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

[Jareth]

14 hours ago, ml1dch said:

Yeah, don't really disagree with any of that.

The thing I'm not sure is right is that all those things that you cite, how much better they are going to get that makes people want Sunak to carry on. As I mention in that post, stuff that is getting positive press for Sunak just isn't moving the polls. Once people have made their mind up on something, it takes something tangible to change it back. 

Things might be a bit better than the "f****** awful" that Johnson / Truss gave us, but that doesn't equal "good". And I don't think that "not as bad as all the same people with a different Prime Minister" is enough to give many people confidence to give them another five years. 

Like 2010 (and argually June 2016), I think the next election will be fought on an overriding wave of  "I don't really care about any of them, but let's roll the dice and give the other way a go". 

One important point - a Labour Government probably forms in any scenario where the Tories lose forty or more seats. Whatever tiny, green shoots start to appear in the next 12 months, it feels hard to see the Tories *not* losing forty or more seats.

But things change.

I'm still on that trajectory too - if I was a betting man I would back this prediction right now.

[blandy]

10 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Corbyn blocked by starmer

Corbyn gave Starmer little choice, really. Corbyn is not the naive, innocent, victim here. Personally I think it’s a shame as he seems like he’s a very good local MP (diabolically bad party leader, mind).  Thing is, though he’s monumentally stubborn and not very bright, either. When the EHRC report came out and detailed all the failings of the Party he led, of the leadership of the party he just needed to either just shut up, or to say he accepted the findings, and then everyone could have cracked on, but no, he didn’t, his pride wouldn’t let him. So he made it so easy for Starmer.

And since then, Corbyn has been taking a line on Russia/Ukraine and loads of other stuff, which gives even more reason, or invitation for Starmer to block him.

Corbyn could easily have stayed in the PLP and could easily have stayed as their candidate at the next election, instead he’s basically handed Starmer an open invitation to do something that Starmer had become potentially keen to do.

[Jareth]

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

Corbyn could easily have stayed in the PLP and could easily have stayed as their candidate at the next election, instead he’s basically handed Starmer an open invitation to do something that Starmer had become potentially keen to do.

I think Corbyn is very much in the past now, as far as Labour is concerned. But what makes him different from most politicians is he'll say it how he sees it, whether Starmer agrees or not, he's the opposite of your average politician who will usually say what they need to say in order to remain a politician. Corbyn remains marmite - but personally I hope he and the rest of the left cohort of Labour realise time is up there, the NEC have proven they can drop you based on whether they think you'll win them an election, the undemocratic precedent is now established. God knows what they all do next, but they'll get funding. 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Jareth said:

what makes him different from most politicians is he'll say it how he sees it,

Totally.

It's strange on the Marmite thing, because to me at least he sits on the place where I think he's enormously wrong in a large number of ways, but also right on quite a few, too. I think he was always going to be an awful leader, and he was, but as I said I think he's a very good person to have as a local MP. He's just not remotely temperamentally suited to be a leader - too thin skinned, too intransigent, too one sided and unbelievably kind of sanctimonious and hypocritical, too willing to turn a blind eye to a load of stuff in pursuit of that one-eyed, 1970s, anti-imperialist worldview. But some of his diagnosis is quite correct, much more so than more mainstream politicians. So he sits right on the borderline between "wrong 'un" and "fighting the good fight" kind of thing, for me. I like that he fights for people who need help and need more justice and support. I don't like how he will talk only to one side, no matter what their history or words or deeds say about them, but will not contemplate talking to the other side. He's not a mediator, he's a take a side and support it, regardless, type of guy. Those people are I suppose, necessary in politics, but they are totally unsuited to leading. If you can't put yourself in the other side's shoes and imagine their case and their arguments, you can't understand how to negotiate with them, or counter them. And if you don't understand them, you can't beat them, or win your argument and actually progress things or change things for the better. He can't think tactically. He can see world problems, but not practical solutions.

As a local MP, where things are less complex than international affairs, his tenacity and desire to help people and fight local injustices can have and has had much more effect.

And while Starmer has undoubtedly been shaping the type of candidates that Labour puts forward, that's always been the case - Corbyn did exactly that, too, when he was leader. Mind you I can't think of any other examples of Labour getting rid of a former leader so ruthlessly, in the past. But like I said earlier, Corbyn's role in it is significant, in that he basically refused to fully accept the EHRC verdict on his Labour party's failings, or his leadership failings and then continued to advance the STW view on Russia and NATO and so on. "Go on, sack me, please" when he knew that one of the reasons Labour lost last time was the wider population's verdict of "we won't vote (in sufficient number) for a Corbyn led Labour Party" - he is toxic to a large chunk of the population, and he doesn't know why, can't see why, can't accept why.

[Jareth]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

Totally.

