Chindie Posted November 1, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted November 1, 2023 6 minutes ago, Risso said: The voters made a decision in the last election, and they decided in rather huge numbers that they'd prefer almost anybody at all to Jeremy Corbyn. So that being the case, should Labour go down that route again, or instead pick a grown up, who as boring and non-commital as he certainly is, is at least a big improvement on a work-shy chancer like Johnson? I'm not sure this is that relevant really - I thought Corbyn would be a crap PM as well, I didn't vote for him. And I'm not sure that the description of Starmer here is quite right. I don't really care that he's boring, thats positively good frankly, the issue is he basically is a weathervane who seemingly just believes in whatever will make him popular, and is terrified of having any committed position on anything. Bizarrely his position on Israel is one of the few he's seemingly been able to commit to with any conviction - and makes him look awful to anyone with a conscience. It may however break his record of u-turning on any policy he does manage to blutack down. And I genuinely can't see how anyone thinks 'this bloke will tell you whatever you want to hear for your vote' is a cause for celebration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted November 1, 2023 Share Posted November 1, 2023 19 minutes ago, Risso said: The voters made a decision in the last election, and they decided in rather huge numbers that they'd prefer almost anybody at all to Jeremy Corbyn. So that being the case, should Labour go down that route again, or instead pick a grown up, who as boring and non-commital as he certainly is, is at least a big improvement on a work-shy chancer like Johnson? I'd also add that for an "amorphous blob" who just bends in line with whatever he thinks people want to hear, he's doing a pretty good job of sticking to the position that he appears to believe is the right one and explaining why he thinks it's the right one, when it would make things a lot easier for him to just give in and agree with what lots of the party are asking him to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted November 1, 2023 Share Posted November 1, 2023 (edited) To my mind, he (and all the other politicians whose policies and morality is maliable as long as they get some power) personifies a real deep rooted problem in our politics. They are as much gaming the system as all those doctors that renamed trollies as beds. Edited November 1, 2023 by VILLAMARV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 1, 2023 Moderator Share Posted November 1, 2023 33 minutes ago, Chindie said: I'm not sure this is that relevant really - I thought Corbyn would be a crap PM as well, I didn't vote for him. And I'm not sure that the description of Starmer here is quite right. I don't really care that he's boring, thats positively good frankly, the issue is he basically is a weathervane who seemingly just believes in whatever will make him popular, and is terrified of having any committed position on anything. I agree with all of that. I also think that the “seemingly” thing is both the right word and also a danger for him and Labour. The positive side of it, in terms of “do what is necessary to get a Labour government” is the correct tactic. When the circumstances change, politicians have to change their plans. Ideological purity is not a useful quality in a political party leader. It’s obviously never going to be an across the range of issues, anyway - someone might be ideologically spot on in your or my view on a political issue, but take a different issue or set of issues and they won’t be, no one can be. Politics is compromise, by its nature. But his danger is that people perceive him to have no scruples or principles and so downgrade him in their estimation. With the odd exception such as Bunter, most politicians do not in reality have no principles and do not just say whatever they think will make them popular. Starmer, to me, does have principles both in terms of things he believes in and in terms of behaviours that are/are not acceptable to him. When the daily heil was doing all that stuff for weeks on end about him holding a bottle of lager during lockdown he said “if I get fined by plod, I’ll resign”. So that’s a behaviour side example. His principles around the law and standards and justice appear genuine. His support for the ferry workers was praised by Mick Lynch. There’s plenty of examples of basic “normal people” decency about him. But we don’t really know what, if there’s a Labour government in a year’s time, that government will actually do. I think the public just think “nothing too frightening and it can’t be as bad as what the baby eaters have done”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted November 1, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted November 1, 2023 3 minutes ago, blandy said: I agree with all of that. I also think that the “seemingly” thing is both the right word and also a danger for him and Labour. The positive side of it, in terms of “do what is necessary to get a Labour government” is the correct tactic. When the circumstances change, politicians have to change their plans. Ideological purity is not a useful quality in a political party leader. It’s obviously never going to be an across the range of issues, anyway - someone might be ideologically spot on in your or my view on a political issue, but take a different issue or set of issues and they won’t be, no one can be. Politics is compromise, by its nature. But his danger is that people perceive him to have no scruples