Stop voting for fucking Tories

[I like neeps]

So the election will have a backdrop of public sector pay strikes.
The echos of the 1992 elections are clear with the "no plan" mantra being heavily played there as well.
Labour just need to do a Cameron and say nothing and don't let the idiots like the Rochdale candidate open their mouths
Let the Tories just tear themselves apart, when Farage tries to woo Tory voters on the immigration front there will be terror in the hearts of the red wall Tory MPs.
It's going to be nasty and personal.

The very odd part of the Tory claim that Labour have no plan is you could simply look around and ask the Tories, this is all part of your actual plan then?

This is why Labour will win an election.

But it's also why having no plan is bad, actually. Because the decline will continue.

[_Os_]

Labour have withdrawn support for their Rochdale candidate, I guess if he wins he immediately loses the whip and sits as an independent. Rumour is more is going to come out about him.

Rochdale looks like a total shit show. Galloway circling and his supporters attacking the Labour candidate for being too weak on Palestine! The Reform candidate is the MP from 2010-2017 who was booted from Labour for sending sexual images to a 17 year old girl. The Green candidate has pulled out of contesting and isn't campaigning, old Tweets have emerged in which he makes anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian comments spanning many years some of which were sent to Galloway years ago (I'm sure Galloway has nothing to do with this emerging), he's an ex-judge so maybe raises some other questions. Guessing the Tories will be MIA out of choice.

This video of some Galloway supporters abusing the Labour candidate went viral.

[C69]

Lol no Labour candidate now in Rochdale.
They are now bleeding out the Muslim vote and the Jewish vote.
Useless bland cunts

[mat the expat]

Man, I could murder that curry

[Calculon]

Lol no Labour candidate now in Rochdale.
They are now bleeding out the Muslim vote and the Jewish vote.
Useless bland cunts

Sad to see how deeply Islamic Antisemitism has infected the Labour Party.

[C69]

Lol no Labour candidate now in Rochdale.
They are now bleeding out the Muslim vote and the Jewish vote.
Useless bland cunts

Sad to see how deeply Islamic Antisemitism has infected the Labour Party.

Do you think Starmer is an antisemite?

[Calculon]

Of course not, and I wish him well in his attempt at rooting out antisemitism from his party

[I like neeps]

Of course not, and I wish him well in his attempt at rooting out antisemitism from his party

His attempt is going so well and is so deeply felt in his morals that it took a two day backlash to do anything about Ali.

[Paddington Bear]

Of course not, and I wish him well in his attempt at rooting out antisemitism from his party

His attempt is going so well and is so deeply felt in his morals that it took a two day backlash to do anything about Ali.

Because Labour got into bed with hard line elements of the Muslim community a while back, and have never required them to behave properly because they provide votes by the ton for them.

[_Os_]

Sad to see how deeply Islamic Antisemitism has infected the Labour Party.

Building a political party in a diverse society is about adding as many demographics as possible to the support base. Capturing a super majority of one demographic means taking the bad eggs too. There's more Muslims in the UK than Welsh and it's a growing demographic. All three big parties have tried to gain their support. Tory attempts are a failure, Tory reps like Warsi said the party was Islamophobic, they target Hindus more now (a much smaller demographic).

This is a massive problem for the Tories. The demographic they rely on is English in the Southern England, particularly the South East (discounting London). Even in 1997 they won outright majorities in the East of England (33 out of 56 seats) and South East (54 out of 83 seats), total wipe out was avoided in 1997 purely because they held in the South. Nowhere else did they have and outright majority, even in South West England (22 out of 51 seats). What they should've been doing for the last 15 years is using their power to add more demographics to this, they claimed Brexit would be about levelling up to help Northern England, but this looks like a lie now. They added older people and gave them a lot of goodies, but they've crashed the NHS which those people use the most, so Labour now lead among those aged 65+ unbelievably. Demographic groups can only be added in opposition through neglect by the party in power.

Labour's real identity is anyone that isn't middle class in South East England (ie the normative British identity seen in the media the most). Which means all Celts and all Northern English and all working class people in cities in the south especially London. Even pro-union Welsh and Scots are more likely to vote Labour in an election they can win, because Labour are more likely to give them a better deal than the Tories. It's Labour that added a super majority of racial minorities to the demographics which support them, because they're the party that didn't need to actively change anything for that to happen, it's just another group of non-normative identities to add. Tory failure has also given Labour demographics as broad as "those aged under 50" and "those with a degree".

