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

[blandy]

34 minutes ago, bickster said:

Indie

Sorry can't see the actual figures (paywall), I'm sure they'll be available elsewhere shortly but I have seen comments that the Sevanta COmRes poll has the Tories on 29% and also that the fieldwork was before "The Sacking"

If that 29% figure is correct then "soaring" is doing a lot of work as Labour will have dropped 2% from 44% to 42% since the last Sevanta poll, so the crucial thing in the margins of this, is where have the 6% of those votes gone?

 

Quote

Compared to a similar poll by Savanta a month ago, Tories shed five points, tumbling from 34 to 29 per cent, while Labour gained a point to move up from 41 to 42....

...The Lib Dems put on two points compared to last month to reach 12 per cent in the new poll.

Reform/Brexit for the others, reading between the lines

[bickster]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

 

Reform/Brexit for the others, reading between the lines

Somethings not right

Savanta ComRes

Con 33% (+3)

Lab 44% (+1)

Lib 9% (-2)

Gre 3% (-1)

RUK 3% (nc)    

Con Lead -11%

Fieldwork 21/7

I always considered the above as containing a bit more noise than normal but I suspect the above may also not have been done for the Indie so the Indie is comparing only the polls they commissioned (EDIT yes that is definitely it, Indie comparing to last month)

 

 

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

the Indie is comparing only the polls they commissioned 

Yes - The indie is comparing a poll for them done this week, with a poll for them done a month ago.

Quote

Compared to a similar poll by Savanta a month ago, Tories shed five points, tumbling from 34 to 29 per cent, while Labour gained a point to move up from 41 to 42.

The previous poll was taken on the weekend of 25/26 June in the wake of the Partygate fines and just days ahead of the resignation of deputy chief whip Christopher Pincher in the sexual harassment scandal which was the final straw for Tory MPs who wanted Mr Johnson out.

This week’s results appear to reflect voters turning away from the party amid the vicious infighting of the battle to replace the PM.

 

[OutByEaster?]

14 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Personally think starmer would do a better job than her.

Two and a bit years.

 

[Demitri_C]

30 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Two and a bit years.

 

Thats not a long time in politics, hasn't had a election yet either to prove himself

[OutByEaster?]

7 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Thats not a long time in politics, hasn't had a election yet either to prove himself

The comment was more on the "would do" and it's not a dig at you - he's been in the job more than two years and everybody is still waiting for him to tell us what he wants, why he's here and and what he believes in.

I know the "would do" was most likely an accidental slip, but it's very apt - we're all waiting for Kier to start the job.

 

[blandy]

2 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

we're all waiting for Kier to start the job.

If that’s true, I think it’s vastly mistaken in some aspects. I think what’s happened is that he made a day 1 list of things to do. Something like this one:

1: Sell himself as very different from the last leader of Labour, which had just been monumentally trounced in a GE and which the market research feedback reported was in significant part down to voter’s views on Corbyn.

2: Put the various anti-semitism investigations and inquiries to bed. Sort out in house procedures etc.

3. Restore discipline and collective responsibility.

4. Assert that Labour is not about to overturn the Brexit decision and rush back into the fold of the EU.

5. Assert the message that Labour is patriotic (in contrast to the perception under Corbyn that it was not).

6. Project the message of Labour economic responsibility (to contrast with the Corbyn perception people had of economic irresponsibility).

7. Get competent and capable performers into the key roles.

8. Do the day job of opposition leader.

9. Form ties and relationships internationally.

10. Develop a set of (evolving) policies and ideas to be put out at the right times, but not too early so that they are stolen or attacked by other parties and the media.

us nerds can argue whether those things are right or wrong or a mix, or whatever, but I think there’s evidence of all of them.

[Demitri_C]

3 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

The comment was more on the "would do" and it's not a dig at you - he's been in the job more than two years and everybody is still waiting for him to tell us what he wants, why he's here and and what he believes in.

I know the "would do" was most likely an accidental slip, but it's very apt - we're all waiting for Kier to start the job.

 

I think he has started and done better than the previous labour leaders since bliar.

