I would love to know where you get that idea from.
Labour don’t hold much at all, not the agenda, not the media, sure Starmer is waiting however I doubt even he knows what for. A lucky break from the media perhaps?
Anyone who feels Labour have some dry powder stocked away should think again imo.
As has already been discussed caution had to be used on anything covid related. As the BBC pointed out who cares about the other stuff?
Brexit slipped through their hands, probably due to their internal splits over that.
Nope there’sno dry powder and no canons as far as i can see, which is why most from what I can gather are proposing that Starmer is playing the long game, which begs the question again where did you get the idea of dry powder from?
That is exactly what I am saying. There is no store of powder. Just as Saddam had no WMDs.
Starmer has been portrayed as an intellectual, sharp witted strategist, waiting for the most opportune moment to strike. As you say he is allegedly waiting - playing the long game - but if not now, when? When will he start to effectively exert sustained pressure upon the Tories?
Starmer and his ineffectual compatriots let the Tories off the hook even when presented with gilt edged opportunities. As a leader and a party they need to become a credible opposition and I would suggest that is not going to happen with Starmer at the helm.
As I say stop holding back and loose the cannons against them. It could hardly be any worse than the current strategy.
Personally I don’t think Starmer ever will. For me he had an opportunity when he became leader. Others dissagreed with me on here and had reasonable arguements however for me it set the tone. He’s useless!
He didn’t so he won’t is what i think. I hope I’m wrong and he has got excuses since covid, however, his lacklustre whimperings on Brexit indicate he’s not willing.
At present there’s just Cummings as anything else will be turned against Labour as being unpatriotic or something. I mean Boris didn’t want union jacks all over the place for nothing. Fancy tripping over a flag.
Then in my mind Starmer isn’t a socalist and hasn’t any strategy unlike Blair for example who followed on from a leader who ok didn’t unify but created some sort of concensus. Following on from Corbyn and even attacking the fallen one more strongly than he does the Tories really doesn’t bode well.
That’s just my take. So in many ways we seem to agree. All I disagree with is that there’s some consensus that Starmer has a plan where at some moment in time he will unleash all hell fire.
Absolutely - he has had ample opportunity to release hellfire and damnation but has stuttered at every pass. Cummings last year is a classic example - Starmer backed right off, “kept his powder dry” (which was applauded by some) when he could have gone for the jugular. The equivalent of being mauled by a wet sheep.
He’s had 3 opportunities where Cummings is concerned and hasn’t picked up on one of them with any wrath. It falls into a pattern if you don’t start strongly in politics you don’t start at all. In any case he’s a system child, a man of the establishment a good backroom guy to do the dirty work.
ID to be required to vote. So based on 2019, the metro areas vote Labour. As do the socially disadvantaged. The sorts of groups that are less likely to have a passport and driving license.
Conservatives really are kicking Labour when they are down.
You won’t necessarily need a passport or driving licence though. A voter ID card which can be obtained from the local council will be enough. As far as I know, France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Hungary, Israel, Iceland, India can all require the voter to show ID when voting. It’s already a requirement in Northern Ireland (where you can apply for a free Electoral Identity Card).
I’d be tempted to make voting mandatory as well, providing they also included a “none of the above” option.
Yeah, we too have our NID Card doubling as voter registration/identification. Trouble is, it’s really cumbersome to get the card outside the periodic registration campaigns.
How would you assess the none of the above votes?
We introduced this option in 2008. Those who would have taken that option simply didn’t vote. The argument was that there were no indication of what would happen even if a majority voted none of the above.
It’s not just the driving licence and passport. It’s just that faced with a further barrier to voting, people - most likely Labour voters - won’t bother. Which is exactly the plan.
Voter fraud just isn’t a thing. Pure gerrymandering.
Labour need to wake the fuck up and accept they are playing a rigged game, and it gets more unfair every day.
That isn’t really the issue. It’s more the demographic and cultural change in those areas, where as people have aged they have drifted to the right on social issues. The party has been willing to try to move in that direction to compensate but gets caught in the middle of a war between some of its left wing support and the conservatives.
This is then compounded by problems with messaging. Labour have struggled to put out a strong message, which means that everyone has differing views as to what labour says or represents.
Honestly don’t see the issue with requiring someone voting to show evidence that they are who they say they are. You need that much when just collecting a fucking parcel. Why would anyone have a problem with needing to evidence that you are who you say you are when casting your ballot?
There is no evidence that voter fraud exists to the degree a change is required. Inserting a barrier to voting will stop some people voting, which at a time of declining participation is not a good idea. Obviously this will be within communities who would lean towards labour.
You realise that by not requiring voter id when an individual voter casts their ballot it’s almost impossible to evidence fraud? The absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, particularly when there aren’t the very mechanisms in place in order to properly identify the very thing you’re claiming doesn’t really exist!
It’s not a barrier to voting any more than the evidence needed to collect a parcel, open a bank account, apply for welfare benefits is a barrier to doing any of those.
Furthermore, as soon as you provide grounds to deny people their democratic right to vote, then that will be used with prejudice. Like it is in America.
If tomorrow it was proven that the past 3 elections were manipulated as people were not forced to show (simply) ID, would you want an enquiry? I would. Most young people can’t buy booze without showing ID, it’s a fact of life for them and no issue whatsoever.
Maybe from now on everyone should be able to buy booze, drive a car, pick up parcels, get married, receive benefits etc without needing to evidence who you are or whether you have any legal entitlement.