Starmer's learning...

[motorbiking]

And yet the Tories tried and failed with the HRA. Right will my arris.

as I explained

Labour have form for creating legislation that oversteps. Just look at how hard Blair worked to ensure the Human Rights Act, was hard to reform.

 

[noseall]

waffle.

They were in power for fourteen years boyo, with a lot of that term holding an MBK-arousing, supermajority.

They tried with the HRA and they failed. Right will - my arris.

 

[ellal]

We'll see how much the tide has turned in the upcoming local council elections.

Really?

 

[ellal]

Hmm...

Yep, I'll wait

 

[Mottie]

Hmm...

View attachment 412636
Yep, I'll wait

This is not just a one-off local by election though and Starmer did try to stop them. Why do you think that was? I think we might be seeing the beginning of the end of Starmy after the locals though.

 

[motorbiking]

Current voting intentions suggest Labour's main battle is for 4th place against the LibDems.

 

[Mottie]

They were in power for fourteen years boyo,

Labour were in power for 13 years before that. If they were so good, how on earth did the Tories gain control?

 

[noseall]

Labour were in power for 13 years before that. If they were so good, how on earth did the Tories gain control?

The same reason people voted for Brexit. Lots of lies and throwing millions at dishonest campaign promises to convince the gullible. The internet is a powerful tool. Those that lack intelligence are easily conned.

 

[ellal]

This is not just a one-off local by election though and Starmer did try to stop them. Why do you think that was? I think we might be seeing the beginning of the end of Starmy after the locals though.

Indeed it's not a 'one off by-election'.
(A by-election is for a parliamentary seat and Starmer hasn't stopped or try to stop those )

But that type of event has nothing to do with what you claimed about the difference between local elections and general elections...

You really are making this up as you go along!

 

[MNW67]

I voted Leave, but I think that going along with the Single Market rules makes total sense for us, as a neighbour to the EU who does a lot of trade with them.

But... this absolutely must be with the approval of parliament. What's he scared of? He's got a massive majority, getting it voted through shouldn't be an issue. I suspect he's trying to tie us to following the EU rules in perpetuity regardless of the future government, which is just anti-democratic.

Also, voted or not, we must be able to opt out of any future rule changes, it would be very much like the EU to deliberately introduce rules that are intended to cripple us, if we set ourselves up to automatically adopt future rules. E.g. we must let the French steal all our fish forever.

It's really sad how political discussion seems to divide into pro-EU at all costs or anti-EU at all costs. Surely there's a sensible middle line that both Starmer and Farage are miles away from?

If the EU want to change the label on a bag of tangerines, do we really need a two year debate in Parliament. It's about getting the balance right.

 

[MNW67]

"garbage and deform have promised to use extensive secondary legislation—specifically statutory instruments—as part of a major overhaul of UK law if they come to power. Their proposals, part of a "contract" with the British people rather than a traditional manifesto, focus on using these legal mechanisms to bypass lengthy parliamentary debates on issues such as immigration and human rights"

Sounds like nonsense. They can't scrap the Human Rights Act etc. with secondary legislation. Whether they have a manifesto or a 'contract', it makes no difference.