Snap General Election called

[Son of Mathonwy]

Are there any depths he will not stoop to

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... roups-warn

I mean, what other kind of trade deal would we expect from our no values Prime Minister?

Puja

Man, I'm glad I'm not alone in being a reasonable chap (I think so anyway) that detests Keir and his actions, without being Owen Jones. Even Cameron could claim gay marriage as a win, I've yet to see anything from the lawyer. (Counsel, but whatever)

And all for 0.1% of GDP over ten years, which is 0.01% per annum, ie a rounding error in the budget.

[Banquo]

Are there any depths he will not stoop to

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... roups-warn

I mean, what other kind of trade deal would we expect from our no values Prime Minister?

Puja

Man, I'm glad I'm not alone in being a reasonable chap (I think so anyway) that detests Keir and his actions, without being Owen Jones. Even Cameron could claim gay marriage as a win, I've yet to see anything from the lawyer. (Counsel, but whatever)

Starmer is the epitome of a Straw Man. In fact, nearly an anagram. Such a condescending self righteous prick as well.

[Danno]

I mean, what other kind of trade deal would we expect from our no values Prime Minister?

Puja

Man, I'm glad I'm not alone in being a reasonable chap (I think so anyway) that detests Keir and his actions, without being Owen Jones. Even Cameron could claim gay marriage as a win, I've yet to see anything from the lawyer. (Counsel, but whatever)

And all for 0.1% of GDP over ten years, which is 0.01% per annum, ie a rounding error in the budget.

Yep, it's a photo op and a headline, both of which are horrible. The man is political kryptonite

[Sandydragon]

The problem is that every step is probably innocent. Some people are in a conversation doing amateur detective work and find some clue that points towards this guy. It ends up in some kind of public forum with a "Hey, this is possible but to be clear I'm nowhere near 100% sure" - that then gets shared to somewhere else as, "Look what this person thinks is possible," and then shared again as, "This website says it could be him," then shared again as, "This source says they've identified the killer," then shared again as, "This is the person the police have in custody."

I don't know that you can really arrest that process, as that's humanity in a nutshell and no-one's really doing anything deliberate (usually). What you can do is moderate the social media: downgrade the reach of people and orgs who accidentally spread incorrect info regularly, ban those that do it deliberately, seek out what's trending and check its veracity, be responsive to requests to remove misinformation and active in actually blatting it, set in place and police rules about mentioning and targetting individuals, make hate speech and racism banned language on the platform, and generally discourage Nazis. Unfortunately the people in charge of all the platforms have no interest in doing that because you have to hire people to do that which is bad for the profit margins, hatred and controversy is good for the profit margins, and shyster politicians will give tax breaks if you promote them which is good for the profit margins. And heavens forfend that Zuckerberg should have to somehow scrape by with $220.99bn rather than $221bn - that would be unconscionable.


NB - this following bit is for the example of how misinformation grows, as it's a good example and I found what I learned about how this 'fact' coalesced into being and mutated through repetition to be interesting, in a horrifying sort of way (like watching bacteria grow on a petri dish). I am very specifically not inviting a debate about the topic of the misinformation, both because it's against board rules to do so and also because I don't particularly want to. DM me if you absolutely must comment on the topic rather than the discussion of how bullshit on the internet happens.

I experienced this in an argument on another platform, where someone confidently asserted "Official UN research into trans athletes says that trans women have won over 9,000 medals in women's sport." I looked, and this 'fact' is everywhere on the internet, but if you trace it back to its beginning, practically every word in the sentence is incorrect - it's not "UN research" but a letter that someone wrote to the UN, the number referenced in the letter was 900 not 9,000, the letter wasn't talking about 'medals won' but "costing biological women the opportunity of 900 medals", and it turns out the original source of that number (via a few links of the chain not worth reporting on here) came from a TERF website which crowdsources information by asking people to report when they think a trans woman is a medalist in something - those reports are anonymous, unverified, and unchecked, so quite a lot of the "trans medals" reported were actually where there was a cis-women that someone on the internet thought looked too unfeminine while doing a sport. Oh, and both "women's" and "sport" were questionable as well, as said website included mixed-gender events, plus counted medals in things like hot-dog eating contests!

