Messages

That really is lazy analysis.

What has defined the 14 years of the Tories in government? How much of that overlaps with Starmer.

The Tories took us out of Europe. Would Starmer have done that?

The Tories have fixated on immigration. Has Starmer?
The Tories have dreamed up bullshit, red meat policies like Rwanda. Has Starmer? Will he back out of the Tory mess?
The Tories are obsessed with Culture Wars and "anti-woke". Has Starmer stoked those issues?
The Tories brought us austerity. As tight as the fiscal situation is, there is no prospect of Osborne era austerity.
The Tories have cosied up to Meloni, Orban etc. No indication or even prospect of Starmer doing likewise.
The big issue of our time is what the Tories are describing as "the green crap". Starmer is miles ahead of the Tories on this.

I don't think anyone even believes that there is a significant overlap between Labour and the Tories on these issues.

Is the Starmer-is-a-Tory trope really just a dissatisfaction with his stance on Gaza? Or is it the failure to recognise that whilst in "ming vase" mode Labour are highlighting the economic shitshow they will inherit and dampening down expectations of what they can achieve, and more importantly, how quickly?

Maybe it's easier not to think about these things and roll out the lazy analysis?

I know I posted some of this before, but Starmer is very much in step with tory style politics on a lot of issues.

He rowed back on his pledge to nationalise water, energy and rail.

He rowed back on a pledge to abolish tuition fees.

In November 2022, he announced his intention to end 'immigration dependency', a stance so right wing that he won the priase of Nigel Farage (he also complained that there are too many foreigners working in the NHS).

He pledged that he would "work shoulder to shoulder with trade unions to stand up for working people". Since taking the party leadership, he banned Labour frontbenchers from attending picket lines and even sacked one of his MPs for standing alongside striking RMT workers.

He has efectively led a purge of as many lef wing/socialists as possible form his party.

He backs the torys on a cap on child benefits and on bedroom taxes.

He has a looong history of antagonism towards the trans community, and backs the tories on a range of trans exclusionary policies.

When the tories announced their intention to cut their spening on tackling climate change, Saarmer was quick out of the blocks to criticise them, and pledged Labour would spend £28bn on it. Within a few months, he slashed that figure to £4.7bn.

Labour pledged to support "whatever measures the government takes" on covid and later praised the Tory response to the crisis as "an amazing piece of work".

He has refused to support calls to rejoin the EU single market or customs union.

He has refused to overturn the two child benefit rule.

Nobody is suggesting that he is identical to the tories, nor worse than them, but the fact is that on a lot of issues you could barely slide a cigarette paper between them. He certainly is not the personification of the sort of centre-left, union supporting Labour party that most people traditionally would have had.

Is your argument that the economic circumstances are there to a) buy back to those utilities? b) they should be bought back whether they are affordable or not or c) there should be enforced confiscation?

I assume you are not arguing that the economy has improved or stayed the same. What is your view on the policy of taking the rail franchises back for free as they expire? Maybe that's a policy you agree with?

Are you against GBE perse or it is the full nationalisation of the energy industry you want? Have you a costing and funding proposal for that? I don't think Starmer ever promised to nationalise that whole industry. I could be wrong? Surely someone would've accused him of talking bollix at the time if they thought that was what he meant?

Immigration dependency is a bad thing. Immigration is not. His stance on immigration is very far from the Tories.

The £28bn pledge has been cut. But not to £4.7bn. GBE alone is over £8bn.

Is it appropriate for font benchers to be on picket lines alongside people you have to negotiate with if you get into to power? The unions seemed pretty happy last week with Starmer. What are they getting wrong?

What is the long history antagonism on trans? I know the Tories lambaste him for being pro Trans. Don't know the wider story you refer to. Perhaps you have a long litany of evidence?

What ever about the local politicians running for Westminster - the only real interest I have in that is the nationalist v unionist count at the end of it. An increase in the number of nationalists might nudge us further towards a border poll.

