A Government doesn't have to please all the people - it needs to please the people it relies on for support.
Yes, but this is people all the way from the left to the centre, and they don't win without the centre.
A Labour government is 'supposed' to do that and also make the country a better place for everyone by doing the things that raise everybody up - if they upset a few millionaires along the way then tough.
The Tories don't worry about upsetting the left but they have practically destroyed their party in an attempt to not upset the centre-right, right and far-right.
The tories don't care about the left, but they do try and play on the heart strings of the working class, with immigration etc.
They also have it easier, as they have the older generations to rely on, who are the must numerous, the most wealthy, and most likely to vote. (all in a general sense, not everyone of course)
Every single difficult decision Labour faces should be resolved with the option that most pleases the left. Full Stop.
No, it should be resolved by what is closest to the manifesto, which they were elected on, but also allowing some various for how the situation changes over the year.
They should aim to please the most of those who vote for them, especially those voters they could lose to the other side (unfortunately). It's 100% **** they need to do this, but without the centre or some ex Tory voters you're going to lose (for now, in the future things should change).
Prioritising the left with our voter makeup is a practical certain loss at the minute. It's ****, but it's reality.
The mainstream media will complain no matter what they do so there is no excuse for trying appease them - and even less of an excuse for trying to appease the far-right.
Yes, this is why if they aim to put a policy in place and people whinge, or the media, or their own MP's they should just do it regardless if they thought it was the best decision initially. The MP's need to tow the line with what policies they prefer, but this has to come second to the overall party tactics and aims of retaining power. Trying to avoid voting for difficult policies and get on a high horse about what is best for all is great, but if it loses elections then it's worse. They need to put the party before themselves, or think about the bigger picture.
The single biggest problem with Starmer and his version of the Labour Party is that there is no underlying ideology* that informs decisions which means everything is reactive.
Being reactive is quite good, as it's most current, and times change. You can't just stick to the manifesto, **** happens, you need to adapt.
The ideology is "stop things getting worse, then try and fix them, then try and improve them", and it's going to be a very long process, people shouldn't expect miracles, they don't exist.
*except his unwavering commitment to Zionism
Comments like this don't help.
How many Labour voters actually have a firm view on what is going on over there, and what does the rest of the UK voters think?
I would try and avoid what's going on there as much as possible, with Labour's supposed history with antisemitism, and also due to Hamas etc. It is effectively terrorists running most of Palestine, and they're a bad bunch too, and would be far worse if they had more resources like Israel.
Call for a cease fire, hostage release, more aid, and a truce/ two nation state and that's all they can do, which is pretty much what they are doing.
www.theguardian.com
