Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "REVEALED: 'No SURPRISE Labour CAVED to unions' after Starmer's top team accept £500,000 in donations" video.

@BrianWillcox-qp2hr 'Give it to the needy not the greedy.' Very catchy, but meaningless. Would you define those who are slightly above the level at which benefits are applicable, but are still struggling with increasing costs, as 'greedy' then? Or do you actually seem them simply as inconveniences?
5
@Insanio Many did not have the resources to pay into private pension schemes. Moreover, perhaps they were foolish enough to believe that the state pension was actually going to do what it was intended to do when it was created in 1908?
4
@BrianWillcox-qp2hr 'They've had a good run with the Triple-lock & there are those of them who can afford to go abroad twice a year on holiday.' Just as there are many who cannot. Are they simply collateral damage in your world view?
4
@fluffyanne1177 I am beginning to wonder if Trudeau is Starmer's role model.
2
@Tuesday__ Not really. A party with 33.7% of the vote, and around 20% of those eligible to vote, has ended up with a huge majority, and is effectively untouchable.
1
@wundurra24 Hardly tactical voting when the winning party accrued 33.7% of the total vote. What it actually is is a demonstration that a first past the post system designed for a two party system, firstly Tory/Liberal then Tory/Labour, has serious shortcomings when there are more than two parties. Neither the Tories (who benefitted from it in the past) nor Labour, (who benefit from it now) would ever concede the point however. The additional problem, of course, is the 40% who didn't vote at all. I doubt that tactical voting played any part in the result.
1
Surely it is far simpler? As Rachel Reeves effectively demonstrated recently, her party intends to protect the Labour core vote by pandering to it. Clearly, the 80% or so who either did not vote Labour, or did not vote at all, are of no interest to our new overlords.
1