you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It's a a democracy, representatives aren't supposed to impose what they want onto the people. They're supposed to represent what the people want. It's likely Starmer is still more left leaning than the consensus of the public. But his job isn't to impose his will on the people but to do what the people want.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    And according the abysmal turnout and the fact that starmer's labour couldn't even really outcompete Corbyn's in the popular vote despite the collapse of the Tories, the people naturally want a watered down version of the Tory austerity platform and enlightened centrism?

    If there's one thing the UK election will show you, the people want someone to fucking do something about their cost of living problems, not play middle of the road and keep the status quo. They go to the far right because of that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Politics is about compromise to be a best fit to the will of the people. Starmer is a better fit to the overall will of the people in the UK. Corbyn might have been a better fit to what the left wanted, but are you really claiming he was closer to the overall will of all of the people of the UK than Starmer is?

    Democracy is about following the will of the people, not imposing your will upon the people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Considering he got 40 percent in one of his elections and Starmer didn't even get 35 percent in this one, yeah I guess I am.

    At least I have a metric I'm pointing to when I'm saying what the consensus is, instead of generally pulling it out of my ass.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Fuck the metrics, Starmer is PM and Corbyn is just an independent nobody that will effect zero positive change.

    But talking big and doing nothing is what socialism is all about these days, isn't it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    They’re supposed to represent what the people want

    They are supposed to listen to their constituents and do whats best for them.

    Sometimes that means not giving them what they want, cause the average person is a fucking moron.. and half of them are dumber than that.

    Great example would be Brexit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    But who's really the moron here? People that don't like people that call them morons, or socialists who say they're for the working class, need the support of the working class for their movement to succeed, but publicly call the people they need support from "fucking morons"?

    Trump also says similar things about people whose support he needs BTW.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yes yes the "b-b-both sides!" false equivalency again. Thats totally not tried and tired.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You sound basically the same, but if you're wrapping yourself in the red flags of failure while Trump is wrapping himself in the American flag, why would you think someone would even bother to hear you out?

    You can't win over the working class because modern socialism doesn't care about being appealing to the working class. It's entirely focused on being holier than thou towards liberals which accomplishes less than nothing. Net negative effect on society in real terms.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments