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

[Jareth]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

Life and politics really isn't as black and white as you want it to be.

Again this all comes down to pragmatism versus ideology. Ideology rarely wins anything in this country

It's probably difficult not to sound condescending when you're of a certain age, but the argument that to win at politics you need to stay onside of everybody is not only bleeding obvious it's also been rejected already by those who voted Labour in 2017/19 - that it now is the only way forwards for Labour is set to be tested in Hartlepool and I look forward to the inevitable success now that Starmer has sided with the towns folk who understand life isn't black and white and subscribe to the times. 

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, Jareth said:

but the argument that to win at politics you need to stay onside of everybody is not only bleeding obvious

its that obvious, no-one said here, not me or anyone else

[Jareth]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

its that obvious, no-one said here, not me or anyone else

Oh I see - the literal angle - please accept the following amends - it was a reference to saying one thing to a paper but thinking another, I apologise if that wasn't clear. 

[blandy]

5 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Maybe - stay with me here - 'not Tory' is not a consistent and unifying political position, and that lots of people who do not identify as Tories in fact have wildly different political philosophies. 

Indeed.  The fundamental problem is that the majority of the nation is “not Tory”, but the largest single block is Tory.  Then the first past the post system gives the Tory block disproportionate power. And disproportionate media influence. Then the Tories are able to manipulate things so they embed their philosophy into our lives.

But we all know this.

[HanoiVillan]

16 minutes ago, blandy said:

Indeed.  The fundamental problem is that the majority of the nation is “not Tory”, but the largest single block is Tory.  Then the first past the post system gives the Tory block disproportionate power. And disproportionate media influence. Then the Tories are able to manipulate things so they embed their philosophy into our lives.

But we all know this.

I'm not sure everybody does know it. There's a weird tendency sometimes for people to seem to be saying that if only everybody else could 'agree to get along', then somehow things would be different, as if really, deep down, Nick Clegg and Jeremy Corbyn and Caroline Lucas and Nicola Sturgeon and Tom Watson are all just different varieties of the same thing and they just need to stop being so silly and get on with being 'not Tory' in government. Sometimes this weird belief is allied to a claim that all we need is proportional representation, as if we can't look to the continent and note that in countries with proportional representation, the centre-right party doesn't regularly form governments.

People don't always talk like they understand this IMO.

[blandy]

6 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

There's a weird tendency sometimes for people to seem to be saying that if only everybody else could 'agree to get along', then somehow things would be different, as if really, deep down, Nick Clegg and Jeremy Corbyn and Caroline Lucas and Nicola Sturgeon and Tom Watson are all just different varieties of the same thing and they just need to stop being so silly and get on with being 'not Tory' in government.

There's a weird tendency sometimes for people to seem to be saying that if only different factions of the Labour Party could 'agree to get along', then somehow things would be different, as if really, deep down, Kier Starmer, Jeremy Corbyn and Jess Phillips  and Yvette Cooper and Clive Lewis are all just different varieties of the same thing, “Labour MP” and they just need to stop being so silly and get on with aiming to be 'Labour' in government.

But that’s so ludicrously silly isn’t it? and because it is then you’re right that it’s even more silly to think that parties could work together. Much better to have near permanent Tory government than talk to the people’s front of Judea. Politics isn’t about compromise, about working together to achieve things, about recognising where others share your outlook as well as where they don’t, no politics is about SPLITTERS, and hounding them out, it’s about ideological purity, not power.

And the tories get in.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

There's a weird tendency sometimes for people to seem to be saying that if only different factions of the Labour Party could 'agree to get along', then somehow things would be different, as if really, deep down, Kier Starmer, Jeremy Corbyn and Jess Phillips  and Yvette Cooper and Clive Lewis are all just different varieties of the same thing, “Labour MP” and they just need to stop being so silly and get on with aiming to be 'Labour' in government.

But that’s so ludicrously silly isn’t it? and because it is then you’re right that it’s even more silly to think that parties could work together. Much better to have near permanent Tory government than talk to the people’s front of Judea. Politics isn’t about compromise, about working together to achieve things, about recognising where others share your outlook as well as where they don’t, no politics is about SPLITTERS, and hounding them out, it’s about ideological purity, not power.

And the tories get in.

Let's survey the state of the three main 'non Tory' parties from about the year 2003.

