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

[Jareth]

 

[bickster]

18 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Anyone who has been around VT for the last gawd knows how long will tell you that I've often made the argument that parties should be outlawed. I'm considered some sort of a mad idealist in this regard but BIAD was something I've argued for quite a lot (Burn It All Down in case you didn't know)

 

[Jareth]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

Anyone who has been around VT for the last gawd knows how long will tell you that I've often made the argument that parties should be outlawed. I'm considered some sort of a mad idealist in this regard but BIAD was something I've argued for quite a lot (Burn It All Down in case you didn't know)

 

OK - but outlaw all parties? What does that deliver us? 

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, Jareth said:

 

Some people should be prosecuted for the incorrect usage of the neoliberal word. It gets bandied about as an insult by people who clearly don't understand what it means. I'd be shocked if there was a single Neoliberal anywhere near the Labour Party

 

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, Jareth said:

OK - but outlaw all parties? What does that deliver us? 

A big step closer to democracy

[OutByEaster?]

12 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I think there's quite a lot of truth to this; it's notable that both Blair and Wilson had less than 5 years before their big victories, both taking over after the previous incumbent died. In many ways it would probably be more sensible for the outgoing leader to continue until the middle of the next parliament, but would Labour MPs have tolerated 2.5 more years of Corbyn in order to give the new leader a shorter run-up?

On this basis, Starmer's current plan of sitting very still and not upsetting people seems to make sense. If he pretends not to be there until around 2023, he could storm to victory.

 

[OutByEaster?]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

You mentioned Biden - he got in (with with a record vote) from a non-scare the horses position and is doing much more, already, than people thought he would. He'll never be Bernie Sanders left, but he'll get many lefty things done. To get anything done you have to get elected. It shouldn't need stating, but it does. Get in, then do stuff. Don't scare half the electorate (or more) before an election, because you will not get in. To get in Labour has to persuade people who voted for other parties to vote for them. That means soft Tories, Lib Dems, Greens, SNPs etc as well as Corbynite types.

I don't think Biden did get in on a wave of centrism and sensibleness. I think people voted against Trump, I think they voted because they were scared horses - If he'd tried his very best to, Biden would have struggled to frighten them more than a small bald man shouting "bad horse"  while an orange nutcase burned down their barn. It's not that he was calming, it's that the choices included one that was horrendous. I'm sure there were lots of people who really don't like Biden and voted for him.

I also don't think Labour needs to focus on persuading people who voted for other parties to vote for them in order to win, I think they can do that by keeping what they have and inspiring some of the 30% of people that didn't vote at all last time out to vote for them. I think to do that, you do need that bit of radicalism, you need something that gets those people out; there's an enormous difference between inspiring the electorate and scaring the horses.

 

 

 

[OutByEaster?]

3 hours ago, bickster said:

Not going to change though is it, left wing politics have been like that since Marx and Engels. There will always be an element of the left that prefers to fight other people on the left than you know, the peoples enemy.

Indeed, and if the Labour party is to succeed, it needs to stop appointing these people to lead it.

[Jareth]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

A big step closer to democracy

So no parties to vote for brings us closer to democracy? How do you remove the vote and be more democratic? Or am I falling down the rabbit hole of an old VT joke?

[OutByEaster?]

8 minutes ago, Jareth said:

So no parties to vote for brings us closer to democracy? How do you remove the vote and be more democratic? Or am I falling down the rabbit hole of an old VT joke?

I'd say what it does is that it means that each MP has to be more attuned to the needs of their constituents, there's no party line for them to follow, so they present themselves to their constituency on the things they believe and try to match those with the right constituency. In doing that, they better reflect the people they serve.

Then, at a Parliamentary level, they're not constrained by the whip, by their leadership, or by a set of beliefs that are associated with their party, they can raise the things that are important to them and their voters and form alliances on issues with people who represent like minded people, they can then vote on anything that's raised in line with their own conscience and respond directly to their voters.

Parliament wouldn't have to be two sides shouting at each other - it'd be more like a circle where each person needs to convince more than half of the others. No more braying and waving paper like big kids.

I live in a place with a massive Tory majority, but I'm guessing if our MP just stood on her own, expressing the same beliefs she currently has (if she has any, she hasn't voted against the party line in eight years)  she wouldn't stand a cat in hells chance of election, whereas if the Tory Party put forward a post box, I've very little doubt it would win.

By removing the party, you force the politician to both listen and communicate to their local electorate and better allow them to deliver the result of that through voting on issues based on their own conscience.

There are all sorts of reason why it might not be effective, but it's arguably a truer form of democracy than the binary Red or Blue question.