It was fascinating to trace it back (and I was lucky that people cited their sources so well so that I could) - practically every single word in the sentence was incorrect because it had morphed along the way from "this hotdog-eating champion in the womens' category looks a bit butch for my liking" to "Official UN research" and you could follow every step along the way if you cared to, but because various people are making a profit from it, it's now everywhere on the internet and casually referenced by newspapers as an established fact.

Puja


ETA. Here's a more fun example - Kurzgesagt (amusing science-explainy youtube channel) getting asked for a source for the factoid of "If you took a human's blood vessels out of their body and laid them out in a line, you'd be arrested and they'd make true-crime documentaries about you, you monster they would be 100,000km long, which is enough to stretch twice around the circumference of Earth!" and discovering that they didn't actually have one - it was just **known**. The video's 10 minutes long (you can ignore the last 3 minutes of ads!), but it's easy-watching and very interesting to see how they tried to track down where that 'fact' originally came from and whether it's correct or not.

The only way is to regulate the platforms. Which would need global agreement so won’t happen. But whilst I largely agree that it’s probably a succession of steps mostly innocent, ts something that could be picked up on by a platform and stopped. If that process played out on this board, what would our responsibility be if a falsely accused person was lynched? I’d like to think we would have some accountability if we didn’t react to something like that.

[Danno]

The problem is that every step is probably innocent. Some people are in a conversation doing amateur detective work and find some clue that points towards this guy. It ends up in some kind of public forum with a "Hey, this is possible but to be clear I'm nowhere near 100% sure" - that then gets shared to somewhere else as, "Look what this person thinks is possible," and then shared again as, "This website says it could be him," then shared again as, "This source says they've identified the killer," then shared again as, "This is the person the police have in custody."

I don't know that you can really arrest that process, as that's humanity in a nutshell and no-one's really doing anything deliberate (usually). What you can do is moderate the social media: downgrade the reach of people and orgs who accidentally spread incorrect info regularly, ban those that do it deliberately, seek out what's trending and check its veracity, be responsive to requests to remove misinformation and active in actually blatting it, set in place and police rules about mentioning and targetting individuals, make hate speech and racism banned language on the platform, and generally discourage Nazis. Unfortunately the people in charge of all the platforms have no interest in doing that because you have to hire people to do that which is bad for the profit margins, hatred and controversy is good for the profit margins, and shyster politicians will give tax breaks if you promote them which is good for the profit margins. And heavens forfend that Zuckerberg should have to somehow scrape by with $220.99bn rather than $221bn - that would be unconscionable.


NB - this following bit is for the example of how misinformation grows, as it's a good example and I found what I learned about how this 'fact' coalesced into being and mutated through repetition to be interesting, in a horrifying sort of way (like watching bacteria grow on a petri dish). I am very specifically not inviting a debate about the topic of the misinformation, both because it's against board rules to do so and also because I don't particularly want to. DM me if you absolutely must comment on the topic rather than the discussion of how bullshit on the internet happens.

I experienced this in an argument on another platform, where someone confidently asserted "Official UN research into trans athletes says that trans women have won over 9,000 medals in women's sport." I looked, and this 'fact' is everywhere on the internet, but if you trace it back to its beginning, practically every word in the sentence is incorrect - it's not "UN research" but a letter that someone wrote to the UN, the number referenced in the letter was 900 not 9,000, the letter wasn't talking about 'medals won' but "costing biological women the opportunity of 900 medals", and it turns out the original source of that number (via a few links of the chain not worth reporting on here) came from a TERF website which crowdsources information by asking people to report when they think a trans woman is a medalist in something - those reports are anonymous, unverified, and unchecked, so quite a lot of the "trans medals" reported were actually where there was a cis-women that someone on the internet thought looked too unfeminine while doing a sport. Oh, and both "women's" and "sport" were questionable as well, as said website included mixed-gender events, plus counted medals in things like hot-dog eating contests!

It was fascinating to trace it back (and I was lucky that people cited their sources so well so that I could) - practically every single word in the sentence was incorrect because it had morphed along the way from "this hotdog-eating champion in the womens' category looks a bit butch for my liking" to "Official UN research" and you could follow every step along the way if you cared to, but because various people are making a profit from it, it's now everywhere on the internet and casually referenced by newspapers as an established fact.