If the Tories cannot add more demographics to their core support, then they risk swapping positions with Labour and becoming the outsider party which rarely gets elected. Demographic change has been the most rapid in exactly the areas the Tories rely on in the South of England. Going by the current Tory strategy, they would parachute into the cabinet someone shockingly bad who was Muslim, if they had anyone.

[SaintK]

Of course not, and I wish him well in his attempt at rooting out antisemitism from his party

His attempt is going so well and is so deeply felt in his morals that it took a two day backlash to do anything about Ali.

Which is pretty rapid in today's politics.

[I like neeps]

Of course not, and I wish him well in his attempt at rooting out antisemitism from his party

His attempt is going so well and is so deeply felt in his morals that it took a two day backlash to do anything about Ali.

Because Labour got into bed with hard line elements of the Muslim community a while back, and have never required them to behave properly because they provide votes by the ton for them.

Alternatively, treatment of antisemitism in Labour continues to be factional. Azhar Ali backs the leadership so they tried to keep him.

Although I don't think he said anything antisemitic really it's just a mental opinion. It does question why you'd risk a huge antisemitism row in the party and backing a potential MP with such mental beliefs.

[I like neeps]

Of course not, and I wish him well in his attempt at rooting out antisemitism from his party

His attempt is going so well and is so deeply felt in his morals that it took a two day backlash to do anything about Ali.

Which is pretty rapid in today's politics.

Damning with faint praise there, considering it takes so long as the Tories are corrupt/detest the public/terrible at politics.

[SaintK]

His attempt is going so well and is so deeply felt in his morals that it took a two day backlash to do anything about Ali.

Which is pretty rapid in today's politics.

Damning with faint praise there, considering it takes so long as the Tories are corrupt/detest the public/terrible at politics.

Havent a clue what you're on about there
If I recall, the Patterson,/Randox scandal went on for weeks and weeks. In fact the blonde slug tried to change the law in parliament so he wouldn't have to suspend him.

[petej]

His attempt is going so well and is so deeply felt in his morals that it took a two day backlash to do anything about Ali.

Which is pretty rapid in today's politics.

Damning with faint praise there, considering it takes so long as the Tories are corrupt/detest the public/terrible at politics.

Nah, that is quick. Labour is a large organisation so going through processes correctly and establishing the complete picture takes time. The current Tories would have messed around for far longer and started with outright denial.

[I like neeps]

Which is pretty rapid in today's politics.

Damning with faint praise there, considering it takes so long as the Tories are corrupt/detest the public/terrible at politics.

Nah, that is quick. Labour is a large organisation so going through processes correctly and establishing the complete picture takes time. The current Tories would have messed around for far longer and started with outright denial.

It didn't go through any process though?

The comment was leaked by the Mail (who likely had it for a while), they firstly defended him in the press, they then started pontificating and leaking well he can run but he'll be suspended immediately when the backlash started, then when it continued they binned him.

They didn't follow any process

[Paddington Bear]

His attempt is going so well and is so deeply felt in his morals that it took a two day backlash to do anything about Ali.

Because Labour got into bed with hard line elements of the Muslim community a while back, and have never required them to behave properly because they provide votes by the ton for them.

Alternatively, treatment of antisemitism in Labour continues to be factional. Azhar Ali backs the leadership so they tried to keep him.

Although I don't think he said anything antisemitic really it's just a mental opinion. It does question why you'd risk a huge antisemitism row in the party and backing a potential MP with such mental beliefs.

Because large numbers of their voters support it

[I like neeps]

Which is pretty rapid in today's politics.

Damning with faint praise there, considering it takes so long as the Tories are corrupt/detest the public/terrible at politics.

Havent a clue what you're on about there
If I recall, the Patterson,/Randox scandal went on for weeks and weeks. In fact the blonde slug tried to change the law in parliament so he wouldn't have to suspend him.

Yes the praise is that unlike the Tories they aren't corrupt, the faintness of that is (a) minimum expectation surely and (b) the nub is they're as factional and exercising poor judgement also.

