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

[bickster]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

That bloke who was moaning above about being thrown out - maybe he shouldn't have liked posts saying Starmer was a "tool of the Zionists" and so on?

Yep, the whole Liked doesn't mean I liked it argument its pretty much as dumb as you get. I like every post on my timeline, what even the one's you don't like?

Would he like a post that said... "That's why I vote Tory" hmmm.... or "It's the fault of black people"... hmmmm.... but "Zionist Conspiracy Theory"... yep I'll like them all day every day even though I don't agree just because they are my mates and I don't want to offend them. 

[darrenm]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

It's been like that since wossisname, Ed Milliband, left the leadership and Corbz the absolute boy was made leader.

That bloke who was moaning above about being thrown out - maybe he shouldn't have liked posts saying Starmer was a "tool of the Zionists" and so on?

 

18 minutes ago, bickster said:

Yep, the whole Liked doesn't mean I liked it argument its pretty much as dumb as you get. I like every post on my timeline, what even the one's you don't like?

Would he like a post that said... "That's why I vote Tory" hmmm.... or "It's the fault of black people"... hmmmm.... but "Zionist Conspiracy Theory"... yep I'll like them all day every day even though I don't agree just because they are my mates and I don't want to offend them. 

I'm going to hazard a guess that you two guys have never worked in IT support.

[HanoiVillan]

26 minutes ago, blandy said:

Sure. I completely agree, Mark. I'm just lamenting it's nothing new - the tories have been getting ever worse and for all that time (since 2015) Labour has been more interested in settling internal scores, general twattery and being useless.

I confess I don't understand the purpose of '(since 2015)' in this comment, as if factionalism in the Labour party were a new development.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

I confess I don't understand the purpose of '(since 2015)' in this comment, as if factionalism in the Labour party were a new development.

The purpose (relevance, I'd call it, as I wrote it) was to highlight that essentially since the election of Corbyn who (whatever people think of him) has always been a divisive character, Labour first internally had people trying to depose and undermine him, and then more latterly you've had Corbynites trying to do the same to Starmer - so in essence my perception is that since the choice of Corbyn (and it was buggins' turn that he stood as the left wing leadership candidate - just on rotation) and then him unexpectedly winning, kind of unleashed the (up to that point) suppressed pressure that's always been there between harder left versus left of centre Labour. It just opened it up into public view more, and the genie hasn't been put back in the bottle, instead the public is seeing exactly what Mark wrote - endless squabbling instead of focused opposition to the tories.

I dunno if that explains, HV?

[blandy]

10 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I'm going to hazard a guess that you two guys have never worked in IT support.

I confess I don't understand the purpose of this comment . How does helping IT users with their problems relate to "liking" nasty internet comments? Are you just saying some people are dumb?

[HanoiVillan]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

The purpose (relevance, I'd call it, as I wrote it) was to highlight that essentially since the election of Corbyn who (whatever people think of him) has always been a divisive character, Labour first internally had people trying to depose and undermine him, and then more latterly you've had Corbynites trying to do the same to Starmer - so in essence my perception is that since the choice of Corbyn (and it was buggins' turn that he stood as the left wing leadership candidate - just on rotation) and then him unexpectedly winning, kind of unleashed the (up to that point) suppressed pressure that's always been there between harder left versus left of centre Labour. It just opened it up into public view more, and the genie hasn't been put back in the bottle, instead the public is seeing exactly what Mark wrote - endless squabbling instead of focused opposition to the tories.

I dunno if that explains, HV?

Yes, I agree that there are battles within the party, but my point is they are nothing new and did not emerge out of nowhere in 2015. The period of 2010-2015 was defined by more right-wing Labour MPs seeking to undermine Miliband E, partly out of genuine disagreement and partly because he was the usurper, 'the wrong Miliband' etc. Prior to that, the party was divided internally if less ideologically between 'Blairites' and 'Brownites' who spent huge amounts briefing against each other to the media, and of course we can find more and more as we go back.