Puja


ETA. Here's a more fun example - Kurzgesagt (amusing science-explainy youtube channel) getting asked for a source for the factoid of "If you took a human's blood vessels out of their body and laid them out in a line, you'd be arrested and they'd make true-crime documentaries about you, you monster they would be 100,000km long, which is enough to stretch twice around the circumference of Earth!" and discovering that they didn't actually have one - it was just **known**. The video's 10 minutes long (you can ignore the last 3 minutes of ads!), but it's easy-watching and very interesting to see how they tried to track down where that 'fact' originally came from and whether it's correct or not.

The only way is to regulate the platforms. Which would need global agreement so won’t happen. But whilst I largely agree that it’s probably a succession of steps mostly innocent, ts something that could be picked up on by a platform and stopped. If that process played out on this board, what would our responsibility be if a falsely accused person was lynched? I’d like to think we would have some accountability if we didn’t react to something like that.

Worryingly, there's an element of the Online Safety Bill that could make forum operators liable for the content posted. Which would kill this place and a number of other places I like because the risk just wouldn't be worthwhile.

As always, the few spoil it for the rest of us.

[Sandydragon]

The problem is that every step is probably innocent. Some people are in a conversation doing amateur detective work and find some clue that points towards this guy. It ends up in some kind of public forum with a "Hey, this is possible but to be clear I'm nowhere near 100% sure" - that then gets shared to somewhere else as, "Look what this person thinks is possible," and then shared again as, "This website says it could be him," then shared again as, "This source says they've identified the killer," then shared again as, "This is the person the police have in custody."

I don't know that you can really arrest that process, as that's humanity in a nutshell and no-one's really doing anything deliberate (usually). What you can do is moderate the social media: downgrade the reach of people and orgs who accidentally spread incorrect info regularly, ban those that do it deliberately, seek out what's trending and check its veracity, be responsive to requests to remove misinformation and active in actually blatting it, set in place and police rules about mentioning and targetting individuals, make hate speech and racism banned language on the platform, and generally discourage Nazis. Unfortunately the people in charge of all the platforms have no interest in doing that because you have to hire people to do that which is bad for the profit margins, hatred and controversy is good for the profit margins, and shyster politicians will give tax breaks if you promote them which is good for the profit margins. And heavens forfend that Zuckerberg should have to somehow scrape by with $220.99bn rather than $221bn - that would be unconscionable.


NB - this following bit is for the example of how misinformation grows, as it's a good example and I found what I learned about how this 'fact' coalesced into being and mutated through repetition to be interesting, in a horrifying sort of way (like watching bacteria grow on a petri dish). I am very specifically not inviting a debate about the topic of the misinformation, both because it's against board rules to do so and also because I don't particularly want to. DM me if you absolutely must comment on the topic rather than the discussion of how bullshit on the internet happens.

I experienced this in an argument on another platform, where someone confidently asserted "Official UN research into trans athletes says that trans women have won over 9,000 medals in women's sport." I looked, and this 'fact' is everywhere on the internet, but if you trace it back to its beginning, practically every word in the sentence is incorrect - it's not "UN research" but a letter that someone wrote to the UN, the number referenced in the letter was 900 not 9,000, the letter wasn't talking about 'medals won' but "costing biological women the opportunity of 900 medals", and it turns out the original source of that number (via a few links of the chain not worth reporting on here) came from a TERF website which crowdsources information by asking people to report when they think a trans woman is a medalist in something - those reports are anonymous, unverified, and unchecked, so quite a lot of the "trans medals" reported were actually where there was a cis-women that someone on the internet thought looked too unfeminine while doing a sport. Oh, and both "women's" and "sport" were questionable as well, as said website included mixed-gender events, plus counted medals in things like hot-dog eating contests!

It was fascinating to trace it back (and I was lucky that people cited their sources so well so that I could) - practically every single word in the sentence was incorrect because it had morphed along the way from "this hotdog-eating champion in the womens' category looks a bit butch for my liking" to "Official UN research" and you could follow every step along the way if you cared to, but because various people are making a profit from it, it's now everywhere on the internet and casually referenced by newspapers as an established fact.