[sockwithaticket]

His attempt is going so well and is so deeply felt in his morals that it took a two day backlash to do anything about Ali.

Because Labour got into bed with hard line elements of the Muslim community a while back, and have never required them to behave properly because they provide votes by the ton for them.

Alternatively, treatment of antisemitism in Labour continues to be factional. Azhar Ali backs the leadership so they tried to keep him.

Although I don't think he said anything antisemitic really it's just a mental opinion. It does question why you'd risk a huge antisemitism row in the party and backing a potential MP with such mental beliefs.

While the accusations around Israel being aware of and allowing the attack as a pretext for invading and eradicating Palestine can be passed off as general conspiracy this

According to a story published by the Daily Mail on Monday night, Mr Ali also said "people in the media from certain Jewish quarters" were "giving crap" about MP Andy McDonald, who was suspended by Labour after he used the phrase "between the river and the sea" in a speech during a rally.

is skirting much closer to specific anti-semitic tropes. I can see that there's merit to it - even the coverage of this conflict by mainstream, decidedly non-Jewish media outlets, has produced some nutty, unapologetic stuff from pro-Israel/Zionist people who've been asked to comment or be interviewed. However, in the current climate 'Jews in the media' is sloppy and inflammatory in a distinctly unhelpful way. It requires nuance to explain away that the media in this country has proven time and time again not willing to provide and the public at large have also proven time and time again that they're more interested in short soundbites than something that may require their attention for five minutes.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics- ... medium=RSS

[Lobby]

Damning with faint praise there, considering it takes so long as the Tories are corrupt/detest the public/terrible at politics.

Nah, that is quick. Labour is a large organisation so going through processes correctly and establishing the complete picture takes time. The current Tories would have messed around for far longer and started with outright denial.

It didn't go through any process though?

The comment was leaked by the Mail (who likely had it for a while), they firstly defended him in the press, they then started pontificating and leaking well he can run but he'll be suspended immediately when the backlash started, then when it continued they binned him.

They didn't follow any process

I suspect the timing of these leaks left them in a difficult position as they were released by the Mail after the deadline for withdrawing candidates in the by-election had passed (probably deliberately). This left Labour with a choice of getting him to apologise and defending him or going into the by-election without a candidate.

It was only when they realised that there was further evidence of more clearly antisemitic comments from him that they withdrew support for him.

I expect that they were also initially reluctant to withdraw from the by-election because the last thing they wanted to do was make it easier for George Galloway to gain another by-election victory at their expense.

[I like neeps]

Nah, that is quick. Labour is a large organisation so going through processes correctly and establishing the complete picture takes time. The current Tories would have messed around for far longer and started with outright denial.

It didn't go through any process though?

The comment was leaked by the Mail (who likely had it for a while), they firstly defended him in the press, they then started pontificating and leaking well he can run but he'll be suspended immediately when the backlash started, then when it continued they binned him.

They didn't follow any process

I suspect the timing of these leaks left them in a difficult position as they were released by the Mail after the deadline for withdrawing candidates in the by-election had passed (probably deliberately). This left Labour with a choice of getting him to apologise and defending him or going into the by-election without a candidate.

It was only when they realised that there was further evidence of more clearly antisemitic comments from him that they withdrew support for him.

I expect that they were also initially reluctant to withdraw from the by-election because the last thing they wanted to do was make it easier for George Galloway to gain another by-election victory at their expense.

No doubt it's a great trap that the Mail set.

And the Mail have done what they wanted to - shown factionalism, double standards, poor political instincts within the Labour leadership.

[sturginho]

It didn't go through any process though?

The comment was leaked by the Mail (who likely had it for a while), they firstly defended him in the press, they then started pontificating and leaking well he can run but he'll be suspended immediately when the backlash started, then when it continued they binned him.

They didn't follow any process

I suspect the timing of these leaks left them in a difficult position as they were released by the Mail after the deadline for withdrawing candidates in the by-election had passed (probably deliberately). This left Labour with a choice of getting him to apologise and defending him or going into the by-election without a candidate.

It was only when they realised that there was further evidence of more clearly antisemitic comments from him that they withdrew support for him.

I expect that they were also initially reluctant to withdraw from the by-election because the last thing they wanted to do was make it easier for George Galloway to gain another by-election victory at their expense.

