what the BNP did (several left-wing policies) and in fact it's what the OG Nazi's did by adding "Socialist" to their name and initially attracting socialists before the Night of the Long Knives when they purged all left wingers.
So no, it's not bullshit. You just don't know how it works. I'm not suggesting it's perfect and like I pointed out it doesn't predict a party's future changes pr give a detailed account of policies. It's a rough snapshot that gives a taste of a party's placement on two axes.
But you took one look at the fucking pictures and assumed you know best. Which is the level of political nous I've come to expect from other Brits. So do jog on.
I'm a NZ citizen and left wing voter. UK Labour look hopelessly centrist to me. Corbyn was obviously more LW