Puja


ETA. Here's a more fun example - Kurzgesagt (amusing science-explainy youtube channel) getting asked for a source for the factoid of "If you took a human's blood vessels out of their body and laid them out in a line, you'd be arrested and they'd make true-crime documentaries about you, you monster they would be 100,000km long, which is enough to stretch twice around the circumference of Earth!" and discovering that they didn't actually have one - it was just **known**. The video's 10 minutes long (you can ignore the last 3 minutes of ads!), but it's easy-watching and very interesting to see how they tried to track down where that 'fact' originally came from and whether it's correct or not.

The only way is to regulate the platforms. Which would need global agreement so won’t happen. But whilst I largely agree that it’s probably a succession of steps mostly innocent, ts something that could be picked up on by a platform and stopped. If that process played out on this board, what would our responsibility be if a falsely accused person was lynched? I’d like to think we would have some accountability if we didn’t react to something like that.

Worryingly, there's an element of the Online Safety Bill that could make forum operators liable for the content posted. Which would kill this place and a number of other places I like because the risk just wouldn't be worthwhile.

As always, the few spoil it for the rest of us.

Agreed, that would be a huge concern for any social media site.

[Puja]

capture.png

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... orm-voters

They're never gonna fuck you Keir.

Puja

[Danno]

capture.png


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... orm-voters

They're never gonna fuck you Keir.

Puja

Sure they will, just not in the good way.

[Son of Mathonwy]

capture.png


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... orm-voters

They're never gonna fuck you Keir.

Puja

Sure they will, just not in the good way.

Blue Labour. Not Labour. How did these bastards get in the party?

Sorry, there's a logic to it but that is only going to work against Reform if Labour turns full fascist, and even then it would take a decade (and a charismatic leader) to convince the public that Labour aren't really lefties in Nazi uniforms. By which time they'd have long since lost all centre and left voters and be down to a couple of MPs.

Like Blair before him, Starmer is on the centre-right and should never have been in the party. The damage Blair did and Starmer is doing, to party and country is, to use someone else's words, incalculable.

[Danno]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpw70j1k540o

What's left to cut?

[Danno]

capture.png


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... orm-voters

They're never gonna fuck you Keir.

Puja

Sure they will, just not in the good way.

Blue Labour. Not Labour. How did these bastards get in the party?

Sorry, there's a logic to it but that is only going to work against Reform if Labour turns full fascist, and even then it would take a decade (and a charismatic leader) to convince the public that Labour aren't really lefties in Nazi uniforms. By which time they'd have long since lost all centre and left voters and be down to a couple of MPs.

Like Blair before him, Starmer is on the centre-right and should never have been in the party. The damage Blair did and Starmer is doing, to party and country is, to use someone else's words, incalculable.

Starmer is barely near the centre imo with all the pandering about immigration, defence and his own take on Rivers of Blood. I'll never vote for them again. It's not that relevant where I am anyway (military town, so very blue) but I think I'm Greens for life now

[Son of Mathonwy]

Sure they will, just not in the good way.

Blue Labour. Not Labour. How did these bastards get in the party?

Sorry, there's a logic to it but that is only going to work against Reform if Labour turns full fascist, and even then it would take a decade (and a charismatic leader) to convince the public that Labour aren't really lefties in Nazi uniforms. By which time they'd have long since lost all centre and left voters and be down to a couple of MPs.

Like Blair before him, Starmer is on the centre-right and should never have been in the party. The damage Blair did and Starmer is doing, to party and country is, to use someone else's words, incalculable.

Starmer is barely near the centre imo with all the pandering about immigration, defence and his own take on Rivers of Blood. I'll never vote for them again. It's not that relevant where I am anyway (military town, so very blue) but I think I'm Greens for life now

Agreed, that's how I feel about the parties now. But Starmer could go and Labour could get more left wing (best hope is Clive Lewis, I think), so I haven't completely given up on them. In fact, despite Starmer's heavy lean to the right, I think Labour is (under different leadership) the only realistic hope for left wing government in the UK.

Till then though, Greens. And if the Greens ever looked like they had a real shot or we had PR I'd probably always vote for them.

[Banquo]

capture.png


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... orm-voters

They're never gonna fuck you Keir.

Puja

Sure they will, just not in the good way.

Blue Labour. Not Labour. How did these bastards get in the party?