No doubt it's a great trap that the Mail set.

And the Mail have done what they wanted to - shown factionalism, double standards, poor political instincts within the Labour leadership.

I don't agree that it shows poor political instincts, they don't want Galloway winning in Rochdale to overshadow a potential win in Wellingborough, so they backed him hoping that it'd blow over. I don't have a problem with the political thinking, what worries me more is that these remarks were apparently made some time ago to a room full of other Labour members and nobody thought they ought to warn the higher ups that their candidate is a raging antisemite. Or even worse they all thought it was normal....

[SaintK]

It didn't go through any process though?

The comment was leaked by the Mail (who likely had it for a while), they firstly defended him in the press, they then started pontificating and leaking well he can run but he'll be suspended immediately when the backlash started, then when it continued they binned him.

They didn't follow any process

I suspect the timing of these leaks left them in a difficult position as they were released by the Mail after the deadline for withdrawing candidates in the by-election had passed (probably deliberately). This left Labour with a choice of getting him to apologise and defending him or going into the by-election without a candidate.

It was only when they realised that there was further evidence of more clearly antisemitic comments from him that they withdrew support for him.

I expect that they were also initially reluctant to withdraw from the by-election because the last thing they wanted to do was make it easier for George Galloway to gain another by-election victory at their expense.

No doubt it's a great trap that the Mail set.

And the Mail have done what they wanted to - shown factionalism, double standards, poor political instincts within the Labour leadership.

Quite frankly who gives a fuck what the Daily Mail think.
There will be 1000's of folk like me who will be voting labour for the first time to get us rid of this bunch of entitled bastards who are slowly but surely destroying the fabric and institutions of this country.

[fishfoodie]

Quite frankly who gives a fuck what the Daily Mail think.
There will be 1000's of folk like me who will be voting labour for the first time to get us rid of this bunch of entitled bastards who are slowly but surely destroying the fabric and institutions of this country.

Last night Lawrence O'Donnell summed up the situation between Biden, & the Traitor perfectly.

Even on Bidens worst day, he's better than the Traitor on his best

The same holds for Labour & the Tories.

[_Os_]

Of course not, and I wish him well in his attempt at rooting out antisemitism from his party

His attempt is going so well and is so deeply felt in his morals that it took a two day backlash to do anything about Ali.

Which is pretty rapid in today's politics.

Sven "it took six years to remove me after the original complaints were made in 2017" Goran-Bone, had his girlfriend selected in his stead after he was booted! But he's a Gammon not a Muslim, so push it all under the carpet. Something something Labour are just as bad, say right wing tabloids and regrettably SNP leaning types on here too it seems.

[Lobby]

His attempt is going so well and is so deeply felt in his morals that it took a two day backlash to do anything about Ali.

Which is pretty rapid in today's politics.

Sven "it took six years to remove me after the original complaints were made in 2017" Goran-Bone, had his wife/girlfriend selected in his stead after he was booted! But he's a Gammon not a Muslim, so push it all under the carpet. Something something Labour are just as bad, say right wing tabloids and regrettably SNP leaning types on here too it seems.

You should have noticed by now that neeps has a pathological hatred of Keir Starmer and will usually try to shift the discussion onto him and the Labour party on any issue.

[Hal Jordan]

I see that after his audience with the General Public*, our esteemed leader got back on his RAF taxi to return home, rather than slum it in a car or, God forbid, go by train.


* Specially selected GB News audience followed by a Tory MP assessing his performance

[sockwithaticket]

Government once again trying to give developers carte blanche to pump our rivers full of shit

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... in-england

[fishfoodie]

Government once again trying to give developers carte blanche to pump our rivers full of shit

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... in-england

Point of Order !

For them to be rivers, there has to be water in them. At this point they're just going to be discharging more shit into these open sewers

[_Os_]

You should have noticed by now that neeps has a pathological hatred of Keir Starmer and will usually try to shift the discussion onto him and the Labour party on any issue.

Thought Neeps was a socialist unhappy Starmer is focused on winning and not offering much of what he hoped for. Some sympathy for that, agree or not it's honest, but the priority is winning and ending the chaos. I'm left wondering after the praise of the Mail though, comes across more like a bitter Indy supporter happy for Labour to suffer any criticism fair or foul?

