The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[ml1dch]

14 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

 

Woo hoo! Everything is going to be alright after all.

[Narrator] Ed Milliband was twelve points ahead of David Cameron in 2012 [/Narrator]

[HanoiVillan]

22 minutes ago, blandy said:

There's a bit of a catch 22 in there, IMO. You seem to agree PR is plausible and perhaps a good idea. And you think Labour might be well advised to pursue a PR system if they ever get in again.       They've been out of power for 10 years already, now. Scotland is lost to them. They're what needing to overturn what? a 160+ seat advantage to the tories, basically in England and Wales. That kind of swing to the oppo doesn't happen in one go. So the thing they'd be well advised to do, they're not fgoing to get a chance to do. In the meantime....

So that leads back towards co-operating with other parties to get to a point where they can do something.

It's either no power and purity, (and the tories carrying on making things worse) or power with some co-operation.

It is possible that there will be a Lib-Lab or Lab-SNP pact rather than a Labour government, sure. But the problems are just starting for PR then, not the least of which is that there would be pressure for there to be a referendum (based on recent precedent re constitutional changes and the AV referendum in 2011 (?)), and Labour and the Lib Dems would want different PR systems anyway. I'm not saying it's a bad idea to have PR - though I really only like AV + and might not vote for some others - but it's a huge, huge uphill battle.

26 minutes ago, blandy said:

If you look at the things that need sorting out, that need changing - there's not much difference in what the Labours, Greens, Libs or Plaid view as the things that matter - enviro, NHS, Housing, and there's not a massive difference in what to do about it, or even how to do it.

This just isn't right. They may be able to agree that 'the environment' and 'housing' are important issues - do even the Tories disagree? - but there are massive differences in the ways those issues would be approached. There's a weird flattening thing that happens on this forum where people seem to think that everyone who doesn't like the Tories basically agrees with each other on the basics but wears different coloured rosettes because they're too proud to admit they're the same or something, and it isn't even close to being true. They might be able to achieve tactical cooperation on certain issues - Libs and Labs might even be able to form a coalition, except that the Libs wouldn't want it - but you're talking something much bigger than that. You're asking each party's base voters to be prepared to vote for another party on an ongoing basis, even though that party may not represent their interests in any way, and to be happy enough about it that people don't decide to run as 'independent socialist' or 'independent liberal' candidates.

And of course the SNP is even harder, since 'Scotland In' or 'Scotland Out' is a zero-sum game, so there cannot be much real cooperation between unionist parties and the nationalists.

[HanoiVillan]

37 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

 

The good news in that poll is the topline numbers, but important to note that a third of voters don't even know enough about him to be able to comment.

However, there is worse news as well:

Still in the 5-8 points behind range. Part of the reason is that Sunak has become the star turn, not Johnson:

(from: https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1310023/keir-starmer-Labour-Party-chancellor-rishi-sunk-yougov-poll-result-news)

There's a lot more work to do.

[ml1dch]

3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

In the case I'm thinking of, she dropped the case and ended up contributing to the defendant's legal costs.

I assume there must be several then, as I thought the famous one (obviously famous only in navel-gazing, political circle-jerks like this thread) was the Laura Murray incident.

And the most recent update on that I can find from April 2020 is the judge finding (in the initial "is there a case to answer" judgement) in favour of Riley.

[Jareth]

Will be very interesting if Layla Moran wins the Lib Dem leadership - she will sweep up exactly the people who feel a bit disenfranchised by Labour, me included. 

[blandy]

16 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

You're asking each party's base voters to be prepared to vote for another party on an ongoing basis

No I'm not.

I'm putting forwards the opinion that labour will need to co-operate with other parties in some seats to their mutual overall advantage, at the next election and that they should have done this at the last 2 or 3 elections. For example where Labour is in second place to the tories and others are down the list, they stand down. And where the nearest  clear challengers are from Libs or green or Plaid or whatever, that Labour could stand down. Get the tories out. Start sorting out the effing mess. 

16 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

They may be able to agree that 'the environment' and 'housing' are important issues - do even the Tories disagree? - but there are massive differences in the ways those issues would be approached.

Yes the tories disagree - their actions show so. I just don't see "massive differences" in the way many key issues need to be approached between the various left parties. But even for ones where there are, there's room for compromise and negotiation. I mean manifestos (not that there are any at the moment) they're drawn up for an election, the election happens and the plans or pledges are abandoned by parties that didn't win, particularly if they proved unpopular. Yes, nationalist parties are consistent on wanting independence, sort of, but that's about the only thing of consequence that stays the same. IF parties can change their ethos that much internally, then it's not much of a stretch at all for grown up politicians to co-operate to work out a way ahead - it'll happen if PR comes in, anyway, so why not try before that?