Ok we could argue that johnsons done that mainly himself but thats not starmers fault.

[chrisp65]

 

John Smith 1993

The above is not a direct quote of his 1993 speech. But for those with a sense of nostalgia and a spare 10 minutes, its worth reading Smith’s words from 30 years ago.

[Chindie]

That kind of talk will have you be an existential threat to Jewish people before the sentence was finished.

[markavfc40]

John Smith was the best Prime Minister this country never had. 

Edited July 29, 2022 by markavfc40

[bickster]

Just now, markavfc40 said:

John Smith is the best Prime Minister this country never had. 

To the right of Neil Kinnock, abolished the Trade Union Block Vote at conference

Also faced criticism (from supporters of Balir and Brown mainly) that he was too concerned with emphasising how fiscally responsible Labour would be to head off Conservative criticism

[chrisp65]

Having read that ‘93 speech, that’s the sort of right winger I could manage to swallow my principles and get behind for the common good.

Have a read of this passage for some deja vouchers all over again…

Quote

Fourteen years of casino economics - a speculators’ paradise - ….

And what has been the result? Economic growth lower than in the 1960s and the 1970s; investment in manufacturing - the vital wealth creator of our economy lower than in 1979; a multi-billion pound deficit in both our public finances and our overseas trade; record levels of homelessness; record levels of crime; a gap between rich and poor wider than in Victorian times and, the most tragic relic of all of these fourteen Tory years.

These are the facts of fourteen years of Conservative rule. These are the facts that nobody can contest: the facts that mock the Tory hype and propaganda. These are the facts that explode their so-called economic miracle: the so-called Thatcher revolution of which John Major claimed to be so proud when he was her Chief Secretary and then her Chancellor. ‘An astonishing economic transformation,’ were the very words he used to describe those fourteen years.

But I doubt whether we shall hear very much more about that from the lips of Mr Major. For what did he say in a revealing interlude between TV, interviews a few weeks ago? What confidence did he share with Michael Brunson of ITN, unaware that his words were being recorded? What was it he said about his own Party? How did he describe them? ‘A Party,’ he said, ‘Still harking back to a golden age that never was.’

They, the poor fools, still believed their own propaganda. But now we know that he, John Major, never ever believed it. ‘A golden age that never was’: .

Same shit.

[OutByEaster?]

21 hours ago, blandy said:

If that’s true, I think it’s vastly mistaken in some aspects. I think what’s happened is that he made a day 1 list of things to do. Something like this one:

1: Sell himself as very different from the last leader of Labour, which had just been monumentally trounced in a GE and which the market research feedback reported was in significant part down to voter’s views on Corbyn.

He has definitely done this - but for me what's telling is who he's selling himself to - he's not selling himself to the electorate, he's selling himself to business, to the press barons, to the donor class - his key vision in this aspect is "I am different to the last leader and I promise not to be a threat to your hegemony".

Quote

 

2: Put the various anti-semitism investigations and inquiries to bed. Sort out in house procedures etc.

 

Well yeah, he called off the witch hunt once he'd drowned his witch. The sole purpose of Labour's anti-semitism drive (supported by the Tory party) was the removal of Corbyn.

Quote

3. Restore discipline and collective responsibility.

That's one way to put it. Can i say McCarthyist purge or would that be a bit much?

Quote

4. Assert that Labour is not about to overturn the Brexit decision and rush back into the fold of the EU.

He's definitely done this, and I think it's the right thing - I think he'll have a long term view on how to lessen some impacts and improve relations with our European neighbours. I think he's got this right - albeit it's the action of promising no action - again aimed at not scaring the bankers or disrupting markets further.

Quote

5. Assert the message that Labour is patriotic (in contrast to the perception under Corbyn that it was not).

I think you'd have to define patriotism there - Corbyn's patriotism was an interest in putting the people of the UK first - Starmer's seems more focused on the pound. That's very much open to interpretation and I'm sure you'd see it differently.

Quote

6. Project the message of Labour economic responsibility (to contrast with the Corbyn perception people had of economic irresponsibility).