It's an interesting one, an electable Labour definitely will take some soft SNP support (the type who would be happy with something far short of full independence), it'll also take a lot of Scottish Unionist voters whichever party they were voting for. Which hurts the SNP as Scotland becomes a two party system again. A similar thing happens to the Tories if the defeat is heavy, in recent times formerly centre right parties in Europe that have lost support have struggled to come back in the same way (a more right wing party emerges usually with narrower appeal).

If Labour do well the UK is strengthened. If Labour fail, there'll be a more strongly supported SNP, and an English right wing party (housed in the Tory party or not) that'll be more BNP/UKIP/Reform than any sort of pre-Brexit version of the Tories.

Any Scot who backs independence because they don't think the UK can ever work and therefore thinks Starmer will fail, should surely be quietly happy about a Labour government? If they're correct they will be proven so by events.

Full disclosure: I'm not sure how successful Labour will be. I'm sure if they don't do well no other party will though and bad stuff will follow.

[I like neeps]

I'm disappointed in Starmer because he has no plan for the UK, he has no policy, doesn't have any convictions.

It is true he's not a Tory crook or completely mental. But disappointed the platform he campaigner on to become leader has been completely disregarded which I'd have been excited about.

But his offer now is he's not a Tory (good) but can't do anything because the Tories have left no money (no good and not true).

[C69]

I'm disappointed in Starmer because he has no plan for the UK, he has no policy, doesn't have any convictions.

It is true he's not a Tory crook or completely mental. But disappointed the platform he campaigner on to become leader has been completely disregarded which I'd have been excited about.

But his offer now is he's not a Tory (good) but can't do anything because the Tories have left no money (no good and not true).

I believe it is customary to announce plans in a manifesto pre election
I am sure he has some plans, just being competent would do me ATM.
His approach is very much like Cameron who before office had not a jot of a plan announced but when in office unveiled anm orgy of cuts and ill conceived reforms.

[I like neeps]

I'm disappointed in Starmer because he has no plan for the UK, he has no policy, doesn't have any convictions.

It is true he's not a Tory crook or completely mental. But disappointed the platform he campaigner on to become leader has been completely disregarded which I'd have been excited about.

But his offer now is he's not a Tory (good) but can't do anything because the Tories have left no money (no good and not true).

I believe it is customary to announce plans in a manifesto pre election
I am sure he has some plans, just being competent would do me ATM.
His approach is very much like Cameron who before office had not a jot of a plan announced but when in office unveiled anm orgy of cuts and ill conceived reforms.

Cameron DID have a plan and message throughout.

Cameron's mission: ideological shrinking of the state, Cameron's diagnosis of Britain: Labour has left the "credit card maxed out", we have no money, we have to cut waste, yadda yadda. Cameron's policy: austerity. All very neat and clear bundle. And all was clear before any manifesto launch.

Labour are using the same attack line, but they don't have the ideological bent to make it useful in government. Because people will vote for them mostly expecting them to be not the Tories but also to improve things.

And considering the public sector is on its knees because of lack of funding it's hard to see how things can be improved when he's gone to lengths to explain how there wont be increased taxes (apart from on private education and potentially nondoms). So then not being the Tories becomes hang on, things still suck. And then things become - oh I'll vote for new Tory leader Nigel Farage.

[Biffer]

I'm disappointed in Starmer because he has no plan for the UK, he has no policy, doesn't have any convictions.

It is true he's not a Tory crook or completely mental. But disappointed the platform he campaigner on to become leader has been completely disregarded which I'd have been excited about.

But his offer now is he's not a Tory (good) but can't do anything because the Tories have left no money (no good and not true).

I believe it is customary to announce plans in a manifesto pre election
I am sure he has some plans, just being competent would do me ATM.
His approach is very much like Cameron who before office had not a jot of a plan announced but when in office unveiled anm orgy of cuts and ill conceived reforms.

Cameron DID have a plan and message throughout.

Cameron's mission: ideological shrinking of the state, Cameron's diagnosis of Britain: Labour has left the "credit card maxed out", we have no money, we have to cut waste, yadda yadda. Cameron's policy: austerity. All very neat and clear bundle. And all was clear before any manifesto launch.

Labour are using the same attack line, but they don't have the ideological bent to make it useful in government. Because people will vote for them mostly expecting them to be not the Tories but also to improve things.

