If Labour truly had wanted to keep its majority, it should first:
Solidify the social welfare state, for everyone. Tax the billionnaires and multimillionnaires by a lot. Nationalise companies. Call it “reduction of bureaucracy” (because not having to go through all sorts of hoops and exceptions to get social help, REDUCES bureaucracy; and making state rail etc. also can break away the dependency of the UK on London!)
I don’t like this one, but it could sharply restrict immigration, and advertise that it does this a lot. It should however not be like the Danish or Australian model - it should be more humane; eg. those that already live here, can stay. It should paint those that want to make it inhumane, as “unrealistic” and “opening floodgates” (cus it will have people run even harder to the UK, because higher risk, higher reward). Fight the lion by its own weapon.
Quietly actually improve queer rights (ESPECIALLY including trans). Denounce the Cass report as fake news, put in informed consent, etc. Be sure to do this quietly a few days after a big news event, so that the public is distracted.
Remove those privacy-infringing spy laws. Leave the 14 Eyes, remove thousands of cameras. And actually lock up the far-right politicians without parole, for 20 years, and make them get rehabilitated. Idk what Mao did to convince Pu Yi to be a good communist, but something like that.
And why does Labour not do this? Because Keir has sold out his own party. While he’s from the right party, he has turned it away from the people, when the very thing Labour should do, is to be there for and by the people of the UK!
And while we’re at it, Labour could put in a proportional representation system. If Labour were to stand to win some seats from such a system, then Starmer could perhaps be convinced of the usefulness of doing so. It’s the wrong reason, sure, but it’s the right thing to do: proportionality.
Starmer should furthermore seek much closer cooperation to the EU. In these times where fascists threaten left and right, we should do everything to combat it.
What restrictive Australian immigration model are you referring to? We’ve had high immigration levels for the last 30 years, the only blip was for covid in 2020.
We have in the last two years tightened our immigration levels (lowered them) less than both the UK and the US, by a lot - US has doubled our reduction, UK has more than quadrupled it. If you follow ‘the Australian model’ you’ll have to let in a heap more people.
Leftists for years have been screaming that the Labour party was a grift. They are the typical right-wing chuds parading around with leftist rhetoric, explicitly so they could pull the rug once they gained power.
The first thing Labour does after getting majority is attack trans women and fuck around with internet privacy.
Bloody wankers.
If Labour truly had wanted to keep its majority, it should first:
Solidify the social welfare state, for everyone. Tax the billionnaires and multimillionnaires by a lot. Nationalise companies. Call it “reduction of bureaucracy” (because not having to go through all sorts of hoops and exceptions to get social help, REDUCES bureaucracy; and making state rail etc. also can break away the dependency of the UK on London!)
I don’t like this one, but it could sharply restrict immigration, and advertise that it does this a lot. It should however not be like the Danish or Australian model - it should be more humane; eg. those that already live here, can stay. It should paint those that want to make it inhumane, as “unrealistic” and “opening floodgates” (cus it will have people run even harder to the UK, because higher risk, higher reward). Fight the lion by its own weapon.
Quietly actually improve queer rights (ESPECIALLY including trans). Denounce the Cass report as fake news, put in informed consent, etc. Be sure to do this quietly a few days after a big news event, so that the public is distracted.
Remove those privacy-infringing spy laws. Leave the 14 Eyes, remove thousands of cameras. And actually lock up the far-right politicians without parole, for 20 years, and make them get rehabilitated. Idk what Mao did to convince Pu Yi to be a good communist, but something like that.
And why does Labour not do this? Because Keir has sold out his own party. While he’s from the right party, he has turned it away from the people, when the very thing Labour should do, is to be there for and by the people of the UK!
And while we’re at it, Labour could put in a proportional representation system. If Labour were to stand to win some seats from such a system, then Starmer could perhaps be convinced of the usefulness of doing so. It’s the wrong reason, sure, but it’s the right thing to do: proportionality. Starmer should furthermore seek much closer cooperation to the EU. In these times where fascists threaten left and right, we should do everything to combat it.
What restrictive Australian immigration model are you referring to? We’ve had high immigration levels for the last 30 years, the only blip was for covid in 2020.
We have in the last two years tightened our immigration levels (lowered them) less than both the UK and the US, by a lot - US has doubled our reduction, UK has more than quadrupled it. If you follow ‘the Australian model’ you’ll have to let in a heap more people.
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/aus/australia/net-migration
Labour? Oh you mean the Tories 2
2ories
Leftists for years have been screaming that the Labour party was a grift. They are the typical right-wing chuds parading around with leftist rhetoric, explicitly so they could pull the rug once they gained power.
how else are they going to keep their 100 seat majority?! Gotta think of the next election!