It's strange on the Marmite thing, because to me at least he sits on the place where I think he's enormously wrong in a large number of ways, but also right on quite a few, too. I think he was always going to be an awful leader, and he was, but as I said I think he's a very good person to have as a local MP. He's just not remotely temperamentally suited to be a leader - too thin skinned, too intransigent, too one sided and unbelievably kind of sanctimonious and hypocritical, too willing to turn a blind eye to a load of stuff in pursuit of that one-eyed, 1970s, anti-imperialist worldview. But some of his diagnosis is quite correct, much more so than more mainstream politicians. So he sits right on the borderline between "wrong 'un" and "fighting the good fight" kind of thing, for me. I like that he fights for people who need help and need more justice and support. I don't like how he will talk only to one side, no matter what their history or words or deeds say about them, but will not contemplate talking to the other side. He's not a mediator, he's a take a side and support it, regardless, type of guy. Those people are I suppose, necessary in politics, but they are totally unsuited to leading. If you can't put yourself in the other side's shoes and imaging their case and their arguments, you can't understand how to negotiate with them, or counter them. And if you don't understand them, you can't beat them, or win your argument and actually progress things or change things for the better. He can't think tactically. He can see world problems, but not practical solutions.

As a local MP, where things are less complex than international affairs, his tenacity and desire to help people and fight local injustices can have and has had much more effect.

And while Starmer has undoubtedly been shaping the type of candidates that Labour puts forward, that's always been the case - Corbyn did exactly that, too, when he was leader. Mind you I can't think of any other examples of Labour getting rid of a former leader so ruthlessly, in the past. But like I said earlier, Corbyn's role in it is significant, in that he basically refused to fully accept the EHRC verdict on his Labour party's failings, or his leadership failings and then continued to advance the STW view on Russia and NATO and so on. "Go on, sack me, please" when he knew that one of the reasons La your lost last time was the wider population's verdict of "we won't vote (in sufficient number) for a Corbyn led Labour Party" - he is toxic to a large chunk of the population, and he doesn't know why, can't see why, can't accept why.

I think that's all wholly accurate - never meant to lead, never had the necessary qualities - but is the guy you want on your side as a local MP if you need someone to help a just cause. I mean there was the whole take-down by literally everyone bar his own small group of left Labour MPs - but that's gotten boring to both sides of the argument, it's in the past now.

Best thing about Labour under Corbyn was the increased democracy of the party - members could vote for all levels of the party, online, and it empowered individuals to express their personal choices while still remaining part of something bigger that as a whole was offering big solutions to big problems. That's attractive to the left and right, and it was fresh, albeit naive of the strength of factionalism. Just watched the Adam Curtis interview on his collapse of Russia documentary, and he pretty much described what needs to come next - and it had shades of what was offered under Corbyn. Starmer was going to take that increased fresh democracy, and big solutions to big problems and run with it - and be the better leader. Instead, as Adam Curtis describes, he appears to have gone back to the politics of the recent past, where liberals are now happy to live with austerity because it means stability, back into a loop of doing things in a way that doesn't offer any new ideas for the future. 

[Seat68]

What I will say about Corbyn, is to me, not a fan of him at all, is that he cares. He really does and is someone you would want fighting for you locally. We have a shithouse here and before her another shithouse, but before them was a man that cared about the constituency. That seems to be lacking by a large number of current MP's from all parties.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

18 hours ago, bickster said:

She absolutely would, her Deputy Leader position is elected by the membership, now that doesn't automatically mean she's in the cabinet but should something happen to Starmer. she'd have to take over, so she really does need to know what is going on, for her not to be in the cabinet would be unthinkable really

Actually you are right,  I really mean Number 2.  Its a ying and yang thing that goes perfectly with Starmer from a Appeal to everyone POV

[Wainy316]

The thing that annoys me most with the whole Corbyn thing is people using him as an excuse for their Johnson vote as if the latter isn't far far worse on every level.

Also, when Tories use Labour MPs having previously supported Corbyn as a line of attack it should be able to be easily countered with 'well you supported that **** vacuous, deceitful, self serving, narcissist prick Johnson so shove it up your arse'.

 

Jeremy Corbyn has more integrity and decency in one of his bum hairs than Boris Johnson has throughout his entire being.

 

[Xann]

A nation blagged.

[bickster]

2 hours ago, Wainy316 said:

The thing that annoys me most with the whole Corbyn thing is people using him as an excuse for their Johnson vote as if the latter isn't far far worse on every level.

Apart from maybe the Ukraine response level

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

On 28/03/2023 at 14:36, juanpabloangel18 said:

working class northern young mother,

I believe they need this type of person to go with Starmer. 

If all things were equal and she was a bloke who was a bit Jacob Rees-Mogg but had the exact beliefs and competence as her,  would she be in the same job,  I'm not sure.

You are correct,  she has been very quiet.  