And considering the public sector is on its knees because of lack of funding it's hard to see how things can be improved when he's gone to lengths to explain how there wont be increased taxes (apart from on private education and potentially nondoms). So then not being the Tories becomes hang on, things still suck. And then things become - oh I'll vote for new Tory leader Nigel Farage.

Sorry, but saying now what all your policies are is politically dumb for the Labour party in modern Britain. State general approach and aims but stick with the line that you don't know just how badly the tories are going to fuck it before you take power, and get your attack dogs ranting about how they're doing it deliberately to sabotage a future labour government at the expense of every day working people.

[_Os_]

I'm disappointed in Starmer because he has no plan for the UK, he has no policy, doesn't have any convictions.

It is true he's not a Tory crook or completely mental. But disappointed the platform he campaigner on to become leader has been completely disregarded which I'd have been excited about.

But his offer now is he's not a Tory (good) but can't do anything because the Tories have left no money (no good and not true).

If Labour aren't building the biggest coalition of voters possible, which means the people you disagree with too, then they're not going to get very far. It's not ideal but that's is the logic of FPTP. The Tories have given up the middle ground, they've given up trying to win.

I never used to vote Labour because I'm not a socialist, I was a lazy Lib Dem voter (lazy because UK liberals are rubbish compared to SA liberals, and the Lib Dems are usually a disappointment). None of it seemed to matter either. Then the Lib Dems helped out with austerity, which turned out to be the "good" Tory years. Then the Tories turned the UK immigration system into a dysfunctional chaotic mess, something which has had a personal negative impact. Then Brexit. I now vote every election against the Tories, which means voting Labour a lot. Tactical anti-Tory voting is the main thing the Tories fear this election, FPTP means voters have most impact when they vote against what they hate most rather than when they vote for something.

Starmer's leadership style looks like collective decision making. Not convinced he's dictating, it looks more like someone taking the middle ground from the views around him. When they're all agreed you get a strong outcome, when they're not it's fudge. A lot of the fudge looks like competent shadow cabinet members trying to fit what the party wants into something that gives the best chance of being elected which can also be delivered on afterwards. Maybe Starmer adopts a presidential style as PM and takes helicopter rides everywhere, but he's not there yet.

[I like neeps]

I believe it is customary to announce plans in a manifesto pre election
I am sure he has some plans, just being competent would do me ATM.
His approach is very much like Cameron who before office had not a jot of a plan announced but when in office unveiled anm orgy of cuts and ill conceived reforms.

Cameron DID have a plan and message throughout.

Cameron's mission: ideological shrinking of the state, Cameron's diagnosis of Britain: Labour has left the "credit card maxed out", we have no money, we have to cut waste, yadda yadda. Cameron's policy: austerity. All very neat and clear bundle. And all was clear before any manifesto launch.

Labour are using the same attack line, but they don't have the ideological bent to make it useful in government. Because people will vote for them mostly expecting them to be not the Tories but also to improve things.

And considering the public sector is on its knees because of lack of funding it's hard to see how things can be improved when he's gone to lengths to explain how there wont be increased taxes (apart from on private education and potentially nondoms). So then not being the Tories becomes hang on, things still suck. And then things become - oh I'll vote for new Tory leader Nigel Farage.

Sorry, but saying now what all your policies are is politically dumb for the Labour party in modern Britain. State general approach and aims but stick with the line that you don't know just how badly the tories are going to fuck it before you take power, and get your attack dogs ranting about how they're doing it deliberately to sabotage a future labour government at the expense of every day working people.

Labour don't have any attack dogs. And that's a stupid line as well because you can't explain how the Tories are sabotaging a future Labour government without saying - irresponsibly low tax and spend numbers when you're telling everyone that you'll stick to their fiscal rules and won't raise tax yourself.

You can have a coherent message about the Tory government is being using the state as a vassal to enrich their mates, having policies from libertarian think tanks that have failed before, and have chronically underinvested in public services which are teetering. But then you need to propose fixes - and the Tories will steal them/papers will attack them etc etc isn't a valid defence against that. As the Tory press will attack them in govt if they keep them a secret (uturns as usual) and the election will be within a year so even if the Tories do steal them they won't improve things enough for a bounce. And as said, they are already announcing policies anyway, they're just disregarding most of them.