First of all, let us consider the Liberal Democrats, who are themselves an uneasy coalition, who shifted policies and focus; back in the early years of the millenium, they were pursuing a strategy of appealing to disaffected left of Labour voters, especially after the start of the Iraq war. Then they had a couple of rapid shifts in leadership, and a different faction took over, who wanted to promote economic liberalism rather than the social kind, and by the time of the 2010 election Nick Clegg *wanted* to go into coalition with the Tories. It's true that the parliamentary maths favoured that arrangement, but there's absolutely nothing to suggest that - had the number of MPs been equal between Labour and the Tories, let's say - he wouldn't still have picked Cameron, who he spent the next five years working surprisingly closely with, despite the inevitable effect doing so had on its party. Not much evidence of determination to be part of a non-Tory coalition here, is there.

Then let's consider the SNP. They gained power at the expense of Labour back in 2007, and stand to lose far more from a national recovery of Labour than from the status quo. Now, the SNP would be happiest with a minority Labour government, so that they could use their parliamentary numbers as a bargaining chip for an independence referendum. But that's very unlikely to happen, from an arithmetic point of view if nothing else, and if given the choice of a Labour majority or a Tory majority in Westminster, they would *always* choose the latter. Johnson is a wonderful recruiting sergeant for the SNP; for as long as the Tories are in power, the SNP can sell Westminster politics as little-England revanchism, and they're going to ride that sentiment to a massive victory in elections this year. They do not have an unequivocal commitment to a non-Tory coalition in Westminster.

Finally, let's turn to Labour. The period of 2015 to 2019 (and arguably before that too, to be honest) demonstrated that Labour's elite cadre - its MPs and council leaders and permanent staff - were in practice happy to help tank the party's chances. They sabotaged an election campaign, repeatedly leaked and briefed about the party to the press, attempted to force a change of leadership, and when it all failed, some of them went off and formed another party or resigned the whip. Whether some people feel they were right or wrong to do so is secondary to the fact those things happened. It is very very far from clear that many Labour MPs - including at least two of those in the list in your post - would have preferred being in a Labour government led by Corbyn, than being in opposition to a Tory government led by Boris Johnson.

My understanding of your situation, blandy, is that in 2019 you didn't vote. I'm guessing, if you live in the North West and don't live in Westmoreland and Lonsdale, that the consistent second-placed party in your seat is Labour. When the chance to put this 'anybody but the Tories' outlook into practice came up, you didn't do it. I'm saying that's fine; different people have different politics and you didn't want to vote Labour. I don't see how it's compatible with this 'flatten the differences between non-Tory options' stuff though, and it's quite galling to be on the other end of it to be honest.

[blandy]

6 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Let's survey the state of the three main 'non Tory' parties from about the year 2003.

First of all, let us consider the Liberal Democrats, who are themselves an uneasy coalition, who shifted policies and focus; back in the early years of the millenium, they were pursuing a strategy of appealing to disaffected left of Labour voters, especially after the start of the Iraq war. Then they had a couple of rapid shifts in leadership, and a different faction took over, who wanted to promote economic liberalism rather than the social kind, and by the time of the 2010 election Nick Clegg *wanted* to go into coalition with the Tories. It's true that the parliamentary maths favoured that arrangement, but there's absolutely nothing to suggest that - had the number of MPs been equal between Labour and the Tories, let's say - he wouldn't still have picked Cameron, who he spent the next five years working surprisingly closely with, despite the inevitable effect doing so had on its party. Not much evidence of determination to be part of a non-Tory coalition here, is there.

Then let's consider the SNP. They gained power at the expense of Labour back in 2007, and stand to lose far more from a national recovery of Labour than from the status quo. Now, the SNP would be happiest with a minority Labour government, so that they could use their parliamentary numbers as a bargaining chip for an independence referendum. But that's very unlikely to happen, from an arithmetic point of view if nothing else, and if given the choice of a Labour majority or a Tory majority in Westminster, they would *always* choose the latter. Johnson is a wonderful recruiting sergeant for the SNP; for as long as the Tories are in power, the SNP can sell Westminster politics as little-England revanchism, and they're going to ride that sentiment to a massive victory in elections this year. They do not have an unequivocal commitment to a non-Tory coalition in Westminster.