[bannedfromHandV]

6 minutes ago, bickster said:

Apart from maybe the Ukraine response level

To be fair, history has yet to be written where that’s concerned. I mean we all feel pretty unanimous in that how we have responded thus far is appropriate and correct but only time will actually tell.

I still think the nation missed an opportunity with corbyn, I mean for all his faults would he actually have been worse than the shitshow we’ve endured since? Would the country be in a worse position? (hard to see how taking everything into account) 

[ml1dch]

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

He wants to play at Churchill. For his own ego, really. The **** whopper.

While that's undoubtedly true, his selfish interests also happened to coincide with the right position. 

Corbyn, on the other hand has been an embarrassment when it comes to Russia and Ukraine.

[MakemineVanilla]

7 hours ago, blandy said:

Totally.

It's strange on the Marmite thing, because to me at least he sits on the place where I think he's enormously wrong in a large number of ways, but also right on quite a few, too. I think he was always going to be an awful leader, and he was, but as I said I think he's a very good person to have as a local MP. He's just not remotely temperamentally suited to be a leader - too thin skinned, too intransigent, too one sided and unbelievably kind of sanctimonious and hypocritical, too willing to turn a blind eye to a load of stuff in pursuit of that one-eyed, 1970s, anti-imperialist worldview. But some of his diagnosis is quite correct, much more so than more mainstream politicians. So he sits right on the borderline between "wrong 'un" and "fighting the good fight" kind of thing, for me. I like that he fights for people who need help and need more justice and support. I don't like how he will talk only to one side, no matter what their history or words or deeds say about them, but will not contemplate talking to the other side. He's not a mediator, he's a take a side and support it, regardless, type of guy. Those people are I suppose, necessary in politics, but they are totally unsuited to leading. If you can't put yourself in the other side's shoes and imagine their case and their arguments, you can't understand how to negotiate with them, or counter them. And if you don't understand them, you can't beat them, or win your argument and actually progress things or change things for the better. He can't think tactically. He can see world problems, but not practical solutions.

As a local MP, where things are less complex than international affairs, his tenacity and desire to help people and fight local injustices can have and has had much more effect.

And while Starmer has undoubtedly been shaping the type of candidates that Labour puts forward, that's always been the case - Corbyn did exactly that, too, when he was leader. Mind you I can't think of any other examples of Labour getting rid of a former leader so ruthlessly, in the past. But like I said earlier, Corbyn's role in it is significant, in that he basically refused to fully accept the EHRC verdict on his Labour party's failings, or his leadership failings and then continued to advance the STW view on Russia and NATO and so on. "Go on, sack me, please" when he knew that one of the reasons Labour lost last time was the wider population's verdict of "we won't vote (in sufficient number) for a Corbyn led Labour Party" - he is toxic to a large chunk of the population, and he doesn't know why, can't see why, can't accept why.

I never used to like him much but you make him sound like a man who won't sacrifice his principles for political advantage.

 

[blandy]

37 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

He probably does also feel similar about it as the rest of us though. 

To an extent. I mean my thoughts on it have not been "how can I make myself look good, look Churchillian, what an opportunity for me". I don't deny that his efforts have been far preferable to Corbyn's risible drivel in every regard, but with Bunter it's always "me, me me".

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I never used to like him much but you make him sound like a man who won't sacrifice his principles for political advantage.

Hmmm. Which in a politician might not be the optimum approach, perhaps?

I'd say that it's fairly common amongst the more left wing and more right wing ends of the spectrum "our ideology is right and pure and we will not compromise". The DUP are another lot like that. Entrenched and inflexible might be another term you could use.

[MakemineVanilla]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Hmmm. Which in a politician might not be the optimum approach, perhaps?

I'd say that it's fairly common amongst the more left wing and more right wing ends of the spectrum "our ideology is right and pure and we will not compromise". The DUP are another lot like that. Entrenched and inflexible might be another term you could use.

I am definitely behind the times: when I listen to old Labour MPs I understand them but not the new lot.

 

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I am definitely behind the times: when I listen to old Labour MPs I understand them but not the new lot.

I've listened to podcasts with a few of the newer ones and tbh they come across really well, to me. Lisa Nandy, Angela Rayner, Jess Phillips and so on. I was surprised on some cases just how normal they basically are, still. Much better than almost all tories I've done the same with.

[bickster]

3 hours ago, Xann said:

I consider it likely that the Brexit PM's motivation comes from the realisation he was Putin's useful idiot in the years leading up to hostilities.

I think you can probably sling that accusation at both albeit in Corbyn's case, second -hand via Milne

[Risso]

3 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said:

To be fair, history has yet to be written where that’s concerned. I mean we all feel pretty unanimous in that how we have responded thus far is appropriate and correct but only time will actually tell.

 

How is that you think history might react differently to the illegal invasion of a country and the slaughter of thousands of people by a despotic madman?