[Biffer]

Cameron DID have a plan and message throughout.

Cameron's mission: ideological shrinking of the state, Cameron's diagnosis of Britain: Labour has left the "credit card maxed out", we have no money, we have to cut waste, yadda yadda. Cameron's policy: austerity. All very neat and clear bundle. And all was clear before any manifesto launch.

Labour are using the same attack line, but they don't have the ideological bent to make it useful in government. Because people will vote for them mostly expecting them to be not the Tories but also to improve things.

And considering the public sector is on its knees because of lack of funding it's hard to see how things can be improved when he's gone to lengths to explain how there wont be increased taxes (apart from on private education and potentially nondoms). So then not being the Tories becomes hang on, things still suck. And then things become - oh I'll vote for new Tory leader Nigel Farage.

Sorry, but saying now what all your policies are is politically dumb for the Labour party in modern Britain. State general approach and aims but stick with the line that you don't know just how badly the tories are going to fuck it before you take power, and get your attack dogs ranting about how they're doing it deliberately to sabotage a future labour government at the expense of every day working people.

Labour don't have any attack dogs. And that's a stupid line as well because you can't explain how the Tories are sabotaging a future Labour government without saying - irresponsibly low tax and spend numbers when you're telling everyone that you'll stick to their fiscal rules and won't raise tax yourself.

You can have a coherent message about the Tory government is being using the state as a vassal to enrich their mates, having policies from libertarian think tanks that have failed before, and have chronically underinvested in public services which are teetering. But then you need to propose fixes - and the Tories will steal them/papers will attack them etc etc isn't a valid defence against that. As the Tory press will attack them in govt if they keep them a secret (uturns as usual) and the election will be within a year so even if the Tories do steal them they won't improve things enough for a bounce. And as said, they are already announcing policies anyway, they're just disregarding most of them.

You're living in the past if you think the Labour party can do politics like that nowadays without being ripped apart in advance of the election. You have to wait and let the tories continue what they're doing, let them fall apart and continue to be arseholes. All you need to do is portray a vague idea of competence in comparison to them.

It'd be nice if politics was based on policies like it used to be, but it's not.

[_Os_]

1. Imagine a situation where the state has misunderstood its own nationality laws for 20 years. That state has either wrongly issued passports to tens of thousands of people and will now have to take them back. Or has wrongly denied citizenship to tens of thousands of others.
2. Inevitably, it is the British state we're talking about. Those affected are children of EU citizens where the parent from whom British citizenship was derived did not have formal settled status. Children who can claim British citizenship from another parent are not affected.
3. Before 2 October 2000, the Home Office thought that all EU citizens living and working in the UK were "settled" for the purposes of British nationality law, therefore their children born in the UK after 1/1/83 were British.
4. The Home Office changed its mind with effect from 2 October 2000 and decided that EU citizens needed to have been granted indefinite leave to remain to be "settled". But the law had not changed, the Home Office just changed its interpretation of the law.
5. The High Court has found that the Home Office couldn't be right both before 2 October 2000 and after. Either those born between 1/1/83 and 31/12/20 were all not British or they all were British, irrespective of whether the parent had formal settled status.
6. The court decided that they were all not British. The Home Office had been wrongly recognising as British the affected children born before 2/10/00. Their status is now unclear. There may be an appeal, so this may not be the final word.
7. If the outcome stays the same, logic suggests they aren't in truth British citizens even though they may have been issued with passports. Passports are evidence of nationality, they don't confer it. Passports can be (and are) wrongly issued and then have to be withdrawn.
8. If the outcome is reversed (the Home Office was right before 2/10/00 and wrong after) then tens of thousands of children of EU citizens born since then were wrongly charged registration fees or denied citizenship. The parents would not have needed ILR or permanent residence.
9. My write up here. I'm not sure I've explained it clearly in this thread or in the blog post. It's a really complicated issue. But it looks like a monumental, epic screw up by the Home Office, which has simply buried its head in the sand for years.

https://freemovement.org.uk/high-court- ... -citizens/

Windrush MK2 is loading.