[ml1dch]

3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

There's a lot more work to do.

Absolutely,  but I'm pretty the Sunak popularity isn't going to last. All he's had to do so far is speak coherently and give away more money to people than a Chancellor ever has before in history.

In those circumstances,  Dr. Crippen would probably be riding high in the opinion polls.

If he's still hugely popular when he's telling everyone about tax rises and service cuts then I'll be impressed,  and both those things will happen before 2024.

[Jareth]

Often it's "I disliked Corbyn so let's just move on". The problem with that attitude is that Corbyn is usually right. And when John McDonnell is also vociferously putting an argument - most would surely agree there is some substance. 

They allege that in 2017 hostile officials set up a “shadow operation” in a Westminster office as part of efforts to plot their own election course, which included starving potential target seats of money and focusing resources on MPs not allied to Corbyn.

If claims in the report of significant sums of money being spent on such actions without authority are correct, then the inquiry must consider “whether it may have constituted fraudulent activity”, the submission said.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/07/jeremy-corbyn-accuses-labour-officials-of-sabotaging-election-campaign

[chrisp65]

8 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

The good news in that poll is the topline numbers, but important to note that a third of voters don't even know enough about him to be able to comment.

There's a lot more work to do.

It’s actually pretty difficult to constructively comment on, because I feel so out of step with the majority of voters. I’m clearly just not seeing what they are seeing.

Not so much whether they ‘like’ Labour or Starmer, but on the other side, that so many people can think these nasty con artists are vote worthy.

How has anyone that isn’t in a coma come to the conclusion that Johnson is Prime Ministerial?

How could anyone think, yeah, I’d vote for these again.

Which then makes it really difficult for me to try and work out how you could coax sufficient of those voters to change their mind. I mean what do you need to offer a voter that would currently vote for incompetent con men? I lack empathy with 45% of voters. Minimum. 

[HanoiVillan]

14 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

I assume there must be several then, as I thought the famous one (obviously famous only in navel-gazing, political circle-jerks like this thread) was the Laura Murray incident.

And the most recent update on that I can find from April 2020 is the judge finding (in the initial "is there a case to answer" judgement) in favour of Riley.

This is the most recent of her libel cases:

Rachel Riley and Tracy-Ann Oberman drop libel claim over retweet

'The Countdown presenter Rachel Riley and actor Tracy-Ann Oberman have dropped their joint libel claim against a barrister for retweeting a critical blog post about the pair.

Jane Heybroek, an immigration lawyer, said the duo had withdrawn their case after 18 months of legal action that cost her over £80,000 in legal bills.

[...]

Riley and Oberman’s solicitor, Mark Lewis, of Patron Law, said in a statement that his clients “chose not to proceed further after the judge had determined that the opinion expressed was capable of being defamatory, in circumstances where Jane Heybroek claimed that she had promptly deleted her tweet”. They have both now made a contribution towards Heybroek’s costs.'

more on link: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/29/rachel-riley-and-tracy-ann-oberman-drop-libel-claim-over-retweet

[HanoiVillan]

15 minutes ago, blandy said:

No I'm not.

I'm putting forwards the opinion that labour will need to co-operate with other parties in some seats to their mutual overall advantage, at the next election and that they should have done this at the last 2 or 3 elections. For example where Labour is in second place to the tories and others are down the list, they stand down. And where the nearest  clear challengers are from Libs or green or Plaid or whatever, that Labour could stand down. Get the tories out. Start sorting out the effing mess. 

Yes the tories disagree - their actions show so. I just don't see "massive differences" in the way many key issues need to be approached between the various left parties. But even for ones where there are, there's room for compromise and negotiation. I mean manifestos (not that there are any at the moment) they're drawn up for an election, the election happens and the plans or pledges are abandoned by parties that didn't win, particularly if they proved unpopular. Yes, nationalist parties are consistent on wanting independence, sort of, but that's about the only thing of consequence that stays the same. IF parties can change their ethos that much internally, then it's not much of a stretch at all for grown up politicians to co-operate to work out a way ahead - it'll happen if PR comes in, anyway, so why not try before that?

I disagree, both on what you are in effect asking parties to do, and in terms of the differences between parties, but we aren't going to persuade each other I guess.

[HanoiVillan]

13 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Absolutely,  but I'm pretty the Sunak popularity isn't going to last. All he's had to do so far is speak coherently and give away more money to people than a Chancellor ever has before in history.

In those circumstances,  Dr. Crippen would probably be riding high in the opinion polls.

If he's still hugely popular when he's telling everyone about tax rises and service cuts then I'll be impressed,  and both those things will happen before 2024.

Yes, I assume his current sky-high popularity won't last - he's currently more popular with Labour voters than Dodds is, and it's not even close; I don't think that will last forever - but it speaks to the Tories' ability to keep reproducing themselves through personnel changes.

