Labour party rebranding

https://www.independent.co.uk/.....tracts-b1805772.html

This is what Starmer should be doing, he seems frightened of doing or criticising anything or anyone at the moment, unless he starts leading and taking the fight to this inept Government he will need to go

Bloody hell who opened Corbo’s crypt 🙀

Labour has some serious problems.

They pander t the needs of migrants before their own, that has caused a huge rift in the public with the majority fed up with the far leaning woke leftism.
Also pandering to the lazy that wont work.

As as said before they tried to make people feel ashamed of being British.

All this needs to change.  call me rascist if you like, im not. these are the views of the majority. i will now probably get slated by the loud minority.

P.s was Labour most of my life but they gone to the dogs not supporting the real people of Britain.

This is a refreshing read, there are some good points made by all.

Speaking solely on how I feel towards Labour, they are in big trouble but I feel they are held between two barrels a little. Keir Starmer realises that clearly to win voters back and to go on to stand a chance of winning the next election he needs to appeal to the people who found Labour revolting under Corbyn.

As much as staying on middle ground is dangerous, I myself would say I'm a centrist so a centre stance Labour would appeal to me massively, I am a former Labour voter myself and would vote for them again if they were able to show they they can be a credible government. Before we carry on I may point out that I didn't vote Tory either. The problem is Labour as we all now are traditionally a socialist working mans party, but under Corbyn they shifted to represent almost a revolutionary type of socialism and most including myself found him polarising and divisive. He was loathed by a lot of media outlets, some unfair but some he deserved criticism and in the end he carried himself as what I would say is Anti-British. I don't read papers or take my opinion from what I'm told to believe, but I just couldn't bring myself to vote in a man who I found so abhorrent and for a political system I found to far to the left.

Now with Keir Starmer, for me he is playing a very clever but dangerous game, by alienating the left he's pushing away the vehicle that drove Corbyn to almost cult status, but he will win votes from the silent majority, people like me, people who don't buy into a single political standing, those who feel the Tory's are too far right and who thought a Corbynite Labour were too far left.

I would hazard a guess most of the UK are liberal but patriotic to a degree. Labour's biggest failing was to not realise that the working class in the most part don't allign themselves as left slanted socialists, certainly not these days. So despite Jezza telling us that's who he represented he couldn't have been further wrong.

That's just my opinion guys and I respect all of yours.

Cheers

Kieth currently polling 7 points behind the Tories, despite 130,000 people dead and the worst economic downturn in the G7, and about to be outflanked by the Tories to the LEFT in tax rises and the economy.

Sunak, meanwhile, is proposing almost exactly what Corbyn had since 2015. Quite remarkable from revolutionary socialist Sunak.

10 months in charge and Starmer’s personal ratings are going through the floor. Had his big speech last week and you’d struggle to find anyone who remembers a word of it. The bloke’s been playing politics throughout the pandemic and has been happy to watch people die and the economy tank in the hope that he’d sweep in and clean up the pieces. Well the vaccination programme’s gone better than anticipated and unless Boris fcks up over June, he’ll be polling 50%+. Best thing they can do is shuffle Burnham into a safe seat and send Starmer back off to his donkey farm.

Because we’ve got a naff two-party system, which FPTP ensures can never change, we always seem to end up with whichever party best entices the centrists. Labour under Corbyn was, in a sense, good because it had quite a definite identity, but that obviously turned off lots of people who were not interested in a more left-leaning Labour. Starmer now has an unenviable task of trying to reclaim the centrists yet also keep the leftists happy. I’ve no idea how doable that is, and at the minute I’ve frankly no idea what Starmer stands for. At least with Corbyn you knew where he stood and could either back him or forget about him (not that there was another viable centre-left party to vote for).

The most successful Labour leader in modern times was arguably Blair, and he was the definition of a centrist. Speak to people from Momentum and they describe him as a Tory in disguise!

Until we have a multi-party system which features parties from across the political spectrum, we’ll be stuck with centrist battleground politics. It’s tiresome and never representative of what the electorate want. At least with a multi-party approach you’d be forced into working coalitions which *could* result in a larger proportion of the electorate being a little bit happy, as opposed to the vast majority being unhappy.

Quoted from kafunanapar140909

Because we’ve got a naff two-party system, which FPTP ensures can never change, we always seem to end up with whichever party best entices the centrists. Labour under Corbyn was, in a sense, good because it had quite a definite identity, but that obviously turned off lots of people who were not interested in a more left-leaning Labour. Starmer now has an unenviable task of trying to reclaim the centrists yet also keep the leftists happy. I’ve no idea how doable that is, and at the minute I’ve frankly no idea what Starmer stands for. At least with Corbyn you knew where he stood and could either back him or forget about him (not that there was another viable centre-left party to vote for).

The most successful Labour leader in modern times was arguably Blair, and he was the definition of a centrist. Speak to people from Momentum and they describe him as a Tory in disguise!

Until we have a multi-party system which features parties from across the political spectrum, we’ll be stuck with centrist battleground politics. It’s tiresome and never representative of what the electorate want. At least with a multi-party approach you’d be forced into working coalitions which *could* result in a larger proportion of the electorate being a little bit happy, as opposed to the vast majority being unhappy.

The only problem being there would be a right old mish mash of party’s, take the 2015 election for example UKIP would have got 80+ seats! This would open the election up to all kinds of extreme party’s, first past the post isn’t ideal but i think it’s better than the alternatives.

Yes, but we wouldn’t have had a “UKIP government”. Having more of a multi-party option would mean that votes for, say, the Green Party are no longer “meaningless”. If a party from either end of the spectrum ends up with some kind of representation then that’s surely just a reflection of the political persuasion of the electorate at the time?

It would be down to the parties to negotiate among themselves a coalition which is a few parties strong (I’m not talking about the kind of Tory/Lib Dem debacle – anybody who thinks that was a working coalition is kidding themselves!). Therefore, through those negotiations, you would have a natural softening of any extreme policies – parties would cancel each other’s most extreme positions out.

The Netherlands works almost exclusively in coalitions. Being forced to work constantly with other parties which are not precisely politically aligned makes for an overall quite stable government. Instead of being at loggerheads with one another all the time like our main two, politicians over there have to work with one another for the betterment of their country.

I'm well up for some sort of proportional representation system rather than the first past the post set up. There was a referendum on it tagged onto a voting slip 10 years back or so, I forget if it was a general/local/council election but either way it was strongly voted against. People fear change and are sadly happy with just deciding red or blue.

Quoted from kafunanapar140909

Therefore, through those negotiations, you would have a natural softening of any extreme policies – parties would cancel each other’s most extreme positions out.

And that for me is one reason alone Why I wouldn’t vote for it, no voter would get what they voted for, you would have a parliament based on endless compromises between way too many party’s.