It feels inevitable that the Tories are going to lose in a landslide Labour victory and as much as I want to see that, I can't help but feel Starmer is not going to change much. I'm not a fan of his. It's such a pity Labour aren't going in with a Corbyn-esque leader who I think would do some real good. I know he wasn't everyone's cup of tea, but I think he was honest and had the good of all people at heart.

Starmer is the continuity candidate.

Starmer is basically a tory

That really is lazy analysis.

What has defined the 14 years of the Tories in government? How much of that overlaps with Starmer.

The Tories took us out of Europe. Would Starmer have done that?

The Tories have fixated on immigration. Has Starmer?
The Tories have dreamed up bullshit, red meat policies like Rwanda. Has Starmer? Will he back out of the Tory mess?
The Tories are obsessed with Culture Wars and "anti-woke". Has Starmer stoked those issues?
The Tories brought us austerity. As tight as the fiscal situation is, there is no prospect of Osborne era austerity.
The Tories have cosied up to Meloni, Orban etc. No indication or even prospect of Starmer doing likewise.
The big issue of our time is what the Tories are describing as "the green crap". Starmer is miles ahead of the Tories on this.

I don't think anyone even believes that there is a significant overlap between Labour and the Tories on these issues.

Is the Starmer-is-a-Tory trope really just a dissatisfaction with his stance on Gaza? Or is it the failure to recognise that whilst in "ming vase" mode Labour are highlighting the economic shitshow they will inherit and dampening down expectations of what they can achieve, and more importantly, how quickly?

Maybe it's easier not to think about these things and roll out the lazy analysis?

This post is incredibly illustrative of the shift in the overton window that's occurred in British politics.

IMO Starmer is further to the right on most issues than Blair, which would put him very close to 'normal' Tory territory

This breed of Tories are so far to the right that they make every previous Tory leader (apart from Thatcher) looks like a bleeding heart leftie

Which issues is Starmer to the right of Blair on?

Immigration
Benefits
EU (Won't countenance rejoin)
Trade Union links
Middle East issues

to name a few

In what way is Starmer to the right of Blair on immigration, Trade Union Links and the Middle East?

As for the EU is his policy to the right of Blair? Really? Even the Liberal Democrats are not countenancing rejoin now. Not sure who is? The last thing the UK needs right now is a rejoin debate. I am at the front of the queue in wanting back in but it would be hard for to take seriously any politician who thought now was the time for that debate.

The other issue was benefits. To be to the right of Blair essentially you are contending that in the economic circumstances Blair inherited (and then under Brown, cultivated) Starmer would have made decisions to the right of Blair or that in the circumstances that Starmer will inherit, Blair would make decisions to the left of Starmer. What would those decisions be? What polices are you talking about?

I know you have listed 5 "things" but have you made any "points"?

What ever about the local politicians running for Westminster - the only real interest I have in that is the nationalist v unionist count at the end of it. An increase in the number of nationalists might nudge us further towards a border poll.

It feels inevitable that the Tories are going to lose in a landslide Labour victory and as much as I want to see that, I can't help but feel Starmer is not going to change much. I'm not a fan of his. It's such a pity Labour aren't going in with a Corbyn-esque leader who I think would do some real good. I know he wasn't everyone's cup of tea, but I think he was honest and had the good of all people at heart.

Starmer is the continuity candidate.

Starmer is basically a tory

That really is lazy analysis.

What has defined the 14 years of the Tories in government? How much of that overlaps with Starmer.

The Tories took us out of Europe. Would Starmer have done that?

The Tories have fixated on immigration. Has Starmer?
The Tories have dreamed up bullshit, red meat policies like Rwanda. Has Starmer? Will he back out of the Tory mess?
The Tories are obsessed with Culture Wars and "anti-woke". Has Starmer stoked those issues?
The Tories brought us austerity. As tight as the fiscal situation is, there is no prospect of Osborne era austerity.
The Tories have cosied up to Meloni, Orban etc. No indication or even prospect of Starmer doing likewise.
The big issue of our time is what the Tories are describing as "the green crap". Starmer is miles ahead of the Tories on this.

