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

[OutByEaster?]

22 minutes ago, bickster said:

One minute it's the left of the party were fair and tried to be inclusive and the next it wasn't ruthless enough and should have had a Stalinist Purge whilst at the same time claiming the left of the Party don't do that it's the right

So the left of the party weren't ruthless enough to have a Stalinist purge because they were fair and tried to be inclusive  whilst at the same time claiming that they didn't have a ruthless Stalinist purge because they don't do that as they try to be fair and inclusive.

Bloody peoples front of consistency!

[blandy]

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

As always though, the Blairites misjudged the mood of the public.

Apart from when they won all those elections.

[darrenm]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

Apart from when they won all those elections.

2010 and 2015?

3-2 to the Blairites I guess?

edit: thought of another point  

1997, 2001 and 2005 are worlds away from today. The same centrist politics just don't work. Also, the majority was smaller each time so they had a great win in 1997 and the other 2 were less impressive. Then 2010 and 2015 were smaller again. So it seems the politics of the Blairites was popular in 1997 and has become less popular since then.

Every time they try and do things in modern times it's clown car bad. Just look at Change UK. These people were never very good politicians, they were just in the right place at the right time.

I don't want to talk the landslide win in 1997 down because it was great for everyone. But I'd argue that it had little to do with Labour. I remember the country was rocking with cool Britannia, Britpop, and all of the media including Murdoch and the BBC were laying into the Tories night and day. The Tories were in disarray and after almost 20 years, the country was sick of them. I don't think that Blair or the party at the time had any particularly great tactics (aside from get very close to Murdoch), they were just a competent party ready at the time the country really wanted a change.

Edited February 13, 2021 by darrenm

[blandy]

1 minute ago, darrenm said:

2010 and 2015?

3-2 to the Blairites I guess?

Is Ed Milliband a Blairite? I wouldn't have said so, tbh.

And changing tack slightly, people like Andy Burnham have done well - not really a Blairite either, but someone able to appeal to wider than the Corbynite left.

The claim that the left isn't ruthless, or doesn't do purges or doesn't work to undermine other factions is to me complete rubbish. From my perspective, they're every bit as manipulative and scheming as any other part of Labour (or the Tories for that matter). The one thing they also do is claim a higher morality, which is again utter nonsense and not evidenced by the reality. It's almost a default, or built-in thing -  a kind of "our cause is just, therefore we are just and we cannot be wrong or do wrong and any claim that we do is automatically invalid". The double standards are awful. I'm not talking about ordinary people here, but politicians, Union leaders and the like. Look at Chris Williamson, Len McLuskey and many others. Manipulative, threatening, aggressive, intolerant of any disagreement, exploitative and all the rest. Driven by personal ambition, personal advancement and benefit and fairly awful people, in my view. There's loads of them. They're politicians. It's what Politicians of all creeds (mostly) all do.

[darrenm]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Is Ed Milliband a Blairite? I wouldn't have said so, tbh.

And changing tack slightly, people like Andy Burnham have done well - not really a Blairite either, but someone able to appeal to wider than the Corbynite left.

The claim that the left isn't ruthless, or doesn't do purges or doesn't work to undermine other factions is to me complete rubbish. From my perspective, they're every bit as manipulative and scheming as any other part of Labour (or the Tories for that matter). The one thing they also do is claim a higher morality, which is again utter nonsense and not evidenced by the reality. It's almost a default, or built-in thing -  a kind of "our cause is just, therefore we are just and we cannot be wrong or do wrong and any claim that we do is automatically invalid". The double standards are awful. I'm not talking about ordinary people here, but politicians, Union leaders and the like. Look at Chris Williamson, Len McLuskey and many others. Manipulative, threatening, aggressive, intolerant of any disagreement, exploitative and all the rest. Driven by personal ambition, personal advancement and benefit and fairly awful people, in my view. There's loads of them. They're politicians. It's what Politicians of all creeds (mostly) all do.

Not especially but the party and shadow cabinet was still full of them

Andy Burnham could actually be the only Labour MP who straddles both sides.

I disagree with pretty much every part of the 3rd paragraph, sorry  

[blandy]

28 minutes ago, darrenm said:

they were just a competent party ready at the time the country really wanted a change

That's true, I think. And it will (hopefully) be the case again, if Starmer can get his act together. It seems like it's what he's trying to get to, or wanting to portray. 

[snowychap]

Deep down, everyone loves a bit of Stalinism.