Again though, responsibility to who? Starmer is projecting a responsibility that keeps bankers and the donor class satisfied. Corbyn's financial responsibility was to working people, to labour. There's nothing that Starmer has said or is projecting that suggests anything but a continuation of an ideal that is sending us back to the Victorian era and making the planet unliveable - I personally don't see that as responsible option.

Quote

7. Get competent and capable performers into the key roles.

I'd cede to your knowledge here, I'm not sure I know enough about the Starmer team to really make a judgement.

Quote

8. Do the day job of opposition leader.

This one I'm with you on to a large extent, he's good in the house I think, he makes reasoned clear arguments in a sensible way that doesn't make him look like a public schoolboy on a bender, and in fairness, while that's a low bar, he's well above it, he gives the appearance in the house of a competent and calm politician. He's very capable.

Quote

9. Form ties and relationships internationally.

But with who and for what end? I'm not sure of any detailed ties or relationships, but his focus seems to be on international money - on the status quo.

Quote

10. Develop a set of (evolving) policies and ideas to be put out at the right times, but not too early so that they are stolen or attacked by other parties and the media.

Maybe - but you have to wander what the right time is given that he's been in the job for more than two years and pretty much all we've got at the moment in terms of Starmer's vision for a future Britain is "sell some bonds". I don't buy the don't have ideas because other people will steal them mantra - you have to have a vision, you have to have beliefs, that's what leadership is.

I guess in a way, you're right, it's quite possible to say he's started 'a job' but the job of the leader of the Labour party is to represent and inspire working people, to support their aims and ambitions and to protect them from the greed of the corporate superclass. 

I don't think he's doing that and more worryingly, I don't think that's his focus - surely if you're a voter that wants lasse faire and a dormant state, you have the Liberal party, if you want full economic control with the banks and the reduced state (and a whole load of criminal gangsterism) you have the Tory party?

Perhaps it would help if we referred more often to centrism by it's more accurate label - corporatism.

I will vote for him, because this Conservative party are as dangerous an organisation to have power as I can imagine - but I'm hoping we don't have to sacrifice the principles of the Labour party in order to get a Labour Prime Minister - otherwise, what's the point?

[blandy]

24 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

The sole purpose of Labour's anti-semitism drive (supported by the Tory party) was the removal of Corbyn.

This what momentum said about that

Quote

Momentum, the Labour movement backing Jeremy Corbyn, has said that anti-Semitism in the party is more widespread than it had understood.

It said in a statement: "Accusations of anti-Semitism should not and cannot be dismissed simply as right-wing smears."

It acknowledged the "upset and despair" of the Jewish community and the party's "failure" to deal with anti-Semitism.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43620717

[blandy]

On the patriotism it’s IMO about attitudes to Russian murdering, about being part of NATO about defence about not approaching things from the sole perspective that Britain is an imperialist state and Corbyn’s anti-imperialist approach to the world and the west that leads down some very troubling alleyways.

So yes, I do see it differently on that

[blandy]

33 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

for me what's telling is who he's selling himself to - he's not selling himself to the electorate, he's selling himself to business, to the press barons, to the donor class - his key vision in this aspect is "I am different to the last leader and I promise not to be a threat to your hegemony".

I think there’s something in that, but only something. I think he’s primarily selling himself/Labour to the mass of floating voters, disillusioned “wet” tories, Northern former red wall ex Labour voters repelled by Corbyn and so on, but that message is also going to play much less badly with right wing media, while disappointing Corbynites and more southern, educated, younger left wing people etc.

[Villatillidie95]

I think its going to be hard for Labour to win outright in an election, especially with Scotland essentially lost. Areas like mine for example who had a deeply ingrained habit of voting Labour, they don't tend to do that anymore as the 55+ people usually own a house outright and don't need to vote Labour anymore, the educated youngsters often leave for uni and don't come back and get professional jobs in London or Manchester etc and then those that are left, like the older people, are either doing "too well" to want to vote Labour or don't see that they would get any benefit from doing so.