First past the post is an electoral system which both requires and creates broad parties in which there are numerous factions. The main difference between it and a PR system is that under FPTP, the jockeying for power happens before elections (mostly) while under PR it happens after elections (mostly); what you are perceiving here is the normal wrestling for power within the party. Is it always healthy, productive and kind? Definitely not, and we've seen that it can certainly be very nasty at times, but it's nothing *new*. I also think there's a much higher threshold for this stuff mattering to normal voters than people commonly assume. That threshold was probably breached at the end of the Corbyn years when some Labour MPs walked out of the party, instructed voters to vote Tory, or went on TV to accuse the party leader of being a racist. But normal voters don't pay enough attention for the kind of day-to-day arguing that we comment on here to cut through, and parties with significant divisions can still win elections (eg 2005, 2015).

[darrenm]

27 minutes ago, blandy said:

Are you just saying some people are dumb?

Yeah. While I'm not saying that's what happened in this case, you can't take social media 'likes' as evidence of anything. Because a lot of people just don't know what they mean. To a lot of non IT literate people, they mean 'I acknowledge receipt of someone talking to me'. To even IT literate people, they just press like on stuff out of habit. I thought the heart symbol on Twitter meant 'save this for future reading' so didn't ever press like on anything for 5 years because I didn't need to bookmark anything. If you don't mind me saying, assuming that you know how much understanding people of all stages of life or IT social media literacy have is a little bit bigoted. It's a bit ignorant refusing to acknowledge anything outside of your understanding. I learnt a long time ago in customer facing tech support that all kinds of people have all kinds of understanding and use things in different ways. Therefore 'likes' on Facebook might mean to you and me and most people 'I've read this and agree with it', to a lot of people it won't. Or perhaps I give people too much benefit of doubt.

[blandy]

25 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

what you are perceiving here is the normal wrestling for power within the party

I don't think so. The levels have not been "normal" since 2015, IMO. I accept you hold a different view. I do agree there's always a dynamic within any party and always in-fighting/ambitions/ideological stuff, but since Corbyn was elected my perception is that it has escalated enormously, to the detriment of the country, as the Government has been handed power on a plate, basically.

[HanoiVillan]

8 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Yeah. While I'm not saying that's what happened in this case, you can't take social media 'likes' as evidence of anything. Because a lot of people just don't know what they mean. To a lot of non IT literate people, they mean 'I acknowledge receipt of someone talking to me'. To even IT literate people, they just press like on stuff out of habit. I thought the heart symbol on Twitter meant 'save this for future reading' so didn't ever press like on anything for 5 years because I didn't need to bookmark anything. If you don't mind me saying, assuming that you know how much understanding people of all stages of life or IT social media literacy have is a little bit bigoted. It's a bit ignorant refusing to acknowledge anything outside of your understanding. I learnt a long time ago in customer facing tech support that all kinds of people have all kinds of understanding and use things in different ways. Therefore 'likes' on Facebook might mean to you and me and most people 'I've read this and agree with it', to a lot of people it won't. Or perhaps I give people too much benefit of doubt.

Dunno anything about this Labour person, but I can think of a handful of posters On Here who respond to nearly every interaction with a like.

[blandy]

12 minutes ago, darrenm said:

If you don't mind me saying, assuming that you know how much understanding people of all stages of life or IT social media literacy have is a little bit bigoted. It's a bit ignorant refusing to acknowledge anything outside of your understanding.

Wow. You seem to have jumped something there. I don't for a moment think I've stated or assumed any such thing. The only thing I have said is that essentially liking anti-semitic (or borderline) face hole posts, by a self proclaimed political nerd, and intensive social media user might not have been a very bright idea (or whatever it was I wrote - but that was the gist of it).

[darrenm]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

Wow. You seem to have jumped something there. I don't for a moment think I've stated or assumed any such thing. The only thing I have said is that essentially liking anti-semitic (or borderline) face hole posts, by a self proclaimed political nerd, and intensive social media user might not have been a very bright idea (or whatever it was I wrote - but that was the gist of it).