[Jareth]

2 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I'd say what it does is that it means that each MP has to be more attuned to the needs of their constituents, there's no party line for them to follow, so they present themselves to their constituency on the things they believe and try to match those with the right constituency. In doing that, they better reflect the people they serve.

Then, at a Parliamentary level, they're not constrained by the whip, by their leadership, or by a set of beliefs that are associated with their party, they can raise the things that are important to them and their voters and form alliances on issues with people who represent like minded people, they can then vote on anything that's raised in line with their own conscience and respond directly to their voters.

I like in a place with a massive Tory majority, but I'm guessing if our MP just stood on her own, expressing the same beliefs she currently has (if she has any, she hasn't voted against the party line in eight years)  she wouldn't stand a cat in hells chance of election, whereas if the Tory Party put forward a post box, I've very little doubt it would win.

By removing the party, you force the politician to both listen and communicate to their local electorate and better allow them to deliver the result of that through voting on issues based on their own conscience.

There are all sorts of reason why it might not be effective, but it's arguably a truer form of democracy than the binary Red or Blue question.

TBH that's new to me but I can see the attraction. But is it not just devolving power to local constituency? It sort of removes the point of nationality. But if yers want to remove the point of the UK, well I am down. But the Scots will do that this year. 

[OutByEaster?]

3 minutes ago, Jareth said:

TBH that's new to me but I can see the attraction. But is it not just devolving power to local constituency? It sort of removes the point of nationality. But if yers want to remove the point of the UK, well I am down. But the Scots will do that this year. 

I don't think it does, because they'd still need to go to the national Parliament and secure a majority of MP's in the house to push things through - it's just that you wouldn't do that in big groups, you'd have to actually persuade them your idea was good, rather it being a Labour or Conservative idea.

 

[chrisp65]

43 minutes ago, Jareth said:

So no parties to vote for brings us closer to democracy? How do you remove the vote and be more democratic? Or am I falling down the rabbit hole of an old VT joke?

It’s not a removal of the vote, it’s the removal of the party system, where you select who you want to represent you, and they do as central office tells them.

My MP wasn’t elected to here to go and vote to stop kids getting school dinners through the holidays. That was the whips office that decided that. 

My MP is more accountable to 4 Matthew Parker Street than me, and most people have heard of him because he had promotional backing from a party machine, not because he’d done anything of any note around here to earn that vote from the majority of people.

 

[bickster]

I could have put this in the things you don't get thread but here seems more apt. These are genuine questions as I really don't understand it.

See this....

1. Why do Labour politicos (from grassroots to MP) all post this bollocks, look at us posting leaflests etc

2. Who is it aimed at? The way I see it, it's only probably aimed one of two ways, either the general public (which I really don't understand) or their fellow comrades as a sort of look at us where were you kind of red-tinged oneupmanship. It could be the opposition I guess but probably not

3. Is this seen as a constructive thing to do? See to my mind, its problematic on a number of fronts. Firstly you get people falling into the trap of not actually reading the leaflets they are delivering (See the shadow cabinet member and Warrington MP from the other week), right now during the pandemic, someone is going to comment that there's more than 6 of them (the Councillor I presume is taking the photo because she isn't in it, nor does she mention the MP - Bungalow Bill on the left) and thirdly you are actively showing people the annoying tits pushing litter through your letter box (which is how a lot will see it)

I really don't get it. I'm fairly convinced it does more harm than good

[HanoiVillan]

It's so nobody can criticise them later for not having worked hard enough on X, Y or Z campaign.

And to be fair, it's not like they can rely on the nation's media outlets pumping out helpful messages like the Tories can, they've got to try to communicate with the public somehow.

[bickster]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

t's so nobody can criticise them later for not having worked hard enough on X, Y or Z campaign.

So it just is comradely oneupmanship. It's weird

[MessiWillSignForVilla]

All parties do it, it's a pretty standard way to try to build a campaigns internet presence.

 

[ml1dch]

"Vote Liberal Democrat's"?

Eesh, perfect way to alienate your base.

[bickster]

25 minutes ago, MessiWillSignForVilla said:

All parties do it, it's a pretty standard way to try to build a campaigns internet presence.

 

Yep I am aware that they all do it, it's just I see mainly Labour ones where I am. I still think its utter nonsense and self defeating though

[bickster]

23 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

"Vote Liberal Democrat's"?

Eesh, perfect way to alienate your base.

Grammar Nazis to the very core of the party

But yes a very minor example of what I was talking aboiut regarding social media f***ups in these tweets