Sorry, there's a logic to it but that is only going to work against Reform if Labour turns full fascist, and even then it would take a decade (and a charismatic leader) to convince the public that Labour aren't really lefties in Nazi uniforms. By which time they'd have long since lost all centre and left voters and be down to a couple of MPs.

Like Blair before him, Starmer is on the centre-right and should never have been in the party. The damage Blair did and Starmer is doing, to party and country is, to use someone else's words, incalculable.

The same way Corbyn's yoof I assume?

I actually don't know where Starmer sits frankly; he was happy to serve under Corbyn and espouse and support his policies, which I reckon are nearer to home than his current lets get elected centrist stance. But as been said before, he's a technocrat/beaurocrat with no obvious beliefs that he'll stick to for more than a nanosecond when confronted with reality; they had absolutely no clue what or how to do when elected, I think they thought the cabinet office 'did stuff'.

[Banquo]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpw70j1k540o

What's left to cut?

I'll give you start.....licensing sub committees. I sat in one for 6 hours of utterly futile and mad debate. Democracy pffttt.

[Danno]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpw70j1k540o

What's left to cut?

I'll give you start.....licensing sub committees. I sat in one for 6 hours of utterly futile and mad debate. Democracy pffttt.

That's your own damn fault

[Stom]

I'm sorry, but I am just increasingly of the opinion that the UK government is bought and paid for.

Otherwise there's no reason for what happens, for the stances taken...

Bought and paid for.

[Mikey Brown]

Sure they will, just not in the good way.

Blue Labour. Not Labour. How did these bastards get in the party?

Sorry, there's a logic to it but that is only going to work against Reform if Labour turns full fascist, and even then it would take a decade (and a charismatic leader) to convince the public that Labour aren't really lefties in Nazi uniforms. By which time they'd have long since lost all centre and left voters and be down to a couple of MPs.

Like Blair before him, Starmer is on the centre-right and should never have been in the party. The damage Blair did and Starmer is doing, to party and country is, to use someone else's words, incalculable.

The same way Corbyn's yoof I assume?

I actually don't know where Starmer sits frankly; he was happy to serve under Corbyn and espouse and support his policies, which I reckon are nearer to home than his current lets get elected centrist stance. But as been said before, he's a technocrat/beaurocrat with no obvious beliefs that he'll stick to for more than a nanosecond when confronted with reality; they had absolutely no clue what or how to do when elected, I think they thought the cabinet office 'did stuff'.

He was? I thought he was quite active/key in the way Corbyn got booted?

I’m finding the things Starmer says to mean little in terms of what he actually believes or what action he’ll take.

[Banquo]

Blue Labour. Not Labour. How did these bastards get in the party?

Sorry, there's a logic to it but that is only going to work against Reform if Labour turns full fascist, and even then it would take a decade (and a charismatic leader) to convince the public that Labour aren't really lefties in Nazi uniforms. By which time they'd have long since lost all centre and left voters and be down to a couple of MPs.

Like Blair before him, Starmer is on the centre-right and should never have been in the party. The damage Blair did and Starmer is doing, to party and country is, to use someone else's words, incalculable.

The same way Corbyn's yoof I assume?

I actually don't know where Starmer sits frankly; he was happy to serve under Corbyn and espouse and support his policies, which I reckon are nearer to home than his current lets get elected centrist stance. But as been said before, he's a technocrat/beaurocrat with no obvious beliefs that he'll stick to for more than a nanosecond when confronted with reality; they had absolutely no clue what or how to do when elected, I think they thought the cabinet office 'did stuff'.

He was? I thought he was quite active/key in the way Corbyn got booted?

I’m finding the things Starmer says to mean little in terms of what he actually believes or what action he’ll take.

Look back at the 2019 ge and his job in shadow cabinet The fact he then unseated Corbyn says much about his principles.

[Banquo]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpw70j1k540o

What's left to cut?

I'll give you start.....licensing sub committees. I sat in one for 6 hours of utterly futile and mad debate. Democracy pffttt.

That's your own damn fault

Just trying to keep the rugby club afloat mate

[Son of Mathonwy]

Sure they will, just not in the good way.

Blue Labour. Not Labour. How did these bastards get in the party?