I'm sorry mate but this is your standard 'they should have thought about that before they did it' response

"That bloke who was moaning above about being thrown out - maybe he shouldn't have liked posts saying Starmer was a "tool of the Zionists" and so on?"

no-one's defending the comment about Starmer being a 'tool of the Zionists' was right or wrong, I'm saying that you assuming he even knows what the 'thumbs up' button on Facebook does or means shows you appraising him through your own understanding of how things work. It pays not to do that because you just end up siloed with a closed mind. 

[ml1dch]

25 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Dunno anything about this Labour person, but I can think of a handful of posters On Here who respond to nearly every interaction with a like.

I assume that we are now all going to performatively like this post for the lols?

[markavfc40]

This thread is a great example of the issues Labour have isn't it. Plenty of people posting who have voted for Labour at one time or another but couldn't bring themselves to vote for Corbyn's Labour or now won't be able to bring themselves to vote for Starmers Labour.

I don't know if Tories have this issue do they or at least not to the same extent Labour do. They'll come together when it matters and vote for any old Tory as long as it means they don't end up with a Labour government.

I have got to be honest I'll vote for Labour in any guise if that is the best chance of getting rid of the Tories. If not I'll go to the polling station with the sole intention of voting for the party/candidate most likely to beat the Tories, so long as the party they represent isn't more right wing. 

It is long past time that those within the Labour party, or who have been part of the Labour party, put any internal differences aside and focused their energy fully on getting rid of the Tories. Pipe dream I suppose. 

[bickster]

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

I'm saying that you assuming he even knows what the 'thumbs up' button on Facebook does or means

He clearly knows this from what he's said, he even says they are likes

[blandy]

8 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

This thread is a great example of the issues Labour have isn't it. Plenty of people posting who have voted for Labour at one time or another but couldn't bring themselves to vote for Corbyn's Labour or now won't be able to bring themselves to vote for Starmers Labour.

I guess so. Though it's one thing for a bunch of rando's on the internet to discuss and debate whether Labour should this that or the other, but we're not the Labour party. What we think or who we like or dislike doesn't matter- but your right it's perhaps representative in the wider sense.

There's also something @OutByEaster?said ages ago, which has stuck with me - it's that (I think I'm remembering correctly) that he looks for a kind of ideology and belief in politicians - something he can get on board with, or shares the same views on and I'd posted that most of all, or firstly, I look for someone who is actually competent and capable of dealing with the things that have to be done. It's just a completely different way of looking at the same thing(s). Maybe it's a different take on "leadership", rather than Labour specifically, but I think my comment is that for the Labour leader to really be a potential Prime Minister, particularly with the current broken electoral system and also the widely fragmented nature of the world now, whoever it is probably needs to be tick both those boxes to appeal widely enough to the wider electorate. 

[bickster]

15 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

This thread is a great example of the issues Labour have isn't it. Plenty of people posting who have voted for Labour at one time or another but couldn't bring themselves to vote for Corbyn's Labour or now won't be able to bring themselves to vote for Starmers Labour.

I don't know if Tories have this issue do they or at least not to the same extent Labour do. They'll come together when it matters and vote for any old Tory as long as it means they don't end up with a Labour government.

I have got to be honest I'll vote for Labour in any guise if that is the best chance of getting rid of the Tories. If not I'll go to the polling station with the sole intention of voting for the party/candidate most likely to beat the Tories, so long as the party they represent isn't more right wing. 

It is long past time that those within the Labour party, or who have been part of the Labour party, put any internal differences aside and focused their energy fully on getting rid of the Tories. Pipe dream I suppose. 

Regardless of all that you've said (most of which is logical and yes they should be like you say) the biggest hindrance to getting rid of the Tory Party is the Labour Party. Until the Labour Party unties itself from FPTP and on a temporary basis forms electoral alliances with other parties that also wish to change our electoral system and make it more democratic then.... yep Tories

[Xann]

57 minutes ago, bickster said:

... the biggest hindrance to getting rid of the Tory Party is the Labour Party.