To be clear what this will mean, if it goes through. Anyone born in the UK to two EU citizen parents between 1983 and 2020, will be stripped of their British citizenship (because their parents would've been very unlikely to have ILR when they were born, as their parents would've been using free movement to come to the UK and not subject to visa control, IRL would be a pointless thing for them to get). What this will mean is potentially thousands of people in their adulthood who have only ever lived in the UK, will suddenly find themselves unable to work, unable to access benefits or the NHS, stateless, applying for non-UK citizenship (they may or may not qualify for), and having to prove they've lived in the UK for the past 5 years (that essentially depends on Home Office discretion regardless what evidence is provided) to acquire ILR in their new non-UK passport. The lead times on all those processes (potentially years), will simply mean some people without strong family/friend connections they can rely on (potentially for years) end up on the street or dead ... and I'm not exaggerating.

Immigration/citizenship law needs urgent attention in the UK, and not in the way Tory Home Secretaries bang on about. No one in the system (courts/Home Office/experts) really knows how it works and interpretation changes often, a total mess.

Adult woman born in the UK, who has a British birth certificate and has only ever lived in the UK. Discovers that she is not considered British by the Home Office when she tries to get a job/obtain a British passport. The Home Office order her to leave the UK. Her mother who is Portuguese has settled status (presumably after the birth of her daughter).
https://news.sky.com/story/woman-22-fac ... e-13070230

At a minimum there's tens of thousands of people in this situation if they know it yet or not. Anyone with experience of the system would've known a year ago it was possible. UK government AWOL as per normal. I'm sure it plays well with some Tory voters.

[I like neeps]

Sorry, but saying now what all your policies are is politically dumb for the Labour party in modern Britain. State general approach and aims but stick with the line that you don't know just how badly the tories are going to fuck it before you take power, and get your attack dogs ranting about how they're doing it deliberately to sabotage a future labour government at the expense of every day working people.

Labour don't have any attack dogs. And that's a stupid line as well because you can't explain how the Tories are sabotaging a future Labour government without saying - irresponsibly low tax and spend numbers when you're telling everyone that you'll stick to their fiscal rules and won't raise tax yourself.

You can have a coherent message about the Tory government is being using the state as a vassal to enrich their mates, having policies from libertarian think tanks that have failed before, and have chronically underinvested in public services which are teetering. But then you need to propose fixes - and the Tories will steal them/papers will attack them etc etc isn't a valid defence against that. As the Tory press will attack them in govt if they keep them a secret (uturns as usual) and the election will be within a year so even if the Tories do steal them they won't improve things enough for a bounce. And as said, they are already announcing policies anyway, they're just disregarding most of them.

You're living in the past if you think the Labour party can do politics like that nowadays without being ripped apart in advance of the election. You have to wait and let the tories continue what they're doing, let them fall apart and continue to be arseholes. All you need to do is portray a vague idea of competence in comparison to them.

It'd be nice if politics was based on policies like it used to be, but it's not.

I mean that's fine to think that. But one problem; they're being ripped apart in the press today, yesterday, tomorrow, and every day anyway. And they'll get ripped apart everyday of campaigning. Oh and that continues when they're elected.

And as said, the issue of "vague competence" comes apart when in government and without a plan to fix any of the problems. Leading to a more extreme politics, sadly.

[Jockaline]

I suspect the timing of these leaks left them in a difficult position as they were released by the Mail after the deadline for withdrawing candidates in the by-election had passed (probably deliberately). This left Labour with a choice of getting him to apologise and defending him or going into the by-election without a candidate.

It was only when they realised that there was further evidence of more clearly antisemitic comments from him that they withdrew support for him.

I expect that they were also initially reluctant to withdraw from the by-election because the last thing they wanted to do was make it easier for George Galloway to gain another by-election victory at their expense.

No doubt it's a great trap that the Mail set.

And the Mail have done what they wanted to - shown factionalism, double standards, poor political instincts within the Labour leadership.

I don't agree that it shows poor political instincts, they don't want Galloway winning in Rochdale to overshadow a potential win in Wellingborough, so they backed him hoping that it'd blow over. I don't have a problem with the political thinking, what worries me more is that these remarks were apparently made some time ago to a room full of other Labour members and nobody thought they ought to warn the higher ups that their candidate is a raging antisemite. Or even worse they all thought it was normal....

What was it he said that made him a raging antisemite in your mind exactly.