[Jareth]

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

This is the most recent of her libel cases:

Rachel Riley and Tracy-Ann Oberman drop libel claim over retweet

'The Countdown presenter Rachel Riley and actor Tracy-Ann Oberman have dropped their joint libel claim against a barrister for retweeting a critical blog post about the pair.

Jane Heybroek, an immigration lawyer, said the duo had withdrawn their case after 18 months of legal action that cost her over £80,000 in legal bills.

[...]

Riley and Oberman’s solicitor, Mark Lewis, of Patron Law, said in a statement that his clients “chose not to proceed further after the judge had determined that the opinion expressed was capable of being defamatory, in circumstances where Jane Heybroek claimed that she had promptly deleted her tweet”. They have both now made a contribution towards Heybroek’s costs.'

more on link: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/29/rachel-riley-and-tracy-ann-oberman-drop-libel-claim-over-retweet

There was also no jeopardy for them to accuse people - there was a no win no fee basis for their representation. They had a free hit to silence whoever they wanted to. It's just despicable, they wanted to break people who as it turned out, did nothing wrong. 

[HanoiVillan]

2 minutes ago, Jareth said:

There was also no jeopardy for them to accuse people - there was a no win no fee basis for their representation. They had a free hit to silence whoever they wanted to. It's just despicable, they wanted to break people who as it turned out, did nothing wrong. 

It strikes me as a shabby way to behave, in general.

EDIT: And just to come back to the original point, someone who repeatedly sues members of one part of one political party is clearly not 'just another daytime TV host' in terms of politics. Nobody is forcing her to take on these no-win no-fee libel claims; people can agree with them and support them if they want, but they are political actions, and so open to political scrutiny.

Edited August 7, 2020 by HanoiVillan

[Jareth]

Just now, HanoiVillan said:

It strikes me as a shabby way to behave, in general.

I hope it is understood that most folks reaction to this is based upon the rules of 'fair play' - and nothing else. 

[Seat68]

7 minutes ago, Jareth said:

I hope it is understood that most folks reaction to this is based upon the rules of 'fair play' - and nothing else. 

In an echo chamber perhaps. I followed them both on twitter and consistently over years the abuse they both came under from labour supporters was absolutely appalling. This was before this court case or the events that led up to it. 

[Jareth]

1 minute ago, Seat68 said:

In an echo chamber perhaps. I followed them both on twitter and consistently over years the abuse they both came under from labour supporters was absolutely appalling. This was before this court case or the events that led up to it. 

I can only speak from my own perspective - I found their behaviour poor - yes they have most likely been attacked and insulted spurring them into the actions that I now condemn them for - they suffered 'on Twitter', and they wanted to shut that down - and in wielding the power of a no win no fee legal battle they won, mostly. Bad on both sides, but shutting people down financially, which is what a legal battle means, with no risk to your own position - is another example of ignoring 'fair play'.  

[bickster]

45 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Will be very interesting if Layla Moran wins the Lib Dem leadership - she will sweep up exactly the people who feel a bit disenfranchised by Labour, me included. 

Sorry, excuse me wilst I pick myself up off the floor and stitch my sides

From Cobynista to lib Dem is one hell of mental vote swing just because "I don't like the other half of the party".

One sniff of the sweaty sock of power and they'll be buying all the odour eaters £50 can buy

[Jareth]

Just now, bickster said:

Sorry, excuse me wilst I pick myself up off the floor and stitch my sides

From Cobynista to lib Dem is one hell of mental vote swing just because "I don't like the other half of the party".

One sniff of the sweaty sock of power and they'll be buying all the odour eaters £50 can buy

This ignores the trend of political allegiance - under 40s are not dyed in the wool of any party - they want to be inspired by a message. To say that these voters will betray their instincts for power is frankly out of touch, by some measure. 

[ml1dch]

12 minutes ago, Jareth said:

I can only speak from my own perspective - I found their behaviour poor - yes they have most likely been attacked and insulted spurring them into the actions that I now condemn them for - they suffered 'on Twitter', and they wanted to shut that down - and in wielding the power of a no win no fee legal battle they won, mostly. Bad on both sides, but shutting people down financially, which is what a legal battle means, with no risk to your own position - is another example of ignoring 'fair play'.  

Well, presumably it just comes down to (without wanting to sound too Primary school) who started it.

You'll have to explain why Laura Murray felt the need to leap in, unprompted to something that didn't relate to her and (allegedly) libel someone.

To be honest, everyone involved strikes me as just needing a good clip round the ear, but I don't think there would have been lawyers involved anywhere if some angry people hadn't decided they wanted to be a bunch of dicks to somebody on the internet.