Finally, let's turn to Labour. The period of 2015 to 2019 (and arguably before that too, to be honest) demonstrated that Labour's elite cadre - its MPs and council leaders and permanent staff - were in practice happy to help tank the party's chances. They sabotaged an election campaign, repeatedly leaked and briefed about the party to the press, attempted to force a change of leadership, and when it all failed, some of them went off and formed another party or resigned the whip. Whether some people feel they were right or wrong to do so is secondary to the fact those things happened. It is very very far from clear that many Labour MPs - including at least two of those in the list in your post - would have preferred being in a Labour government led by Corbyn, than being in opposition to a Tory government led by Boris Johnson.

My understanding of your situation, blandy, is that in 2019 you didn't vote. I'm guessing, if you live in the North West and don't live in Westmoreland and Lonsdale, that the consistent second-placed party in your seat is Labour. When the chance to put this 'anybody but the Tories' outlook into practice came up, you didn't do it. I'm saying that's fine; different people have different politics and you didn't want to vote Labour. I don't see how it's compatible with this 'flatten the differences between non-Tory options' stuff though, and it's quite galling to be on the other end of it to be honest.

I think there's a lot in there that I agree with and a fair bit I don't. The Lib Dems would have gone with Labour had they been larger than the tories, and were even actively looking at going with them even though they were smaller than the tories, as we know from the time. Though I didn't like them supporting tories, from a non-partisan perspective, they managed to achieve stable government as coalition partners (and got royally rogered for doing so).

The SNP - well, you're right, though they are currently governing with the Scottish Greens, which rather devalues your main point, I think.

Labour - yeah, sure. They're part of the problem - while that party sniffs even a small chance of governing alone, they are dead set against working with other parties. We've seen that at the last 2 or 3 elections. It's  a massive problem in my view. The current electoral system is utterly broken, but while more than one large party see they have a chance to govern under it, it'll never change....and we get tories in power.

As for me and my voting. You're right I didn't in 2019 - I applied for a postal vote, but it didn't come before I went abroad and I therefore didn't vote. But my vote makes no difference at all where I live. It is a massive majority seat for the tories. second place, more than 10,000 votes behind the tories goes to a varying rota of Labour or LDs. I usually vote for the Greens (when they stand, which they don't always do) as they get a small amount of funding for every vote cast - I'd rather my money went to them, than any of the others, but that's all my vote will ever achieve - a few pence for a non-tory party. For 30 odd years my I paid my Union's political levy (which funds Labour) but stopped due to the toxic combo of Len McLuskey and Corbyn. I have yet to re-instate it, and probably won't. We'll see. But whichever - it's entirely compatible with my view on differences between non-tories need bridging. If my vote is utterly without meaning, not voting, voting for LD/Green/Labour has zero impact on anything. In the past I've nominated someone for local elections (non-Tory) and would jump at the chance to help defeat the ****. But it's utterly forlorn here, as it is in so many consitutencies. You're not on the other end of anything I do voting wise, so I dunno why you're "galled" - perhaps this post will alleviate your gall?

But ultimately unless Left wing parties work together, the maths mean they collectively lose in England. It was interesting to see at the previous, or previous but one election, that Nicola Sturgeon, the Plaid Cwmru Woman, the Greens (Caroline Lucas) did campaign collaboratively and LDs and Greens and PC stood down candidates to co-operate against Tories. Labour wouldn't play ball - and that galled me! Result - Tories again.

[darrenm]

Starmer continuing to fall in popularity. Briefings starting against him. Another Tory victory next time. Why couldn't he listen to people who aren't just funnelling focus group results?

 

 

[Ingram85]

It’s his own fault. Apologises for everything under the sun. Doesn’t take the government to task for anything. Other than a few hard hitting questions in his first few pmq’s he has just sat back arms folded saying “know’s not the time” over and over. I can get a life sized cardboard standee of him off Amazon that has a stronger backbone. He needs to fight back a bit more. I really thought he was going to change Labours fortunes when he got in. Wet blanket. 

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Starmer continuing to fall in popularity

At the risk of repeating myself, all the attention is on the Tory government and the easing of lockdown and vaccinations. No-one is taking any notice of Labour, or Starmer - they're not even getting any news coverage. For most people it's "Starmer - not heard anything about him or Labour for ages, but aren't the government doing well with ending lockdown and vaccinations".

Until Labour gets some policies and some coverage, and/or the Government screws up the Virus again, it'll stay like that.