or principles and so downgrade him in their estimation. With the odd exception such as Bunter, most politicians do not in reality have no principles and do not just say whatever they think will make them popular. Starmer, to me, does have principles both in terms of things he believes in and in terms of behaviours that are/are not acceptable to him. When the daily heil was doing all that stuff for weeks on end about him holding a bottle of lager during lockdown he said “if I get fined by plod, I’ll resign”. So that’s a behaviour side example. His principles around the law and standards and justice appear genuine. His support for the ferry workers was praised by Mick Lynch. There’s plenty of examples of basic “normal people” decency about him. But we don’t really know what, if there’s a Labour government in a year’s time, that government will actually do. I think the public just think “nothing too frightening and it can’t be as bad as what the baby eaters have done”. Yes we've heard all this before, and can see that President Elect Starmer is right on for you. I just disagree. I'm not wrong for disagreeing. Just as you aren't right for thinking a weathervane is brilliant politics from a brilliant leader. I don't doubt that deep down Starmer believes in something, I don't even think he's a 'bad man'. But will never agree that someone just hiding any element of an edge (except on this topic, where it's obvious he's decided that he'll lose more from going against Israeli action than he will by quietly nodding it along, irrespective of how despicable it is - nailing your colours to the mast of ridding your horrible party of horrible people who want to reopen Auschwitz will do that for you) is a good thing. I don't even need to agree with him - I wouldn't on a lot of things as it's bloody obvious Starmer is basically Blairite with some 2020s polish, and that'll bring some significant bad stuff along with any good it does - but I'd have greater faith in someone who pointedly does have some convictions about something. It's kinda pathetic - even the few policy committments he has come out with usually gets uturned and hand waved by the usual suspects who think this is brilliant politics from a soon to be leader who definitely will be good when he gets in power - despite the fact that the only thing he seems to do is roundly agree with everything the haunted corpse of the Tory party does with minor nitpicking and promises of effiency and sadness. I'm not going to vote to Starmer regardless of what he does, I have problems that go deeper than just 'don't like the policies', which is part of the reason why someone I respect more in Corbyn didn't get my vote either... but if we're going to do this kind of democracy, for **** sake you've got to have individuals that have some convictions that they hold openly and show to the electorate. Right now we've got an expected coronation of a leader coming up, leading a party he got to lead on the back of it being derided as insitutionally racist, which suddenly went away when he was enthroned apparently, who abandoned everything he said to get that nomination, who doesn't really seem to have any beliefs outside of 'the Tories aren't doing things right, but we wouldn't change direction much', who u-turns at any opportunity on anything not nailed down, and whose only empassioned point so far is supporting airstrikes on kids. And apparently thats good? **** that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted November 1, 2023 Share Posted November 1, 2023 (edited) Our system is screaming for a proportional constituency (like Switzerland) where the people get to decide what course the country should take, rather than what a bland labour PM or a chancer of a Tory PM wants. I've got friends in Switzerland who essentially get to vote for what the council should use their money on, and what the state should prioritise. If you can't respect that system then something's wrong with you as a democratic person. Our system is essentially a Chinese copy-cat version of democracy. Edited November 1, 2023 by magnkarl 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted November 1, 2023 Share Posted November 1, 2023 44 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said: To my mind, he (and all the other politicians whose policies and morality is maliable as long as they get some power) personifies a real deep rooted problem in our politics. They are as much gaming the system as all those doctors that renamed trollies as beds. Is that their fault or the electorates though. Voters cry out for principles and honesty, then at the ballot box, crucify the first guy to show any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted November 1, 2023 Share Posted November 1, 2023 6 minutes ago, magnkarl said: Our system is screaming for a proportional constituency (like Switzerland) where the people get to decide what course the country should take, rather than what a bland labour PM or a chancer of a Tory PM wants. I've got friends in Switzerland who essentially get to vote for what the council should use their money on, and what the state should prioritise. If you can't respect that system then something's wrong with you as a democratic person. Our system is essentially a Chinese copy-cat version of democracy. I’m all for PR, by far the most Democratic system. I’ve got less faith in the electorate to decide fiscal priorities. Sadly, 40 Years of right wing Neo Liberalism, has led too many people in this country to lose sight of anything socially worthwhile if it means they have to pay for it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted November 1, 2023 