[OutByEaster?]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

That's true, I think. And it will (hopefully) be the case again, if Starmer can get his act together. It seems like it's what he's trying to get to, or wanting to portray. 

This might initially sound odd, but I don't think that's the right area for him to be concentrating on.

Starmer looks competent, competence is present, it's there - concentrating on looking more competent won't help him - it'd be like Boris trying hard to look more like the posh boy down the pub who never gets a round in and annoys the landlord. In terms of what he wants to portray, he could do with looking like he once laughed at a joke or that he loves the occasional night out; it's hard to imagine him letting his hair down in any situation, he could do with portraying a softer humanity, some more of the personal - I want to see him in shorts or playing snooker or something.

In a more serious way, but on the same theme, I want him to believe in something I want to see a passionate belief in a policy - he competently explains things quietly and clearly, but that often means he doesn't look like he has any passion for them. The job of Prime Minister is partly an acting role and in a post Reagan world, people are going to vote for competence and charisma, he's good at one of those things. He looks like a really competent civil servant, but it's hard to see what he cares about or what he is - that's his biggest weakness at the moment.

19 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Andy Burnham could actually be the only Labour MP who straddles both sides.

And that's where I want to see Starmer - I want to see him straddling the labour party like a colossus, or at least like Katie Price on a drunk footballer - he's still just about got a chance to do that I think, but the Labour party is a see saw and if you sit at one end you'll sink - if he doesn't take steps to address that he'll find himself with his arse on the ground and at the moment he almost seems to be welcoming it.

I want him to be more than an overreaction, I want him to be more than competent, because otherwise he doesn't win.

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

He looks like a really competent civil servant, but it's hard to see what he cares about or what he is - that's his biggest weakness at the moment.

... I want to see Starmer ...straddling the labour party like a colossus, or at least like Katie Price on a drunk footballer - he's still just about got a chance to do that I think, but the Labour party is a see saw and if you sit at one end you'll sink - if he doesn't take steps to address that he'll find himself with his arse on the ground and at the moment he almost seems to be welcoming it.

I want him to be more than an overreaction, I want him to be more than competent, because otherwise he doesn't win.

Really good post, the whole thing. Spot on.

The only bit I could quibble with is I don't see evidence of him being at one (the centrist) end of the (Labour) see-saw. He might go there, but I don't see potting a few numpties for doing stupid as in itself a move to the right. He'll probably have to pot a few more, because numpties will keep on numptying. It won't harm him either way with the wider public.

[snowychap]

20 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I want him to be more than an overreaction, I want him to be more than competent, because otherwise he doesn't win.

Good line, Scott.

[dAVe80]

3 hours ago, snowychap said:

Deep down, everyone loves a bit of Stalinism.

My massive tankie, former mayor of the town I live, comrade often tells me, "we'll need an Uncle Joe, come the glorious day". 

[OutByEaster?]

Today was a bad day for Starmer.

He's decided he needs to bring in Peter Mandelson.

Nothing like bringing in the most right wing figure ever associated with the Labour party in an effort to ensure party unity.

 

 

 

 

[Davkaus]

16 minutes ago, darrenm said:

This Peter Mandelson?

 

I'm not sure being photographed with someone before their scandals became public implies any knowledge or culpability of their crimes. 

[darrenm]

12 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I'm not sure being photographed with someone before their scandals became public implies any knowledge or culpability of their crimes. 

Of course. I was just checking if it was the guy I was thinking of.

[ml1dch]

19 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Of course. I was just checking if it was the guy I was thinking of.

Looks to me as though you just wanted to post pictures of him standing next to a couple of wrong 'uns.

How well though do you think a game of "let's judge people by who they might have been photographed alongside in the last thirty years" would work for those who (I presume) represent the wing of the party that you favour more?

[darrenm]

2 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Looks to me as though you just wanted to post pictures of him standing next to a couple of wrong 'uns.

How well though do you think a game of "let's judge people by who they might have been photographed alongside in the last thirty years" would work for those who (I presume) represent the wing of the party that you favour more?

Fair enough. I'll delete it. 

[dAVe80]

If you wanted to post a picture of Mandy standing next to a wrong un, to imply he is also a wrong un, then there's loads of him stood next to Blair.

[a m ole]

I once stood next to Ian Duncan Smith, we both had our dicks out and I was about 14 at the time. True story, but unfortunately he didn’t bring a photographer.

[Jareth]

Mandelson? My word. Looks like Starmer is as pliable as he was beginning to seem. 

[Chindie]

Mandelson was influential in the last period of Labour dominance. Ergo Mandelson good.