They delivered the minimum wage in '97, which is what I was asked about, alongside countless other policies which made the country better.

They might not want those things, but the ‘Captains of industry’ who donated to Labour in 1997 helped deliver those things. And that’s just reality, political or not.

If you select only the messages designed to appeal to the right (to whom they have to appeal if they want to win!), sure. But they’ve also had plenty of leftwing messaging, comparing their plans to Attlee, most obviously. As to Streeting’s comments in particular, it’s the ‘middle class’ bit that’s important: he’s criticising privileged people prioritising grandstanding over getting things done.

More to the point, the policies are much more important than the odd bit of rhetoric.

Labour’s two biggest policy promises are the most ambitious green policies in this country’s history, and the biggest expansion of workers’ rights in half a century, so I don’t see how the suggestion they’re not interested in appealling to the left can be true.

People always say this stuff. Then Labour win and we get things like the NHS or the minimum wage. Next election, they go right back to saying nothing will change. I’m much more interested by the people trying to get things done than the kneejerk cynicism that nothing will happen anyway.

Oh, I never read the comments.

Cheers for the better link!

Just reading this interview with Keir Starmer and it’s funny how he’s absolutely got the number of the people in this thread:

“It reached a point where Labour has, in the past, appeared as if it knew better than working people, and almost in a sort of condescending manner was telling people what they should think and what they should do,” he said.

(My emphasis.)

Counterpoint: no, you can’t.

Sorry the proles aren’t behaving the way you’d like, boss.

Is the message here supposed to be, both men did photoshoots at potteries, therefore they are politically aligned? Because if so I think you need a few more steps to actually make this case.

That’s about one tenth of the annual MP’s salary. So, he has a far greater financial motive to remain an MP than he does to lose and collect the bet.

Even if his only incentives were financial, he will make more money by winning than by losing, because an MP’s salary and expenses are pretty good. So, even taking into account the innumeracy of your average MP, he does not have a financial incentive to lose.

“In the 2005 election, I busted a gut to win. I expected to lose. I had a bet on myself to lose in the 2005 election, and my bet went down the pan.”

He didn’t throw the '05 election, even when he bet against himself.

Right, but they weren’t doing that. There’s no evidence they were and no motive for them to do so. The comparison with athletes is not apt. A pro footballer who bets on himself and manipulates the outcome is still a pro-footballer afterwards. A politician who bets on themselves and deliberately loses is not a politician afterwards. It does not make sense to do it.

In Britain, being nominated as a local election candidate simply involves signing some forms

They’re not local election candidates.

It requires huge amounts of work to be a candidate. I know people who’ve run for parliament. One of them had previously run as a total no-hoper on multiple occasions, in order to prove he knew how to campaign well enough to get selected for a seat where he had a chance. He was so burned out by the selection process that having won the selection, he actually turned down the nomination, then quit politics altogether. The idea that he’d have deliberatey thrown any of those elections is ridiculous.

The idea that anyone would put in all the work to get selected as a candidate, then decide it was a smart move to place a bet against themselves and throw the election to make a quick buck is ridiculous. There’s no way you could make enough money from the bet to make it worthwhile.

There is no indication that any of the politicians who bet against themselves intended to throw the election. Politics is not sport.

This idiot might well be the difference between Sunak holding his seat and losing it.

See, I don’t care about this at all. There’s no suggestion he was going to deliberately throw the election. He didn’t have any inside information. He’s allowed to place bets!