Share Posted November 1, 2023 27 minutes ago, Chindie said: Yes we've heard all this before, and can see that President Elect Starmer is right on for you. I just disagree. I'm not wrong for disagreeing. Just as you aren't right for thinking a weathervane is brilliant politics from a brilliant leader. I don't doubt that deep down Starmer believes in something, I don't even think he's a 'bad man'. But will never agree that someone just hiding any element of an edge (except on this topic, where it's obvious he's decided that he'll lose more from going against Israeli action than he will by quietly nodding it along, irrespective of how despicable it is - nailing your colours to the mast of ridding your horrible party of horrible people who want to reopen Auschwitz will do that for you) is a good thing. I don't even need to agree with him - I wouldn't on a lot of things as it's bloody obvious Starmer is basically Blairite with some 2020s polish, and that'll bring some significant bad stuff along with any good it does - but I'd have greater faith in someone who pointedly does have some convictions about something. It's kinda pathetic - even the few policy committments he has come out with usually gets uturned and hand waved by the usual suspects who think this is brilliant politics from a soon to be leader who definitely will be good when he gets in power - despite the fact that the only thing he seems to do is roundly agree with everything the haunted corpse of the Tory party does with minor nitpicking and promises of effiency and sadness. I'm not going to vote to Starmer regardless of what he does, I have problems that go deeper than just 'don't like the policies', which is part of the reason why someone I respect more in Corbyn didn't get my vote either... but if we're going to do this kind of democracy, for **** sake you've got to have individuals that have some convictions that they hold openly and show to the electorate. Right now we've got an expected coronation of a leader coming up, leading a party he got to lead on the back of it being derided as insitutionally racist, which suddenly went away when he was enthroned apparently, who abandoned everything he said to get that nomination, who doesn't really seem to have any beliefs outside of 'the Tories aren't doing things right, but we wouldn't change direction much', who u-turns at any opportunity on anything not nailed down, and whose only empassioned point so far is supporting airstrikes on kids. And apparently thats good? **** that. The alternative is More of the Tories, good luck with that. Best to bite the bullet, and vote for what ,for some, could be regarded as by far the lesser of two evils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted November 1, 2023 Share Posted November 1, 2023 2 minutes ago, meregreen said: Is that their fault or the electorates though. Voters cry out for principles and honesty, then at the ballot box, crucify the first guy to show any. I think it's endemic in the system at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted November 1, 2023 Share Posted November 1, 2023 1 minute ago, meregreen said: I’m all for PR, by far the most Democratic system. I’ve got less faith in the electorate to decide fiscal priorities. Sadly, 40 Years of right wing Neo Liberalism, has led too many people in this country to lose sight of anything socially worthwhile if it means they have to pay for it. But to be fair if you disagree with a pr system you're being directly anti-democratic. If a country doesn't want whatever it is you want it doesn't really help to blame the people who vote, it'd then be up to the champions of said cause to argue the positives. The issue with our current systems (and that of the most social-democratic places in Europe, Sweden, Denmark, Norway) is that right wing populism can easily play the systems with slogans and idiocy while a PR would actually make people have to take personal ownership of policies that are bonkers when they're voting. I don't think people would vote for idiotic policies if they were given the choice but are rather sold the 'package' of more money or whatever with a light seasoning of stupid policy on the side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 1, 2023 Moderator Share Posted November 1, 2023 27 minutes ago, magnkarl said: But to be fair if you disagree with a pr system you're being directly anti-democratic. If a country doesn't want whatever it is you want it doesn't really help to blame the people who vote, it'd then be up to the champions of said cause to argue the positives. The issue with our current systems (and that of the most social-democratic places in Europe, Sweden, Denmark, Norway) is that right wing populism can easily play the systems with slogans and idiocy while a PR would actually make people have to take personal ownership of policies that are bonkers when they're voting. I don't think people would vote for idiotic policies if they were given the choice but are rather sold the 'package' of more money or whatever with a light seasoning of stupid policy on the side. The Swiss referendum system also panders to populism, like the recent referendum that overturned the governments plan to reach net zero carbon by 2050 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted November 1, 2023 Share Posted November 1, 2023 Yeah there’s a problem with ‘absolute’ democracy with mini referenda on lots of things. Ask the average punter if they would prefer a town library or 35p off their tax bill and that’s the end of libraries. