hotmail.com wrote: » Labour probably have to embrace Brexit better, convince remainers that the argument is over rather than keep the culture war alive in every tweet or article. They need to ditch Keir and not pick someone with a title in their name. A Sir leading the Labour Party. Who thought that was a good idea. On economics, the Brits, like Ireland, pretty much in the centre. They support progressive taxation but don't want high taxes. If Labour want to get into office, they really have to become Tory Lite. Just a tad to the left.
Sam Russell wrote: » If Labour want a future they must look to their origins. They must organize - as the workers unions started. Local and hard work - every local issue worked and resolved. Every issue addressed building a base of loyal voters. Labour started with a few well educated politicians - but they educated themselves - and they stayed of the people - of their origins. Currently, it can be hard to tell the difference between Labour and Tory MPs.
MrMusician18 wrote: » If they could do that they might see some recovery but over the past years ago labour has been capable of doing is eating itself over anti-Semitism (where's that gone now that they ousted Corbyn?) and out-wokeing itself on twitter. Does any of this have any relevance for a voter, let alone one in a deprived northern constituency?
MrMusician18 wrote: » I actually thought Keir Starmer would be a better leader than he's turned out to be. He had some great days in the commons effectively leading the opposition to Brexit but I suppose that generally speaks for the relevance of commons debate.
hotmail.com wrote: » Leaving the EU isn't a right wing ideology. There are plenty of countries in Europe not in the EU. It just so happens that the majority of right wing voters support it. But that doesn't make it a right wing idea.
Leroy42 wrote: » The problem is that the Tories don't actually have a vision, so difficult to offer the alternative. Johnson has said, and continues to say, that he is against a sea border whilst lauding the deal that he delivered that creates one. Johnson is claiming that everyone should see how great the vaccine rollout has been vs EU, despite telling us for months that international comparison is meaningless. Johnson is saying now isn't the time to have a independence debate due to the issues it may cause and everything and everyone should be solely focused on Covid yet spent months telling everyone that the transition shouldn't be extended just because of Covid. The government that says it backs the NHS but gives out contracts to their mates so the HNS doesn't get the material it needs. That refuses to get nurses a decent pay rise. How can anyone have an alternative vision to a government that so openly lies and shows contempt?
Sam Russell wrote: » The Tory press were anti Milliband and made an issue of his Jewish heritage, making an issue of him eating a bacon sandwich. Then they made an issue of Labour anti-Semitism because of same Labour politicians being anti Israel Gov actions against Palestinians. The Tory press is anti Labour - and the squealing classes will roll in behind them. They need their own press.
View wrote: » Trying to define yourself by offering a “Light version” of what another party is offering is a futile effort as Labour has amply demonstrated. It is doomed from the start, since anyone who agrees with the original vision will vote for the party offering the “full strength” version, and anyone who disagrees with it, has ample reason to skip voting for you/fail to turn up and vote.
ambro25 wrote: » A party defining itself with different topics and policies, rather than adopting lighter variants of divisive policies perceived as mattering to the electorate, gets heard better than the other, because its messaging does not get as diluted or filtered, and so it confuses the audience less.https://twitter.com/markpack/status/1391670678424805379?s=20
breezy1985 wrote: » https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/11/britons-living-abroad-for-more-than-15-years-to-be-given-right-to-vote I can't understand any logical fair reason to allow voters out of a country for 15 years to vote
ambro25 wrote: » Have you lived outside your country/a country wherein you enjoy voting rights, for that length of time? I have voted in every French presidential election from abroad, in the period 1994-2018 (and likely will again next year). The French president represents me and his policies influence me, directly and indirectly, as a national. I have also voted for my Senator (the French representation system provides a few for French expatriates, e.g. 1 for EMEA, 1 for Northern America/Canada, 1 for SE Asia, etc.) since these were introduced, so we expatriates (of however many years) still have some influence in/access to the legislative process, for the same reasons as above (that legislation can affect us and our families, directly and/or not).
breezy1985 wrote: » I lived in the UK for 10 years and I think it would be completely wrong for me to vote in local and general elections. Presidential and referendums I would see as a little different as they represent the country and people and even then I would have a limot .But local/general should be a representation of the people who actually live in the places those politicans represent
ambro25 wrote: » So, can I safely take it, that you now see a “logical fair reason to allow voters out of a country for 15 years to vote”?
breezy1985 wrote: » The article refers to local and general elections which is what I was referring to but I did say "with limits" and 15 years or more I think is a bit much for almost everything
ambro25 wrote: » The fundamental issue is the right to vote (at all) as a citizen of a country, not which particular election(s) that vote-from-abroad could or should be allowed/implemented for: it’s an issue of citizenship, not of residence or length thereof. I’m surprised someone who has experienced life overseas, like you as your post suggests, doesn’t see a problem with the state stripping as fundamental a personal right, as voting. Irrespective of how long one expatriates for.
breezy1985 wrote: » I don't know for definite how it works but will these people now be allowed to vote in British and Spanish/Irish/Greek/whatever local elections because that is really wrong if so
breezy1985 wrote: » I don't see why someone who has lived in Spain or wherever for 10+ years should get to vote for the people who fix the roads or run the libraries in Stoke or wherever. How can they truly know the problems faced by those areas. After being away for almost a decade I certainly did not understand the problems and things Limerick had went through in my absence. I don't know for definite how it works but will these people now be allowed to vote in British and Spanish/Irish/Greek/whatever local elections because that is really wrong if so
hotmail.com wrote: » There is a movement here to allow Irish citizens abroad to vote in presidential elections. A lot of countries allow it. A referendum is likely here to change the law, which I assume you'll be against.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Whatever about voting for the president or specific diaspora designated TDs or senators, I can't understand the requirement to continue to have voting rights for the national parliament constituencies while living abroad. I believe our diaspora should have a voice and there should be a TD or senator to 2 if so designated but to continue to have general voting rights feels wrong to me. Whatever about having it cut off after 5 years or so, but 15 is mental!
fvp4 wrote: » In the British case, this must benefit the conservatives. Lots of right wing ex pats.
PommieBast wrote: » UK overseas voting only covers parliamentary elections and referenda.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/87962ff026856470eacf12f9c3179c90.svg)