I don't think anyone even believes that there is a significant overlap between Labour and the Tories on these issues.

Is the Starmer-is-a-Tory trope really just a dissatisfaction with his stance on Gaza? Or is it the failure to recognise that whilst in "ming vase" mode Labour are highlighting the economic shitshow they will inherit and dampening down expectations of what they can achieve, and more importantly, how quickly?

Maybe it's easier not to think about these things and roll out the lazy analysis?

https://www.ft.com/content/f7394525-76a1-462c-a6e5-fe8273df4f7f

he is a tory

Nothing to do with his stance on Palestine - which I am not a fan of.

The IMA isnt the worst piece of legislation/policy. Starmer has highlighted immigration as a matter of serious concern also.

It may not be the most insightful piece of political analysis to be honest but it's how I feel about him.

Tony Benn used to praise Thathcher for being a sign post rather than a weather vane ie she stuck to her guns. He wasn't praising the policy. Benn wasn't a Tory. Most have the wit to work that out.


Starmer once says Thatcher has the mission and the plan to get things done ie the same argument that Benn made hundreds of times over 20+ years and that makes him a Tory. That would fly in the face of all logic.

I appreciate the lesson and the much more in depth analysis. Suffice to say I just dont like him. I dont like how he back stabbed Corbyn. I dont like how he seems to be eroding the left wing nature of the LP and how he looks to be pandering to Tory voters in order to win.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and all that

IMHO it's not actually suffice to say "I just don't like him".

I really not sure he back stabbed Corbyn. Corbyn lost the whip due to his own intransigence. The path back was straightforward and easy to do. Yet he didn't take it. All Starmer did was stick to his guns. Imagine if Starmer had watered down the Equality Commission findings or recommendations. He would have been toast long ago.

I do think Starmer is getting the NEC to grant winnable seats to certain individuals. These include people who are left wing but not on the left of the party. Every leader, including Corbyn, has done the same. Selections are also being granted to the favoured children of some unions. The latter is hardly a purge of the left and again is just something Labour as a party has always done. Starmer doesn't want his government to be shackled by the ERG of the left. He is probably correct in that.

And as for ex-Tory voters. Labour has never and can never win an election without the votes of people who previously voted Tory. You have never had and will never have a Labour government that doesn't successfully appeal to these numbers.

There is a lot of harm to be undone. Labour need a huge majority and at least 2 terms. That means way more ex-Tory voters that is required for a hung parliament or a narrow majority. The votes can't be magicked up. They have to be won.

The alternative to this is a Tory government and an Overton Window that drifts off into laalaa land.

What ever about the local politicians running for Westminster - the only real interest I have in that is the nationalist v unionist count at the end of it. An increase in the number of nationalists might nudge us further towards a border poll.

It feels inevitable that the Tories are going to lose in a landslide Labour victory and as much as I want to see that, I can't help but feel Starmer is not going to change much. I'm not a fan of his. It's such a pity Labour aren't going in with a Corbyn-esque leader who I think would do some real good. I know he wasn't everyone's cup of tea, but I think he was honest and had the good of all people at heart.

Starmer is the continuity candidate.

Starmer is basically a tory

That really is lazy analysis.

What has defined the 14 years of the Tories in government? How much of that overlaps with Starmer.

The Tories took us out of Europe. Would Starmer have done that?

The Tories have fixated on immigration. Has Starmer?
The Tories have dreamed up bullshit, red meat policies like Rwanda. Has Starmer? Will he back out of the Tory mess?
The Tories are obsessed with Culture Wars and "anti-woke". Has Starmer stoked those issues?
The Tories brought us austerity. As tight as the fiscal situation is, there is no prospect of Osborne era austerity.
The Tories have cosied up to Meloni, Orban etc. No indication or even prospect of Starmer doing likewise.
The big issue of our time is what the Tories are describing as "the green crap". Starmer is miles ahead of the Tories on this.