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 1, 2023 Moderator Share Posted November 1, 2023 1 hour ago, Chindie said: Yes we've heard all this before, and can see that President Elect Starmer is right on for you. He isn’t. I’m not even a Labour “supporter”. Mostly when I post on politics I post about what I think politicians are doing, or why I think they are doing it, not whether I agree with their policies or whatever. I mostly tend to keep my personally held political opinions to myself, because, well, everybody has their own views, but the “why are they doing that?” side of it is, to me, more interesting than a poster saying “this one’s a knob” or “that one’s great”. Like, to me your comment that you thought Corbyn would be a bad leader (so did I) is interesting, but your view of his outlook, or any other politician’s outlook, is of basically no interest to me, not because of anything to do with you, but because “person agrees with politician” is kind of meaningless - we’re all just one in 40 million voters. Analysis of “why” or “what” is different, because it helps me understand things. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted November 1, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted November 1, 2023 6 hours ago, Chindie said: We should be very happy that President elect Starmer has taken such a logical position. Anyone that disagrees is an antisemite commie bumbum face soup dragon. I'd quite like a bumbum face soup dragon for a pet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted November 1, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted November 1, 2023 4 hours ago, blandy said: Yeah. The previous one picked Hamas to be his friends (in his words). To be fair to both Starmer and Corbyn, what side they pick, if any, doesn’t matter in the big scheme of things. Neither Israel nor Hamas gives a flying **** what our opposition leader says. Personally speaking picking a side in a bloodbath between Israel and Hamas is not for me. My sympathies lie with the people being used and dying because of the actions of both of those murderous entities. One side has more power, militarily, the other side counters some of that imbalance by using people, often at gunpoint, as shields for them to carry out their murdering. Neither demonstrates the slightest regard for the lives of the poor souls in the West Bank I don't get it. I don't know enough about the whole situation but as far as I'm concerned there is no need to pick a side. I just don't understand what's wrong with asking both sides for a cessation of conflict. Why's it so controversial to ask a ceasefire. If no one is going to listen that's even more reason to not worry about asking for it. I don't understand why it's such a biggie to ask them all to stop. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted November 1, 2023 Share Posted November 1, 2023 3 minutes ago, sidcow said: I don't get it. I don't know enough about the whole situation but as far as I'm concerned there is no need to pick a side. I just don't understand what's wrong with asking both sides for a cessation of conflict. Why's it so controversial to ask a ceasefire. If no one is going to listen that's even more reason to not worry about asking for it. I don't understand why it's such a biggie to ask them all to stop. Apparently we have to be careful not to lose the influence we haven’t got. Weirdly, there don’t actually appear to be many Labour voters in this thread. I couldn’t bring myself to vote for a shape shifter, I would need to concentrate on the local candidate if that person was a genuinely good egg. As it happens, here in this constituency someone from outside has been bumped in passed all the foot soldiers and local councillors. So now I’m doubly capable of not voting Labour. They’ll win here, and the guy I vote for will get a few hundred votes. But I’ll be right and they’ll be sorry when they realise they voted for another politician that just wanted to be in power for a portion of the managed decline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted November 1, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted November 1, 2023 (edited) Regarding Starmer, he's going to be the next PM. He knows it, everyone knows it. He's almost certainly going to be a lot nicer to have in charge than the current lot. At this time all he's trying to do is not rock the boat. Upset the least number of people he can. I think when he gets in is when we'll see his true colours. At that time he's got 5 years to show he's a good PM or not. If not he'll be chucked out by his party or the nation. He'd be pretty stupid to make too much noise right now as he's a dead cert so why put that in danger by nailing your colours to the mast on any significant issue? I know I wouldn't in his place. Edited November 2, 2023 by sidcow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted November 1, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted November 1, 2023 3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: So now I’m doubly capable of not voting Labour. They’ll win here, and the guy I vote for will get a few hundred votes. I wish Count Binface was standing in my constituency you lucky dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted November 1, 2023 Share Posted November 1, 2023 7 minutes ago, sidcow said: I wish Count Binface was standing in my constituency you lucky dog. The funny thing is: bring back Ceefax rename London Bridge, Phoebe Waller give royal palaces to the homeless link ministers’ pay to that of nurses move the hand dryer in the gents’ urinals at the Crown & Treaty, Uxbridge to a more sensible position. there’s nothing a sensible person could disagree with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts