That Starmer fella...

Tbh I would've preferred to see Blair expend his political capital on bringing our utilities back into public hands, or legalising assisted suicide, or sorting out social / end of life care, that kind of thing - stuff that helps people longer term. That's even more important now. A democratic refresh is important but for Starmer to prioritise it now would feel like fiddling while London is burning, unless they're simultaneously doing an AWFUL lot to help normal people as well.

I do like PR but it does favour far right populist parties - if we had PR in 2015, UKIP would've been the third largest party with 86 seats. If the tories in coalition with the Lib Dems was bad, imagine what Cameron would've done with Farage in his earhole. Yeuch.

An elected Upper House should not be a retirement home for failed or time expired politicians.
Most MPs who are made peers have no track record of pioneering legislation, subject matter knowledge, or professional qualifications. There could/should be a limit of the number of ex-MPs allowed to be Upper House members, say 30%.
A single 7-year in the Upper House would negate any considerations about re-electability.

I agree with the idea that the Peers not having to face re election brings something to the revising chamber, as dose having people who are expert in their field. a commission apointing the great and good?

The patronage and apointment part of it stinks, always has and always will. It's a form of corruption, give x million to the tories and your a Peer!

I've always liked the idea, that at least a proportion of the chamber reflects the vote at the last General Election. So 10% of the national vote equates to 10% of the seats, or at least the fraction of seats that are allocated with this method, it dose have a like to a Democratic vote whilest not being directly elected, perhaps term limits of two election. I know this would have to use a Party List system giving the party leaders some powers of patronage but I still think it's a more democratic system.

You'd have to have a way of encouraging "experts" to take a 7-10year hiatus from being experts in their profession though.

Also a way of deciding who nominates people? A government would load it with cronies any party would, even making it % based from the parliament of the day would have issues.

Glad I'm not the only one with concerns about this. Will be interesting to see labour plans

14yrs.

You'd only change one third every 7yrs. That way you maintain continuity.

I assume it would be a lot like now where it's something you do at the end of your career after a lifetime of experience and service.

I assume it would be a lot like now where it's something you do at the end of your career after a lifetime of experience and service.

But then it's full of old people or rich people.

Why expend political capital when one can acquire financial capital? And, of course, quietly undermine any real socialist (or even just more humane) ideas under the cover of competence and spin?

See the link below for what awaits this country. Liberal-hopium in the vein of Obama/Trudeau.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/04/links-4-8-2024.html#comment-4023369

I mean they tend to be the experts.

Let's get rid of the cronies, donors, time servers etc. How about a single chamber and Bill of Rights. What dreaming is this? Move along now. Nothing to see here!

I think this is an interesting view on Starmer.

https://www.joxleywrites.jmoxley.co.uk/p/thinking-about-starmers-thinking

Personally, I’m frustrated by the strategic ambiguity that they’ve settled on and I think they need to be bolder in setting out a vision for the country. There’s so much that needs fixing once this current clown show of cunts are ejected, that I think it’s essential there is an underlying narrative that people buy into that buys you the time you need to start improving people’s lives.

No vision, only election

At least that appears to be the sentiment here. I totally agree that with the polling being where it is (and being even remotely accurate) that he needs to set out a vision of how Labour will improve people's lives rather than merely not being the other lot

IF the polls are true.

Not being the tories has got Labour into a winning position with a 20 point lead.

Why risk it? Why change it? Looks like Labour's plan is working, why this close to an election decide to go off in a different direction?

To keep some actavists happy? Who will a) prob find fault with something b) vote Labour anyway in their very safe Labour seats.

Idea; if you want a massive Labour landslide, makes tories not scared of labour then you win big and hopefully have lots of time and mandate to change stuff

Why risk it? Why change it?

Because, if you believe that he's actually progressive and not just what he appears to be on the tin, using this lead to actually try and change people's opinions is likely to be beneficial over the long term if you want people to actually believe in progressive values, rather than giving people a valid reason to complain that they've been mislead.

and mandate to change stuff

Where is his current mandate coming from?

(TBH this is all immaterial for me because I don't think he's going to do anything different from what he's showing now)

Anyway thanks for inspiring me to actually make this

1 Attachment

Why risk it? Why change it?

Annoyingly for me as a person (because I'd like to see more vision from Starmer too) I think you're right.

I keep coming back to Blair and Brown. For them, making the bank of England independent of government was a week one action - it was clearly something they felt they needed to do and had a very clear vision about it. But they didn't say a thing about it before the election - the manifesto and pledge card stayed completely schtum. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/04/independence-day-why-gordon-brown-gave-the-bank-the-right-to-set-interest-rates

I hope that Starmer is following a similar plan, and that there's a lot of work going on in the background. I get the frustration, but if I were in his shoes I'm not sure I'd risk it at this point.

Come election time we'll need a proper manifesto. Now? I can see it only damaging his electoral chances.

It's tough isn't it? Because it's easy to sit on the sidelines and encourage someone to be bold - almost like watching a game show and routing for the to risk it all for the top prize.

However, he's now been in the lead for so long, it's basically been his to throw away.

https://youtu.be/mASiPx4gtOI?si=SwTx6jTZiD193Q46

There is too much politics as showbusiness. Each day Starmer doesn't announce any policies the feral UK press seeks sensationalism elsewhere, and with this (mal)administartion they find it, as the various factions of the Conservative and (dis-)Unionists jockey for the entrails of a party that polls continue to suggest will be eviscerated after the coming General Election.

The Labour party is in full campaign mode for the May Local Elections, don't expect any national policy reveals before the forthcoming humiliation of Tory candidates in your ward and for the Mayor of London.

Come election time we'll need a proper manifesto. Now? I can see it only damaging his electoral chances

This is everything for me at the moment. There is zero reason to set anything out right now. His current job is to harass the government in parliament.

Every time sunak says labour have no vision at pmq, I wish starmer used the line "call an election and I'll release our manifesto"

Anyone else reading ACampb’s Prelude to Power right now? Presume Starmer is.

jfc, not surprising but Streeting is such a little fucking worm

1 Attachment

https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1774323240674193567?t=FStaabZSdtPbJRzP1VInbg&s=19

Labour ten days ago.

just staggeringly disingenuous

When people level the accusation that "Labour are just the Tories" Streeting is holding all the receipts. WAFC. 😐

LaBOuR aRe nOtHinG liKe thE tORiEs

1 Attachment

Isn't this just a 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime' but for health?

If you make sure people are healthy and happy then they're less likely to go on long term sick.