Sorry, there's a logic to it but that is only going to work against Reform if Labour turns full fascist, and even then it would take a decade (and a charismatic leader) to convince the public that Labour aren't really lefties in Nazi uniforms. By which time they'd have long since lost all centre and left voters and be down to a couple of MPs.

Like Blair before him, Starmer is on the centre-right and should never have been in the party. The damage Blair did and Starmer is doing, to party and country is, to use someone else's words, incalculable.

The same way Corbyn's yoof I assume?

I actually don't know where Starmer sits frankly; he was happy to serve under Corbyn and espouse and support his policies, which I reckon are nearer to home than his current lets get elected centrist stance. But as been said before, he's a technocrat/beaurocrat with no obvious beliefs that he'll stick to for more than a nanosecond when confronted with reality; they had absolutely no clue what or how to do when elected, I think they thought the cabinet office 'did stuff'.

I don't understand your 'Corbyn's yoof' point.

With Starmer there is always uncertainty because he doesn't have principles. That amorphous nature (and short political history) allowed him to lie to the Labour party in 2020 and present himself as left wing. NB I wouldn't read too much into him being 'happy' to serve under Corbyn - that's just a very ambitious man doing whatever it takes. Since then, a lot more evidence has come in. The people he's surrounded himself with are on the rightmost wing of the Labour party - that's no accident. If he was a truly politics-free human being he'd have a range of politiçal flavours surrounding him. So his instincts are to the right of centre (at least). Most things he's done since 2020 have been just a little to the left of Sunak's Tories, and since the election he's steered further right, at times into far right. Taking all this into account IMO that makes him approximately centre-right but with no principles or ethics preventing him from steering a lot further right.

As for his plans for government, although it seems difficult to believe, yes, he may well have had only the sketchiest ideas for what to do on day one. Maybe he really is so goal-focused and convinced of his own genius-level management ability that he really did give no thought to what happened after election. It fits the facts. He did say there is no such thing as Starmerism, he would just make one decision after another (based on no principles, just his miraculous ability to manage). It really is that bad.

[Danno]

I'll give you start.....licensing sub committees. I sat in one for 6 hours of utterly futile and mad debate. Democracy pffttt.

That's your own damn fault

Just trying to keep the rugby club afloat mate

[Banquo]

Blue Labour. Not Labour. How did these bastards get in the party?

Sorry, there's a logic to it but that is only going to work against Reform if Labour turns full fascist, and even then it would take a decade (and a charismatic leader) to convince the public that Labour aren't really lefties in Nazi uniforms. By which time they'd have long since lost all centre and left voters and be down to a couple of MPs.

Like Blair before him, Starmer is on the centre-right and should never have been in the party. The damage Blair did and Starmer is doing, to party and country is, to use someone else's words, incalculable.

The same way Corbyn's yoof I assume?

I actually don't know where Starmer sits frankly; he was happy to serve under Corbyn and espouse and support his policies, which I reckon are nearer to home than his current lets get elected centrist stance. But as been said before, he's a technocrat/beaurocrat with no obvious beliefs that he'll stick to for more than a nanosecond when confronted with reality; they had absolutely no clue what or how to do when elected, I think they thought the cabinet office 'did stuff'.

I don't understand your 'Corbyn's yoof' point.

With Starmer there is always uncertainty because he doesn't have principles. That amorphous nature (and short political history) allowed him to lie to the Labour party in 2020 and present himself as left wing. NB I wouldn't read too much into him being 'happy' to serve under Corbyn - that's just a very ambitious man doing whatever it takes. Since then, a lot more evidence has come in. The people he's surrounded himself with are on the rightmost wing of the Labour party - that's no accident. If he was a truly politics-free human being he'd have a range of politiçal flavours surrounding him. So his instincts are to the right of centre (at least). Most things he's done since 2020 have been just a little to the left of Sunak's Tories, and since the election he's steered further right, at times into far right. Taking all this into account IMO that makes him approximately centre-right but with no principles or ethics preventing him from steering a lot further right.

As for his plans for government, although it seems difficult to believe, yes, he may well have had only the sketchiest ideas for what to do on day one. Maybe he really is so goal-focused and convinced of his own genius-level management ability that he really did give no thought to what happened after election. It fits the facts. He did say there is no such thing as Starmerism, he would just make one decision after another (based on no principles, just his miraculous ability to manage). It really is that bad.