[OutByEaster?]

I think he's done. The question is whether we wait until an election for confirmation.

 

[darrenm]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

At the risk of repeating myself, all the attention is on the Tory government and the easing of lockdown and vaccinations. No-one is taking any notice of Labour, or Starmer - they're not even getting any news coverage. For most people it's "Starmer - not heard anything about him or Labour for ages, but aren't the government doing well with ending lockdown and vaccinations".

Until Labour gets some policies and some coverage, and/or the Government screws up the Virus again, it'll stay like that.

So why is he falling in popularity so dramatically? If it was out of sight out of mind surely the numbers would be flat? People are actively changing their mind about him.

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, Ingram85 said:

It’s his own fault. Apologises for everything under the sun. Doesn’t take the government to task for anything. Other than a few hard hitting questions in his first few pmq’s he has just sat back arms folded saying “know’s not the time” over and over. I can get a life sized cardboard standee of him off Amazon that has a stronger backbone. He needs to fight back a bit more. I really thought he was going to change Labours fortunes when he got in. Wet blanket. 

TBH kind of hard to argue with that.

[Ingram85]

5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

TBH kind of hard to argue with that.

It’s annoying because I actually really like him but the weird self imposed boundaries he’s put in place early on to not create a hostile environment in politics while worthy have hamstrung him completely. No ones asking him to go completely ape**** postal at the opposition but he at least needs to take BoJo et al to task and land a few punches at least on a more regular basis. He has the capability, but he’s too scared of being part of the same old circus that’s come before I think. 

Edited April 13, 2021 by Ingram85

[HanoiVillan]

Just now, Ingram85 said:

It’s annoying because I actually really like him but the weird boundaries he’s put in place early on to not create a hostile environment in politics while worthy have hamstrung him completely. No ones asking him to go completely ape**** postal at the opposition but he at least needs to take BoJo et al to task and land a few punches at least on a more regular basis. He has the capability, but he’s too scared of being part of the same old circus that’s come before I think. 

My serious, non-trolling diagnosis of his problem is that he went way too hard into having opinions about the minutiae of how to handle covid, rather than having a big-picture critique of the government's response to the crisis. Like, it would have been much better if he wasn't trying to second-guess when X or Y restriction should be in place, but instead talking about how the response has failed lots of people because of ideological government decisions.

Think instead he's come across - to normal people - as a nitpicker and a Monday morning quarterback.

[Chindie]

The knives have been being sharpened for a couple of months now for Starmer.

Dead man walking. Just a matter of how long they take to measure out the rope.

[OutByEaster?]

What he hasn't done at this point is generate a headline.

There's nothing that's reportable if that makes sense, so he becomes a bit of an invisible man, someone that people don't know or relate to, he could really do with doing something that gets him back into the public eye - I mean right now, if he were to call Johnson a crook on TV, it'd at least get him back in the papers, it'd give him some sort of personality, it'd make him 'something' and he needs to be something, because I think the electorate are seeing him as a nobody. 

 

[darrenm]

6 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

What he hasn't done at this point is generate a headline.

There's nothing that's reportable if that makes sense, so he becomes a bit of an invisible man, someone that people don't know or relate to, he could really do with doing something that gets him back into the public eye - I mean right now, if he were to call Johnson a crook on TV, it'd at least get him back in the papers, it'd give him some sort of personality, it'd make him 'something' and he needs to be something, because I think the electorate are seeing him as a nobody. 

 

The Greensill scandal is a huge, gaping, massive open goal. This is good:

I thought I'd seen Keir Starmer tweeting about it himself but apparently not. 

It doesn't matter that it's Cameron and Sunak, Tories will all be tarred by it. At the very least if Tories are forced to sack Sunak it'll hurt them by removing a potential leader they have lined up.

You just know that Starmer's predecessor would have been all over this. The BBC would have been deflecting of course.

Grow some balls, man.

[blandy]

6 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

What he hasn't done at this point is generate a headline.

There's nothing that's reportable if that makes sense, so he becomes a bit of an invisible man

Exactly. In the actual real world, there is stuff going on which renders what an opposition politician says way down the newsworthy list. He could do as you suggest and call Johnson a crook, but I suspect the time for that sort of thing is not now, personally. A brief headline would ensue, then back to the virus, easing lockdown, vaccination, vaccine clotting, travel bans...