Lol, no - the blue team are set for a poor election result, that doesn’t mean conservatives nor their hold on power are at any risk whatsoever, since all 3 largest parties directly serve conservative, right winged interests.
The only thing a red team win will do is give blue team someone to blame the past 15 years on, so that they get back in power next time.
The fact that people still not only believe this charade, but are actually pinning their hopes on it is beyond depressing, but it also serves as living proof of the system working exactly as intended - to keep the powerful in power, and everyone else serving them.
I don’t know anything about UK politics but it’s common enough in any country to say “all parties are too conservative” while in fact one of them is clearly less-so than the others.
People say that Labour are like the Tories but they’re not at all like the Tories. People say this basically want the Labour Party to be the socialist workers party. There wouldn’t be happy with anything else.
Listen, you and I both know damn well that a lot of them would still say thats too conservative and that they should stay home
That’s true but the labour party is far more conservative than ever before in its history, and is still squarely “conservative” even if less so than the others. They still want to privatise the NHS even more, for example, a.right wing position which will cause a lot of suffering and cost many lives. Just because they’re not fully fascist doesn’t mean you can’t criticise them for being too conservative.
That is absolutely not true what are you on about. Is absolutely no evidence they want to privatize the NHS unless of course you want to actually point to some evidence
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-nhs-pledge-privatisation-b2123849.html
And this is before the election even happens.
When a politician says “Let me be clear, we’re not talking about privatising the NHS, we’re talking about using the private sector effectively” (emphasis mine) they mean further privatisation, just like under Blair, Starmer’s hero.
That’s not really how major parties work though?
This is incredibly reductive but suppose there was a single spectrum between progressive and conservative. Let’s make progressive 0 and conservative 10.
Forgetting about parties for a moment, let’s say the will of the general population is 7.
If you have two major parties they will arrange themselves as 6.5 and 7.5. Both parties appear “conservative”, but really your progressive party needs to appear conservative to steal as many swing voters as possible.
If they won consecutive elections their policies would start to move back down the spectrum.
This is known as the “Overton window” for anyone who wants to read into it further.
Yeah right I had no idea it had a name. Thanks.
There’s always been a strong dose of authoritarianism about the red team, they might purport to represent the working classes but they also seem to want to ‘improve’ them too. And as someone on the Alexei Sayle podcast pointed out, their Foreign Policy is always quite imperialistic.
Good. That’s how it should be.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
It also suggests the prime minister is at risk of losing his own constituency, the new Richmond & Northallerton seat in North Yorkshire, to Labour with his lead less than 2.5 percentage points.
The poll also suggests the Scottish National Party would pick up 41 seats, the Liberal Democrats 22 and Plaid Cymru two.
Naomi Smith, Best for Britain’s chief executive, said: “With the polling showing swathes of voters turning their backs on the Tories, it’s clear that this will be a change election.”
The findings come after Labour sources said the party’s overall financial position remained strong despite membership subscriptions falling off because donations were healthy and unions were expected to give very substantial backing to the election effort.
Labour has suffered more than a 23,000 fall in membership over the past two months after controversies over its policy on Gaza and its U-turn on green investment, according to figures released to its National Executive Committee (NEC).The party’s general secretary, David Evans, revealed that membership, which had stood at 390,000 in January, had plummeted to 366,604 at the latest count, with more than 11,700 of these being in arrears.
Labour only had 150,000 members at the end of its last period in office [in 2010],” he said.“The state of the opinion polls suggest there is no correlation between membership and electoral popularity.”
The original article contains 388 words, the summary contains 223 words. Saved 43%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!