I don't think anyone even believes that there is a significant overlap between Labour and the Tories on these issues.

Is the Starmer-is-a-Tory trope really just a dissatisfaction with his stance on Gaza? Or is it the failure to recognise that whilst in "ming vase" mode Labour are highlighting the economic shitshow they will inherit and dampening down expectations of what they can achieve, and more importantly, how quickly?

Maybe it's easier not to think about these things and roll out the lazy analysis?

This post is incredibly illustrative of the shift in the overton window that's occurred in British politics.

IMO Starmer is further to the right on most issues than Blair, which would put him very close to 'normal' Tory territory

This breed of Tories are so far to the right that they make every previous Tory leader (apart from Thatcher) looks like a bleeding heart leftie

Which issues is Starmer to the right of Blair on?

What ever about the local politicians running for Westminster - the only real interest I have in that is the nationalist v unionist count at the end of it. An increase in the number of nationalists might nudge us further towards a border poll.

It feels inevitable that the Tories are going to lose in a landslide Labour victory and as much as I want to see that, I can't help but feel Starmer is not going to change much. I'm not a fan of his. It's such a pity Labour aren't going in with a Corbyn-esque leader who I think would do some real good. I know he wasn't everyone's cup of tea, but I think he was honest and had the good of all people at heart.

Starmer is the continuity candidate.

Starmer is basically a tory

That really is lazy analysis.

What has defined the 14 years of the Tories in government? How much of that overlaps with Starmer.

The Tories took us out of Europe. Would Starmer have done that?

The Tories have fixated on immigration. Has Starmer?
The Tories have dreamed up bullshit, red meat policies like Rwanda. Has Starmer? Will he back out of the Tory mess?
The Tories are obsessed with Culture Wars and "anti-woke". Has Starmer stoked those issues?
The Tories brought us austerity. As tight as the fiscal situation is, there is no prospect of Osborne era austerity.
The Tories have cosied up to Meloni, Orban etc. No indication or even prospect of Starmer doing likewise.
The big issue of our time is what the Tories are describing as "the green crap". Starmer is miles ahead of the Tories on this.

I don't think anyone even believes that there is a significant overlap between Labour and the Tories on these issues.

Is the Starmer-is-a-Tory trope really just a dissatisfaction with his stance on Gaza? Or is it the failure to recognise that whilst in "ming vase" mode Labour are highlighting the economic shitshow they will inherit and dampening down expectations of what they can achieve, and more importantly, how quickly?

Maybe it's easier not to think about these things and roll out the lazy analysis?

https://www.ft.com/content/f7394525-76a1-462c-a6e5-fe8273df4f7f

he is a tory

Nothing to do with his stance on Palestine - which I am not a fan of.

The IMA isnt the worst piece of legislation/policy. Starmer has highlighted immigration as a matter of serious concern also.

It may not be the most insightful piece of political analysis to be honest but it's how I feel about him.

Tony Benn used to praise Thathcher for being a sign post rather than a weather vane ie she stuck to her guns. He wasn't praising the policy. Benn wasn't a Tory. Most have the wit to work that out.


Starmer once says Thatcher has the mission and the plan to get things done ie the same argument that Benn made hundreds of times over 20+ years and that makes him a Tory. That would fly in the face of all logic.

The Tories have moved so far to the right to combat UKIP and now Reform growthbin popularity, Labour are following them in the drift right instead of sticking to what should be their principles

In what way? Economics? Social Policy?

The only I can think off is the 2 child cap. Something I think Labour will address but not straight away and possibly not quick enough.

