General Election 2024....

[winjim]

FFS. I take it back about KJK - Akehurst is objectively worse. Just a hunch, but I'm guessing local members didn't get a look-in?

Shenanigans. Can't wait to bring this up on the doorstep.


View: https://x.com/AdamBienkov/status/1796090862604034340?t=cRlSKSK4rRuBz9GchMUNuw&s=19

 

[multitool]

It is hard to have a view on Abbott, she being a loose cannon with a habit of spurting stupud things off the cuff.

Abbott was my MP in '87 when she came in. The truth is she has faced constant abuse on account of her colour and gender from the right, but her pushing out of prominence is purely to do with a number of negative associations that the current Labour party is trying to steer clear of because it nearly killed the party in 2019 (whilst giving the Tories an unassailable majority).

As I've said on numerous occasions, the Tories do not play fair, they have almost all the cards in their favour, and countering them requires a rigid discipline that does not give them anything on which to feed.

That is what this is about. It isn't about some subterfuge to support Israel. Starmer does not want Israel to be a factor in this election because it is so easy for the debate to be derailed by the Tories.

 

[theclaud]

Optics are everything.

The spectacle presents itself as something enormously positive, indisputable and inaccessible. It says nothing more than “that which appears is good, that which is good appears. The attitude which it demands in principle is passive acceptance which in fact it already obtained by its manner of appearing without reply, by its monopoly of appearance.

The basically tautological character of the spectacle flows from the simple fact that its means are simultaneously its ends. It is the sun which never sets over the empire of modern passivity. It covers the entire surface of the world and bathes endlessly in its own glory.

 

[C R]

On a side note about Abbott, her diabetes is clearly not under control. Speaking outside Hackney town hall yesterday, the hand holding the microphone was in full tremor. Is that hypoglycaemia?

Could be, the figure gate thing when she was shadow home secretary definitely was a hypo. Being a type 1 myself been there, done that, luckily not on the Today program, though.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

 

[Rusty Nails]

The spectacle presents itself as something enormously positive, indisputable and inaccessible. It says nothing more than “that which appears is good, that which is good appears. The attitude which it demands in principle is passive acceptance which in fact it already obtained by its manner of appearing without reply, by its monopoly of appearance.

The basically tautological character of the spectacle flows from the simple fact that its means are simultaneously its ends. It is the sun which never sets over the empire of modern passivity. It covers the entire surface of the world and bathes endlessly in its own glory.

And I thought he was just expressing his liking for whisky.

 

[multitool]

The spectacle presents itself as something enormously positive, indisputable and inaccessible. It says nothing more than “that which appears is good, that which is good appears. The attitude which it demands in principle is passive acceptance which in fact it already obtained by its manner of appearing without reply, by its monopoly of appearance.

The basically tautological character of the spectacle flows from the simple fact that its means are simultaneously its ends. It is the sun which never sets over the empire of modern passivity. It covers the entire surface of the world and bathes endlessly in its own glory.

It is what it is.

We are back to you suggesting some sort of 'radical alternative' which you never manage to define or describe a path to achieving.

 

[theclaud]

Starmer does not want Israel to be a factor in this election because it is so easy for the debate to be derailed by the Tories.

Alternative view: Starmer does not want Israel to be a factor in this election because it lays bare his dogshit politics and makes clear what we can expect when he's in office, and because the position of the UK media-political classes is indefensible and at odds with not only the 'electorate' that you keep banging on about lately, but the entire world. A lot is made of Abbott's gaffes over the years, but Sir Keith managed to say on live telly that Israel has the right to cut off water and power to a civilian population.

 

[albion]

Seems Abbott was retiring. I do not know the ins and outs, but after that headline, it seems she has changed her mind.
How can she be deselected when she was not standing in the first place?

 

[theclaud]

On a side note about Abbott, her diabetes is clearly not under control. Speaking outside Hackney town hall yesterday, the hand holding the microphone was in full tremor. Is that hypoglycaemia?

Could be, the figure gate thing when she was shadow home secretary definitely was a hypo. Being a type 1 myself been there, done that, luckily not on the Today program, though.

Careful now, you're doing that humanising thing again. We need to be able to chuck her under the bus with clear consciences.

 

[multitool]

. A lot is made of Abbott's gaffes over the years, but Sir Keith managed to say on live telly that Israel has the right to cut off water and power to a civilian population.

Not this horseshît again. Any reasonable person was able to see that the interviewer was desperately trying to get Starmer to say something that could be construed as anti-Israel and therefore antisemitic, and he wasn't playing. His aim, at that point was to stress that Israel has a right to defend itself, and he repeated this mantra over and over again, including when asked about water and power. He clarified later.

Obviously the headless chickens have been screaming that he is pro-genocide ever since, without a thought in their heads and the utter irony that it is their extreme behaviour that has, in part, led to the over-cautiousness of people like Starmer because people just like you exist on the other side of the political spectrum too, ready to distort and misconstrue anything they can.

We are, by the way, still waiting for your master plan on how we can get ourselves out of this political impasse without falling prey to the forces I have described.

 

[theclaud]

It is what it is.

We are back to you suggesting some sort of 'radical alternative' which you never manage to define or describe a path to achieving.

Disingenuous nonsense. I've spent gazillions of CC pixels discussing that kind of stuff, and two elections supporting a parliamentary route - not to a 'radical' alternative, but a modest and entirely achievable social democratic programme based on a mixed economy and investment in public services. This thread is about the General Election, in which, as I have said before, Starmer would have had my vote if he had simply done what he pretended he was going to do in order to land the leadership, and had not supported the genocide in Gaza. I'd even still vote Labour if I were in a constituency with a Labour candidate who was attempting to hold the leadership to account in any way. Ours spent the first weeks of the Israeli assault tweeting about funny jumpers. The Tories have collapsed and Sir Keir will be wafted into power by the most indulgent media treatment of any Labour leader in my lifetime, backed by the vestiges of Labourism. What happens after that is not, in my view, going to be pretty...

 

[multitool]

It's going to be prettier than 5 more years of Tory.

It's almost as if you've totally failed to notice that Labour have effectively neutralised any possibility of Tory attack. It didn't just happen, and no, they haven't achieved it by becoming indistinguishable from the Tories because the Tories are being roundly attacked.

 

[Ian H]

It's going to be prettier than 5 more years of Tory.

Possibly. It used to be that you'd vote Labour fearing disappointment, but with a modicum of hope. Starmer is lowering expectations so far that, given that no government ever has exceeded or even met promises made prior to election, you might reasonably be concerned about the outcome.

 

[multitool]

Possibly. It used to be that you'd vote Labour fearing disappointment, but with a modicum of hope. Starmer is lowering expectations so far that, given that no government ever has exceeded or even met promises made prior to election, you might reasonably be concerned about the outcome.

Government debt is currently 98% of GDP.

Tell me about this rosy future you hoped for...