The cheap membership that enabled Corbyn's election. As I said, I don't know where he sits, and we are all guessing, because as you said, as I did, he'll say and do anything to get into power, and seemingly now to avoid any bad press. Evidence points one way, but equally could shift with the wind.

I agree with your last para.

[Son of Mathonwy]

The same way Corbyn's yoof I assume?

I actually don't know where Starmer sits frankly; he was happy to serve under Corbyn and espouse and support his policies, which I reckon are nearer to home than his current lets get elected centrist stance. But as been said before, he's a technocrat/beaurocrat with no obvious beliefs that he'll stick to for more than a nanosecond when confronted with reality; they had absolutely no clue what or how to do when elected, I think they thought the cabinet office 'did stuff'.

I don't understand your 'Corbyn's yoof' point.

With Starmer there is always uncertainty because he doesn't have principles. That amorphous nature (and short political history) allowed him to lie to the Labour party in 2020 and present himself as left wing. NB I wouldn't read too much into him being 'happy' to serve under Corbyn - that's just a very ambitious man doing whatever it takes. Since then, a lot more evidence has come in. The people he's surrounded himself with are on the rightmost wing of the Labour party - that's no accident. If he was a truly politics-free human being he'd have a range of politiçal flavours surrounding him. So his instincts are to the right of centre (at least). Most things he's done since 2020 have been just a little to the left of Sunak's Tories, and since the election he's steered further right, at times into far right. Taking all this into account IMO that makes him approximately centre-right but with no principles or ethics preventing him from steering a lot further right.

As for his plans for government, although it seems difficult to believe, yes, he may well have had only the sketchiest ideas for what to do on day one. Maybe he really is so goal-focused and convinced of his own genius-level management ability that he really did give no thought to what happened after election. It fits the facts. He did say there is no such thing as Starmerism, he would just make one decision after another (based on no principles, just his miraculous ability to manage). It really is that bad.

The cheap membership that enabled Corbyn's election. As I said, I don't know where he sits, and we are all guessing, because as you said, as I did, he'll say and do anything to get into power, and seemingly now to avoid any bad press. Evidence points one way, but equally could shift with the wind.

I agree with your last para.

Yep. The only hope is for Starmer to walk (or to be removed under the party's vague rules) . . . but there's not much hope of than any time soon.

[Son of Mathonwy]

This is cheerful:

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/pre ... _home.html

Would Starmer consider PR to prevent this FPTP disaster? Nah, probably not.

[Puja]

This is cheerful:

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/pre ... _home.html

Would Starmer consider PR to prevent this FPTP disaster? Nah, probably not.

That is my only hope - that it becomes in the Parliamentary Labour Party's best interests to end FPtP and then, miraculously, they decide to agree with what the membership and the country have been crying out for. I get that Keir is enjoying the largest majority in donkeys years and it being all down to FPtP, but there has not been an election in the last 50 years where the Conservatives (plus Reform/UKIP/Brexit/DUP/BNP/etc) have got more than 50% of the vote and yet in that time there have been 8 Conservative governments, with several of them being extremely hard-line.

Britain is not an inherently right-wing nation, but FPtP creates right-wing governments because the left is always split. And yet, every time that Labour gets in power, they forget the years of Conservatives winning majority governments and passing whatever they like on 36% of the vote and are just super-excited to use their new majority to exercise unilateral power, blithely content that, this time, it's different and that they won't get shafted when a future election gives a 36% Tory mandate to undo all the stuff they've done.

I don't hold out much hope though, for two reasons: 1) Starmer believes that he'll have "growth" before the next election and thus people will forgive him all his sins - obviously didn't see how that plan worked out for Biden. Turns out people don't believe the economy's good if they hate you and love the demagogue screaming that it's terrible. 2) Enacting PR (or MMP or some other option) would benefit the left as a whole and would benefit the country, but it wouldn't necessarily benefit Sir Starmer or the PLP (as Labour's vote would evaporate as the people clinging on for "Dear god, not Reform" reasons were allowed to go elsewhere) and neither of those have shown the slightest desire to be altruistic or interested in "the benefit of the country."

Puja