I'm fairly confident that Labour just want to get over the line and get into office and then get on with fixing things. I'm braced for the frustration at how long it will take to fix everything. But better that, than another campaign where the right wing press just lampoon Labour and we end up with a Tory-led government that not only don't fix things but are happy to let them deteriorate???

What ever about the local politicians running for Westminster - the only real interest I have in that is the nationalist v unionist count at the end of it. An increase in the number of nationalists might nudge us further towards a border poll.

It feels inevitable that the Tories are going to lose in a landslide Labour victory and as much as I want to see that, I can't help but feel Starmer is not going to change much. I'm not a fan of his. It's such a pity Labour aren't going in with a Corbyn-esque leader who I think would do some real good. I know he wasn't everyone's cup of tea, but I think he was honest and had the good of all people at heart.

Starmer is the continuity candidate.

Starmer is basically a tory

That really is lazy analysis.

What has defined the 14 years of the Tories in government? How much of that overlaps with Starmer.

The Tories took us out of Europe. Would Starmer have done that?

The Tories have fixated on immigration. Has Starmer?
The Tories have dreamed up bullshit, red meat policies like Rwanda. Has Starmer? Will he back out of the Tory mess?
The Tories are obsessed with Culture Wars and "anti-woke". Has Starmer stoked those issues?
The Tories brought us austerity. As tight as the fiscal situation is, there is no prospect of Osborne era austerity.
The Tories have cosied up to Meloni, Orban etc. No indication or even prospect of Starmer doing likewise.
The big issue of our time is what the Tories are describing as "the green crap". Starmer is miles ahead of the Tories on this.

I don't think anyone even believes that there is a significant overlap between Labour and the Tories on these issues.

Is the Starmer-is-a-Tory trope really just a dissatisfaction with his stance on Gaza? Or is it the failure to recognise that whilst in "ming vase" mode Labour are highlighting the economic shitshow they will inherit and dampening down expectations of what they can achieve, and more importantly, how quickly?

Maybe it's easier not to think about these things and roll out the lazy analysis?

He might was well enjoy the next half. It will be his last for a very long while.

There is plenty of opportunity for that type of thing. A good long ban is deserved but should also act as a deterrent

Considering Armagh are hotly favoured to win regardless of how close the contest could be and considering that McGeeney is currently the most experienced manager in football, wouldn't it be such a huge humiliation  for him should Monaghan prevail under the tutelage of a wet behind the ears rookie manager? One who is learning his trade on the hoof, oft times struggling to impress his type of game, good decision making onto the players

Who says Armagh are hotly favoured?

Bookies.

1/2 favs.

Most of that market flow must be coming in from Monaghan and Tyrone. Certainly that's were the brimming confidence seems to be emanating from.

Seems to be an awful lot of confidence from the Armagh crowd that they will win, and win convincingly no less. You'd swear they had a good bit of success and were seasoned campaigners at the business end of the championship to warrant such confidence. Or even a dominant record over us in recent years.

I dunno, Monaghan are certainly in a bit of transition with alot of youth being brought through and with it being Vinny's first year in charge, but I still think we've a great chance here in a 50/50 game.

Where are you picking up on this armagh confidence that they will win an win well. Certainly Bennydorano falls into that category but not picking up anything more than that.

I sense that Monaghan are more confident against Armagh than they would have been against of the other sides they could have faced. Similarly Armagh are more confident than they would have been against Mayo. Would read nothing more into it than that

Theoretically would Armagh people be happy winning if it meant Tyrone beat Kerry?

Siege mentality in a question

Only a request at this stage. Hasn't been approved yet.

That said if they have both requested it then any decision to have the game elsewhere comes under greater scrutiny.

The traffic issues looked very problematic and possibly making a farce out of have the 2 group games throw in at the same time. Could have had the situation with Tyrone or Westmeath fans with young children/elderly patrons arriving well before the Dublin/Sligo match to secure a seat in Breffni and then then having to hang around for a delayed throw in to the Tyrone/Westmeath because of traffic delays pushing back the throw in in Carrick.

