UK Politics
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! :'(
view the rest of the comments
This is a good summary of Labour's actual policy positions, which are very different from your characterisation of them. You obviously have the right to vote for whoever you want to, for whatever reasons, but it's better to root your behaviour in reality, not rhetoric.
Thank you! It's actually worrying how much people seem to be basing their idea of what party policy will be on soundbites they've heard.
This country is in dire need of some political literacy. Thinking that the Tories and Lib Dems are somehow better on LGBQT issues than Labour would be hilarious if it wasn't a damning indictment of the intelligence of British voters.
Would you be able to unlock the article for us by any chance? 🙏
Search for it on archive.is
If you're on Firefox you can add a filter for paywalls to uBlock Origin.
Will do thanks!
@frankPodmore Unfortunately the pay wall prevents others from seeing this. I've read the entire article via the link given and it doesn't address several of my points, so I'm not clear which policy positions you're referring to.
In fact the opening paragraph agrees with me:
"It has been said that in sidelining the Labour party’s Corbynite left wing and manoeuvring it towards the centre, Sir Keir Starmer has made the UK opposition barely distinguishable in tone from the governing Conservatives."
No, it doesn't agree with you. Really basic reading comprehension error, there. It says people have said that, not that it is true. It spends the following 600 words demolishing that case.
Paywalls are easily circumvented. This isn't a good excuse.
For the uninitiated; Copy the article address and paste it into the search bar on archive.is. There are multiple paywall bypass methods, this is just one.
@noodle As I said I've read it, via a different method to you, but thanks for sharing it.
Now other readers will be aware of a strategy. Not all strategies work so people may have to try more than one. In any case it's an inadequate article.
You responded within 1 minute of it being posted and then dismissed it for being too long, which it isn't. Anything less than 1500 words should take you about 5 minutes to read. That's not much of a commitment.
@noodle Skim, CTRL-F, then re-read, it's been quite some time now and it's still inadequate.
@frankPodmore My characterisation is broad and lacking detail, mostly for word count. There are other policies I've not detailed either.
As I've said elsewhere, my voicing my opinion to Labour and other left parties is as important as my vote.
That is definitely less important than your vote. Also, I'm unconvinced you've read the article in the time you've had since I posted it.
EDIT: Why have you replied in so many different comments? I can't follow your argument if it's spread out like this!
I think you might have broken them.
@frankPodmore
It is precisely as important because I value my vote and I decide to whom I give it, and because they need to know why they have my vote or not. The article is 632 words long.
Even this argument shows that the 'why' of voting is subsidiary to the fact of voting, which is the opposite point to the one you intend.
@frankPodmore Only if you assume that my intention is to make good on the threat.
It's not much of a threat if you don't, is it?
@frankPodmore I have rooted my behaviour in reality by telling them what I want. Additionally, I also have the absolute right to change my mind as many times as I wish and to vote tactically, come the GE dependent on the facts available at the time.
We should all be able to make on the spot decisions based on the available data and only rely on heuristics if the data isn't available.
What I tell them and what I do, are not Labour's concern.
Your description of what you want is virtually value-free, because it's framed entirely negatively. It sounds like you want 'not the Tories'. The article makes the case that Labour are 'not the Tories', as does history and, frankly, common sense.
@frankPodmore The article in it's just over 600 words does barely anything to answer my points.
The value is again, that I choose to tell Labour what it is I want from them. Recall that I've not shared the email with you, so you have no way of knowing.
It isn't a simple dichotomy. I choose to tell Labour what I want from them. There are many varieties of not Tory and labour can choose to be Tory lite, or not. How I vote and what I tell them can align or not as I see fit.
I mean, again, your points are 'Labour are too much like the Tories' and the article is about numerous ways in which Labour are, in fact, not like the Tories.