They need to get talking about economics and inequality etc again rather than engage in culture wars as that dosent play well to many people Labour are targeting. Political landscape has changed too much since New Labour days for them to win a landslide now, i think the only chance for Labour would be as part of a coalition.

[blandy]

38 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Perhaps it would help if we referred more often to centrism by it's more accurate label - corporatism.

Definitely not, from my perspective. I don’t see that as accurate. For me corporatism is right wing (talking now about my personal political stance, rather than my analysis of what and why Starmer is doing). So corporatism is like allowing, encouraging, the running of different sectors like health, education, farming etc. by businesses in those sectors. I don’t think that’s what centrist voters want or think or like.

I think, broadly speaking, they are relaxed about immigration, recognising it’s necessary and it’s moral to house refugees here and let them live their lives. I think they dislike both left and right wing authoritarianism, dislike worker exploitation, but also dislike (in their view) political agitation (e.g. general strike calls) by Union bosses.  Middle of the road, basically.

[Jon]

2 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

He has definitely done this - but for me what's telling is who he's selling himself to - he's not selling himself to the electorate, he's selling himself to business, to the press barons, to the donor class - his key vision in this aspect is "I am different to the last leader and I promise not to be a threat to your hegemony".

Well yeah, he called off the witch hunt once he'd drowned his witch. The sole purpose of Labour's anti-semitism drive (supported by the Tory party) was the removal of Corbyn.

That's one way to put it. Can i say McCarthyist purge or would that be a bit much?

He's definitely done this, and I think it's the right thing - I think he'll have a long term view on how to lessen some impacts and improve relations with our European neighbours. I think he's got this right - albeit it's the action of promising no action - again aimed at not scaring the bankers or disrupting markets further.

I think you'd have to define patriotism there - Corbyn's patriotism was an interest in putting the people of the UK first - Starmer's seems more focused on the pound. That's very much open to interpretation and I'm sure you'd see it differently.

Again though, responsibility to who? Starmer is projecting a responsibility that keeps bankers and the donor class satisfied. Corbyn's financial responsibility was to working people, to labour. There's nothing that Starmer has said or is projecting that suggests anything but a continuation of an ideal that is sending us back to the Victorian era and making the planet unliveable - I personally don't see that as responsible option.

I'd cede to your knowledge here, I'm not sure I know enough about the Starmer team to really make a judgement.

This one I'm with you on to a large extent, he's good in the house I think, he makes reasoned clear arguments in a sensible way that doesn't make him look like a public schoolboy on a bender, and in fairness, while that's a low bar, he's well above it, he gives the appearance in the house of a competent and calm politician. He's very capable.

But with who and for what end? I'm not sure of any detailed ties or relationships, but his focus seems to be on international money - on the status quo.

Maybe - but you have to wander what the right time is given that he's been in the job for more than two years and pretty much all we've got at the moment in terms of Starmer's vision for a future Britain is "sell some bonds". I don't buy the don't have ideas because other people will steal them mantra - you have to have a vision, you have to have beliefs, that's what leadership is.

I guess in a way, you're right, it's quite possible to say he's started 'a job' but the job of the leader of the Labour party is to represent and inspire working people, to support their aims and ambitions and to protect them from the greed of the corporate superclass. 

I don't think he's doing that and more worryingly, I don't think that's his focus - surely if you're a voter that wants lasse faire and a dormant state, you have the Liberal party, if you want full economic control with the banks and the reduced state (and a whole load of criminal gangsterism) you have the Tory party?

Perhaps it would help if we referred more often to centrism by it's more accurate label - corporatism.

I will vote for him, because this Conservative party are as dangerous an organisation to have power as I can imagine - but I'm hoping we don't have to sacrifice the principles of the Labour party in order to get a Labour Prime Minister - otherwise, what's the point?

All very good points Scott and I agree with pretty much all of it, bar the odd thing.

But I diverge on your final declaration that you'd still vote for him (or Labour) at a GE. There's no way I could vote Labour under him.  Unless, and this is a big ask, he adopts a raft of socialist principles and policies in the run up to the GE. But even if that happened, I don't think I'd believe him.