There is always a risk of traffic delays and you have the decision of whether to push back throw in but they were exacerbated in this instance by the combination of fixtures. It looked like really poor planning and I wouldn't be surprised if the Gardai expressed reservations.

Hard to know what crowd it will take to Croke Park. If it is a quarter full then that that is still more than double the number that Carrick could accommodate. I fully accept that a pool stage group game is not the same as a knock out double header.

It is what it is.

Any idea of timescale for a decision?

Rumour that it was originally Cavan and Galway objected. Then moved to CoS and now Armagh objected. Don't know if either is actually true.

Disagree totally on Breffni, we may as well have had a toss for match to be there or the Hyde then, Breffni is unbelievably inconvenient for Galway support compared to Armagh.

You could hardly argue that Breffni was more inconvenient for Galway than Carrick is for Armagh?

Is this a joke? It's near the same distance for both.

You're saying above "There isn't an absolutely ideal ground for this game but Breffni was as close as you could get". For starters I can think of 4 grounds.

But to play your game, in which possibly way would Hyde Park Roscommon for instance not be as fair or fairer than Breffini? Why shouldn't it be played there?

On CoS it looks like it's c1hr15mins from Tuam and Ballinasloe. No part of Armagh is remotely as close.  1hr50 from Galway city is still a bit shorter than any part of Armagh. But the number of towns that people travelling from any part of Armagh is going to drive match day travel time way up. There will be match day traffic coming from Galway as well and nobody is going to achieve satnav projected times but it looks way worse for armagh.

On Hyde vs Breffni. Again Hyde is 38 mins from Ballinasloe and 54 from Tuam. That's a bit long from even the nearest parts of Armagh.

But again none of the above takes in the context of the other matches.

Objectively all parts is Armagh to Roscommon is more difficult than any part of Galway other than the extreme west and the islands to Breffni. So no, not a joke.

[Unless you are coming from Clifden the venue is hardly equidistant.]

Could easily have played it in the Hyde to satisfy demand from Armagh huge support.

I think that Breffni would have better met this objective.

I was on a the windup as its a ridiculous suggestion as was Breffni.

Breffni is now a ridiculous suggestion as there is the small matter of another game being played at the same time there. But I don't see why it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place.

There isn't an absolutely ideal ground for this game but Breffni was as close as you could get.

As has been pointed out elsewhere the travel scenario looks very problematic (given other games ongoing and the absence of ring roads or dual carriageways) and the stadium is hardly big enough.

I would be very surprised if Armagh have not objected in some way to this. I am completely against the pointless appeals of disciplinary decisions but this fixture decision looks incompetent.

Journey times from Lurgan, Armagh and  Crossmaglen don't look too bad at just over 2 hours but the reality will be much, much more than that. A lot of Galway is much closer than that. Unless you are coming from Clifden the venue is hardly equidistant.

Armagh had easily 10k in Healy pk and would have more if the capacity allowed.

The criteria that Croke Park use for the distance is from the county ground. There's 5 minutes difference from the Athletic Grounds & Pearse Stadium to Pairc Sean according to google maps.
The total attendance in Healy Park on Saturday was 9k.

On Healy Pk I stand corrected. Whilst the official figure you quote is complete nonsense I do accept that it wasn't a full house. Whilst Armagh had very significantly more than half the crowd it wouldn't have added up to 10k. My bad.

On distance between the counties I will take you at your word on what the official ruling is. It's a strange rule but I suppose there has to be one. Even weirder would be the failure to apply context. The context of getting from Lurgan or any of the towns in S. Armagh to CoS in match traffic when Tyrone are travelling to Breffni at the same time. The contexts of what towns you have to go through and their ability to cope. Going early to get a seat for children then brings in the earlier match at Breffni. In combination these fixtures look ill considered at best.

Presumably the Gardai have given it all their blessing.