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

[peterw]

On 26/06/2022 at 19:13, Davkaus said:

The reality is as the election approaches I might just find myself having to  hold my nose to get my tory backbencher out, but I'd just love one **** reason to vote *for* Labour instead of against the tories. What do they stand for? Anything at all? 

They seem to have one policy - don't rock the boat, or commit to anything, in case it loses us a vote. 

to be fair you don't ever tend to get parties announcing policies until general Election time as there literally is no point. If its a good policy that is popular then the govt will just nick it if they aren't able to rubbish it, adn which point come Election time there would be few headline grabbing policies left for an opposition to try and sell to the public. This whole 'what does Labour stand for' is disngenuous at best and againg propagated by the right-wing press. The point of an opposition is to oppose and only at Election time to announce what they would do or change.

regarding the strikes then everyone knows where Labour stands. Lammy even pointed out when asked that they are the Labour party so their sympathies lie with the rights of workers. But he and the shadow govt are hardly likely to say they are in favour of strikes. Imagine how the right-wing media would spin that. You could see it when kay burley tried to ensnare Mick Flynn when asking what the picketers would do if people wanted to cross the picket line. despite him saying they will picket them she was provoking for more, then mentioning the miners strike. 

It is clear that the Govt (and media) want to drag Labour into the mess they have created and it is for Labour to stay out of it. If you want a labour govt (which is still unlikely) in 2 years then giving free ammunition to the right-wing estates is not the way to go about it. No point asking about Brexit and returning to the EU (which Lammy also ruled out as an election pledge), SNP/pacts, strikes and would labour go on the picket line because it is all designed to trip them up and then see them attacked. The right-wing agenda is obvious and is running scared. It is also why they are attempting to discredit the opposition rather than fight their own cause backed by their own success stories. They have none.

Quickest return out of lockdown? Yes, but only because Johnson was prepared to let "the bodies be stacked up". That wasn't a successful policy that was just good fortune on his behalf. if he'd have taken the circuit breaker in Spetember as Labour called for ratehr than in November then perhaps more deaths would have been avoided. The deaths that weren't avoided when the Tories dithered over initial lockdowns and then allowed thecare homes to become death traps. So don't then tell me about successful roll outs of vaccines when they contributed to one of the largest amounts of covid deaths in the western world in the first place.

We know what labour stand for. Trying to not let the right-wing in the country destabilise them. they want to appear to be a centre-left party that can once again appeal to 'middle England'. So don't expect them to try and inflame but to appear benign and reasonable. You want the Tories out then you have to accept what Labour stand for now - which is don't rock the boat, let the electorate like you, don't give any free hits to the Tories/right-wing stakeholders and then publish your manifesto only when need be.

[blandy]

57 minutes ago, peterw said:

It is clear that the Govt (and media) want to drag Labour into the mess they have created and it is for Labour to stay out of it. If you want a labour govt (which is still unlikely) in 2 years then giving free ammunition to the right-wing estates is not the way to go about it. No point asking about Brexit and returning to the EU (which Lammy also ruled out as an election pledge), SNP/pacts, strikes and would labour go on the picket line because it is all designed to trip them up and then see them attacked. The right-wing agenda is obvious and is running scared. It is also why they are attempting to discredit the opposition rather than fight their own cause backed by their own success stories. They have none.

This is so right.

It's strange sometimes to hear or read people on the left say (rightly) "much of the media is biased against Labour/Milliband/Corbyn/Starmer" - accurately recognising that situation, and yet at the same time complaining that 2 or more years before an election Labour isn't feeding the media stuff they will twist and try and dismantle as "a return to the bad old days" or whatever.

Party politics is as much Chess for the opposition of the day, as it is "tell 'em what we like and what we hate". It's why politicians are seen as worse than estate agents - because the "game" has to be deceptive to a degree. Whether it's Cameron with all that "Green" stuff or "no reorganising the NHS" (and then going and ditching the "Green crap" in short order, and re-organising the NHS, or now, with Starmer. To sort Labour out, after an absolute shoeing at the polls in 2019, he first had to get elected as leader, then to clear out the (whatever its scale) anti-semitism and nastiness and that meant upsetting some people. And then he had/has to position Labou with the electorate as "reliable and trustworthy and competent and a credible alternative Government" and that means not shouting from the rooftops about socialist revolutions and mass strikes and all that stuff, but instead exposing Government failings and providing some constructive alternative visions.

Whether he can do that last bit, I dunno. A few of the other Labour shadow cabinet seem better performers on the TV and in interviews, but maybe the counter to a reckless liar is someone a bit staid and "dependable", a bit dull, but trustworthy?

[juanpabloangel18]

4 hours ago, peterw said:

If its a good policy that is popular then the govt will just nick it

A party that believed in its policies and helping people would see this as a great result.

[LondonLax]

2 hours ago, juanpabloangel18 said:

A party that believed in its policies and helping people would see this as a great result.

Not if it helps them retain power and enact their awful policies as well

[ml1dch]

On 26/06/2022 at 20:35, Demitri_C said:

Ia there anyone more unlikeable in the labour party than lammy?

Dont know why starmer is sending him out to do these kind of interviews as he is ruining labour. Its just like when lammy refused to say labour would reverse the NI increase that johnsons implementing

Looks like the Labour Party agreed with you.

 

 

[Genie]

Boris Johnson said he wants a high pay economy so it should be fine.

[Jareth]

27 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Looks like the Labour Party agreed with you.

 

 

Wondering if it was Lammy who got it wrong, or the person who told him to say that. 