Disagree.

Disinformation.

[darrenm]

2 hours ago, markavfc40 said:

This thread is a great example of the issues Labour have isn't it. Plenty of people posting who have voted for Labour at one time or another but couldn't bring themselves to vote for Corbyn's Labour or now won't be able to bring themselves to vote for Starmers Labour.

I don't know if Tories have this issue do they or at least not to the same extent Labour do. They'll come together when it matters and vote for any old Tory as long as it means they don't end up with a Labour government.

I have got to be honest I'll vote for Labour in any guise if that is the best chance of getting rid of the Tories. If not I'll go to the polling station with the sole intention of voting for the party/candidate most likely to beat the Tories, so long as the party they represent isn't more right wing. 

It is long past time that those within the Labour party, or who have been part of the Labour party, put any internal differences aside and focused their energy fully on getting rid of the Tories. Pipe dream I suppose. 

I'm nothing to do with the Labour Party now so I like to think I'm an outside observer. I joined in 2015 in my first foray into politics and by 2020 had done a 'yikes!' about turn after I saw how bonkers and brutal the internal war is. From my point of view there's one faction comprised of about 20 MPs who are genuinely not interested in anything for themselves. They represent about 50% of the membership. It used to be about 75% of the membership until recently. They're the ones who were in charge 2015-2019. The majority of the rest of the MPs and those now in charge are career politicians who didn't like their gravy train being taken away and being exposed as vacuous weathervanes without much in the way of a moral compass. A lot of those did everything they could to sabotage the party's chances of winning in 2017 and when they had a shock about how close it was they redoubled their efforts for 2019. It's all in the book Left Out (which I haven't read but want to)

It's easy to do a "stop fighting you two I'll bang your heads together" but from my point of view one side was just trying to get on with fixing things and their major fault was they were too naive and didn't take the chance to solidify their power when they could. But I'm sure someone who doesn't like that faction will be along in a minute to see it from the opposite view. So that'll probably prove your point.

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, darrenm said:

From my point of view there's one faction comprised of about 20 MPs who are genuinely not interested in anything for themselves. They represent about 50% of the membership. It used to be about 75% of the membership until recently. They're the ones who were in charge 2015-2019. The majority of the rest of the MPs and those now in charge are career politicians who didn't like their gravy train being taken away and being exposed as vacuous weathervanes without much in the way of a moral compass. A lot of those did everything they could to sabotage the party's chances of winning in 2017 and when they had a shock about how close it was they redoubled their efforts for 2019. It's all in the book Left Out (which I haven't read but want to)

Each to their own perspective. I’m not going to dispute what you say, because it’s like arguing what the best colour is. What I will say is that I’m surprised at the  low number of 20 in it for only achieving stuff for people and the rest pretty much being disloyal, in it for themselves careerists with little moral compass, to paraphrase.

My perception is different on the proportions and also the morality side of it. I think you could pick a range of names from across their spectrum and the spread of “good” MPs would be right across it, as would careerists and underminers. I haven’t perceived any part of labour as having the monopoly on morals or on dastardliness, nor on personal ambition or careerism and riding the gravy train.

it’s also notable how many MPs from the two main parties have basically walked away from their parties in recent years. The number is not insignificant, and most of them did so because of very strong disagreements with the direction their party was taking on one issue or another.  I think pretty much every MP has a kind of window of tolerance of variation from their view and if that is exceeded they will rebel and if they are rebelling often, the principled ones quit. The cosy careerists on a nice little earner stay put and take their salary and easy life on the back benches, though they may, or may not, be decent constituency MPs. 

[chrisp65]

As someone that hung around trade unions and Labour types for a few years back in the 80’s and 90’s I can’t see anything exceptional about 2015 other than greater acccess to social media.

I would presume someone with experience from the 60’s and 70’s will be along shortly to best me.