UK Politics

It's a fantasy policy that doesn't mean anything.

The UK government are going to take responsibility for improving conditions in Albania and half the Middle East. Yeah, of course. Why not?

And yes we need to get the process quicker but if we don't stop the numbers growing then it will just get overwhelmed again.

 

We could stop bombing the middle east and interfering politically over there, although again we've fecked that region up so badly now that it largely doesn't matter what we do anymore. A huge part of why those regions are hellscapes is because of western interventionism.

We went into iraq because god told tony blair to so I dont see this as any more ridiculous.

 

We could and we have. I'd support that too.

But it isn't going to stop people crossing the channel is it?

 

If the country they live in isn't actively trying to kill them, why would they come here? As I said, most people who seek asylum would rather be in their home country. Most normal people would rather live in their home country.

 

Clearly for a multitude of different reasons??

You're too simplistic about these things which why logic falls down.

How is Albania trying to actively kill it's citizens.

 

Totally agree with you about Bush's puppet Blair and were responsible for the death of Dr David Kelly on Harrowdown Hill

I wasn't aware that we were bombing the Middle East right now though, must have missed that?

 

Starmer/Labour get something right....AT LAST...!!

Says he will abolish The House of Lords.....100% agree ...

 

He also said the single market wouldnt help our economy. do you not agree with that also?

 

Caught up with Kiers speech that he did earlier in the week. It's quite an achievement to have made it this long into his leadership and have all his major announcements actually getting himself closer to the Tories rather than being more radical.

Weirdly though, between him and Wes Streeting he's making himself more electable in my eyes and its making it even more difficult to separate the two parties on policy. Not sure what some of the resident reds making of some of his viewpoints though.

 

Caught up with Kiers speech that he did earlier in the week. It's quite an achievement to have made it this long into his leadership and have all his major announcements actually getting himself closer to the Tories rather than being more radical.

Weirdly though, between him and Wes Streeting he's making himself more electable in my eyes and its making it even more difficult to separate the two parties on policy. Not sure what some of the resident reds making of some of his viewpoints though.

 

I just don't think either party are capable of doing anything about anything, we just need to look after ourselves methinks ......

 

I think you'll find there's more difference than you might imagine:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/04/keir-starmer-government-labour-leader?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

 

Every single word of that seems like wishful thinking, tinkering around the edges or a wild interpretation by the author.

Which bits of actual policy am I missing?

 

This is literally every article on the Guardian.

Until Guardian readers source opinion and more importantly fact, elsewhere, they don't realise how much of a fantasy leftist brainwashing material the Guardian actually is.

 

Unlike the fantasy right wing brainwashing in the Telegraph, Mail, Express, Sun etc.

 

There is a string of policies listed in that article. Which of them are you saying isn't real?

 

Very few are radical and almost all are short on details but I'll give you a specific example....

"Reeves has understandably been reluctant to say she will raise taxes. But she has also made clear her view that the unequal tax treatment of wealth is wrong. That suggests that Labour wants to equalise the tax rates paid on capital gains and dividends with those on wages, and possibly to charge national insurance on investment income. Reeves has already said Labour would abolish non-dom status. These measures would raise around £26bn a year"

That's completely the writers interpretation on a throw away line in a conference speech. Click the link on the article and you'll see Reeves doesn't say any of that at all. It's not policy, the writer has extrapolated what he hopes will come of it and even allocated a financial figure to it.

A lot of the other stuff focuses almost entirely on being green which simply aren't vote winners for most normal people unless it has a financial benefit. Even the £60bn plan to insulating homes doesn't look particularly great since the latest reports are saying it doesn't reduce bills in the long run.

That's not to say there aren't things in there that I like. There are. But they're not the big radical proposals that really grab at you.

 

With Sturgeon resigning today, is this a gift to Labour to win back large parts of Scotland.

All the major political parties will now have a new leader since the last general election going into the next.

I would say in terms of how the public would react to them. Sunak would be worse than Boris. Starmer would be more popular than Corbyn and the SNP cult will be far less appealing without Sturgeon to the flock.

 

Will be interesting to see who replaces her as I can honestly not think of another member of their leadership team off top of my head, but there again I couldn't name leaders of any of the other Scottish parties. Unless Labour change their stance on independence I can not see many switching from SNP to Labour though

 

This is where Alba comes in and splits the vote under Alex Salmond, where as the none independence fall behind Labour rather than being split with the Tories due to the current shitshow.