[chrisp65]

Fair play to Lammy, he was wrong, and he’s not minced his words in correcting his position.

He hasn’t done the usual I’m sorry if people are upset, he’s apologised for being wrong.

Quite rare that.

[bickster]

26 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Wondering if it was Lammy who got it wrong, or the person who told him to say that. 

I reckon this one is on Lammy. I couldn't understand how Labour couldn't get behind the BA workers strike. They were literally just asking for their pay to resume to its previous pre-COVID level

Everyone in this country should be outraged by what BA have done to their staff, including the Government. This one should have been put in the same box as the sacked P&O workers

[blandy]

13 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Fair play to Lammy, he was wrong, and he’s not minced his words in correcting his position.

He hasn’t done the usual I’m sorry if people are upset, he’s apologised for being wrong.

Quite rare that.

I'll add as well, that even if his actual view is the one he said the other day, that's OK - I mean the notion that everyone in a party has to have the exact same view on everything is daft. People just don't. People also change their minds for all kinds of reasons - whether logical persuasion, better understanding, contemplation or career ambition. Most of those are good reasons. One is bad.

[ml1dch]

36 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Wondering if it was Lammy who got it wrong, or the person who told him to say that. 

Yeah, as bicks says, he clearly wasn't aware of the nuances of the BA issue and just lumped them in with the "strikes are counter-productive" narrative.

I imagine the question was asked as bait for that very reason.

[Jareth]

12 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Yeah, as bicks says, he clearly wasn't aware of the nuances of the BA issue and just lumped them in with the "strikes are counter-productive" narrative.

I imagine the question was asked as bait for that very reason.

He was pretty definite in what he was saying though. No idea if that was off script or not, but he said it quite a few times and quite forcefully. But whatever - apology is in, and rightly so. 

[ml1dch]

Whatever their respective leadership merits, she and her team definitely come up with better material than Starmer and his.

 

[Jareth]

Well he isn't - and he looks as usual on brand relaxed

[Davkaus]

Don't know how he expected to get away with that BS, he's clearly standing up

[Chindie]

Corbyn was heckled at London Pride years ago.

[Jareth]

13 hours ago, Chindie said:

Corbyn was heckled at London Pride years ago.

Quite right what a hitler thing to do 

Edited July 3, 2022 by Jareth

[The Fun Factory]

Not entirely sure what Starmer is trying to do policy wise at present. By promising neither to support a second Scottish referendum or a return to the single market, he has reduced his chances of finding some sort of coalition to gain a working majority after the next election if Labour become the largest party. They haven't looked like achieving a majority on their own since the much derided Sir Tony  Blair was around. Obviously trying to gain the some of the old labour vote back to restore the red wall but it will be a balancing act for him as I can't see Labour getting a knock out win in 2024.

Edited July 4, 2022 by The Fun Factory

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, The Fun Factory said:

Not entirely sure what Starmer is trying to do policy wise at present. By promising neither to support a second Scottish referendum or a return to the single market, he has reduced his chances of finding some sort of coalition to gain a working majority after the next election if Labour become the largest party. They haven't looked like achieving a majority on their own since the much derided Sir Tony  Blair was around. Obviously trying to gain the some of the old labour vote back to restore the red wall but it will be a balancing act for him as I can't see Labour getting a knock out win in 2024.

 

To be fair, you look at how the policies are lining up and the obvious coalition partners are the tories.

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

Not entirely sure what Starmer is trying to do policy wise at present. By promising neither to support a second Scottish referendum or a return to the single market, he has reduced his chances of finding some sort of coalition to gain a working majority after the next election if Labour become the largest party. They haven't looked like achieving a majority on their own since the much derided Sir Tony  Blair was around. Obviously trying to gain the some of the old labour vote back to restore the red wall but it will be a balancing act for him as I can't see Labour getting a knock out win in 2024.

I'm completely guessing here, but I'd imagine it's along these lines:

There are loads of young, idealistic, internationalist, small L liberal voters in the South who would love Labour to pledge to re-join the EU, or at least the SM & CU, who want policies on student loans and the environment and so on and so forth.

In the South also there are loads of seats where the LDs are the best placed challengers to the Tories, and who can pick up votes from tory voters who are never gonna vote Labour, but hate Johnson and are kind of "wet" Tories.

IN the North there are loads of older, more Royal family worshipping, socially conservative (small c) voters who used to vote Labour, but shifted to the Tories. These people don't want to re-join the EU, they don't like "unlimited immigration" and they have gone off the Tories. They're not gonna vote LD, Brexit is done, so they're not gonna vote Farage grifting party. Labour has a chance to get them back.

Labour is, even with the Tories imploding, unlikely to win much if any majority, given there was an 80 seat majority for the Tories last time. So the calculation is maybe that to gain the most seats for "not Tories",  Labour needs to appeal to and win the Northern Tory seats, and the LDs the Southern ones (as per the recent by-elections).

So they (and it is "they" not just "him" all on his tod) are heading in the direction of those kind of statements and stuff on the SNP and on the Single Market. Labour has been (and still is to an extent) so divided that there's no way to please all of the party or supporters whichever direction they choose to go in. And if they are fairly set, or leaning towards changing the system, they first need to change the way Parliament is elected and its make-up - that would include PR and getting rid of the Lords - fighting the LDs (and greens and Plaid) and having them as enemies would be a bad move in that respect.

I'm just guessing, like I say, but it seems like it's tactics based, rather than ideology based policy and placement.