No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
The previous head, Jeremy Corbyn, was socialist and had a long history of fighting for socialist causes. It would have been hard for Labour to find a leader more socialist than him amongst their MP's.
Corbyn was also at the helm of a horrible Labour defeat in 2019.
Starmer has been compared to Blair, for better or worse. Given the Labour party's platform, I expect a lot of the energy of this government will be to fix the damage that the Tories caused, get some new clean energy, and try to grow the economy as some former Warsaw Pact countries are creeping up to the UK's average wage.
Corbyn lost by less than 3 million votes (E: in spite of a brutal years-long smear campaign literally designating him "unelectable"). A "horrible defeat" is the narrative the neoliberal media wants you to follow because it makes him seems like less of a threat to the establishment than he really was.
E: it's a bit late and I doubt anyone will see this now, but after seeing it just mentioned on tv I had to add that Starmer won with about a third of the votes, while Corbyn lost with just under half. So no matter how the media or those who believe it try to twist things, and as if there's really any doubt when you look at the reactions to each, but obviously it has to be said - Corbyn was demonstrably more popular than Starmer is.
Absolutely, in case anyone needed more proof that the guy is 100% dedicated to the establishment and furthering his own career, not working class, and definitely not otherwise marginalised people (sadly, many do, so spreading this kind of info far and wide is not only welcome, but necessary).
If UK politicians had any sense they'd fix the voting system that let that happen.
Obviously they won't because that same system put them in power and is currently holding far-right at bay, but it would be nice.
Yes
No, they're acting as an establishment backed placeholder while the right regroups in preparation for a surge even further right next elections (when they get to blame all of the countries problems on "lefties"). Also the far right has made pretty significant gains this election.
Either way though you're right - he has no reason to fix the voting system. People really need to let this sink in - Starmer isn't there for the good of the country or the people, but his own and that of the establishment.
People think that the Brexit Referendum was when the UK timeline split, but imo it split when the Alternative Vote referendum failed back in 2011.
Keep in mind that for the way UK elects MPs something like Alternative Vote (or even approval voting, which I prefer) would only help with the problem that only 2 parties have any chance of winning in each particular constituency.
It doesn't get around the issue that '% of constituencies where party X wins the election' and '% of votes cast for party X' are in no way the same thing.
What you say is better than what the Tories did, but with such a large majority they could seize the opportunity and renationalise some privatized services, improve and adequately finance those that the right was letting die, change the tax system so that the upper classes help to finance the state. You already know, things that should be normal on the left until the "third way"
Like op, I'm not British and I wonder if this would be possible or do we forget that something like this is going to happen, I don't know, if you're from there, tell us.
They could, but aren't going to.
So far they have u-turned on every pledge they've made, specifically those about nationalising services, saving the health and social services from complete destruction from underfunding and privatisation, and stopping further cuts to a cruel benefits system they have no intention of addressing.
Meanwhile taxing the rich more wasn't even in their pledges, all they talk about is making Britain "better for business" and making the population less "work shy".
Anyone pinning any hope for significant change on Starmer's blue Labour, hasn't been paying any attention (or is out enough of direct harms way to not give a shit about those of us already at the bottom who will continue getting pounded).
Thanks for the info, I wasn't paying attention, but because British politics doesn't affect me of course, I'm sorry for what it does.
If you're not from here, my issue isn't with you, people aren't obliged to know the politics of all countries (though wherever you are, something similar is likely happening - the Overton window is shifting to the right globally), it's the masses of locals who buy in to the idea that Starmer is a leftist that I find frustrating..
Yes, I understand you, in my country it has not yet taken hold in a drastic way, but you see how politicians with ideas, social democrats at most, are treated in the press like ultra-intractable radical leftists.
Since when do neoliberals "renationalize privatized services"?