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

[HanoiVillan]

10 minutes ago, blandy said:

No they're not. which is why your post struck me as odd - "desperate attempt for the media to rescue their boy" seemed strange. Starmer is not the Torygraph's "boy", nor more significantly is he the collective media's boy.

The post was employing a mocking shorthand for humorous effect. Maybe it should have had a smiley or something, but I thought it was quite clear. Obviously not

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

....if we take recent issues for example - Nurses pay, Grenfell, the Pandemic, Kier Starmer...the media are on the same "side" as Labour members, who (obviously) are pro nurses getting decent pay rises, pro looking after leaseholders in flats wrt the cladding, and who elected Starmer to be leader in big number.

Have 'the media' pushed nurses pay to the top of the agenda? At all? Has Grenfell been given anything like appropriate media coverage, because in order to keep up with the inquiry I have to read about it on Inside Housing's Twitter feed?

But that's not the point I'm making, which is again my fault for not being explicit enough. My point is about Labour members' interests *as Labour members*, ie about internal matters to do with the Labour party and its so-called 'internal democracy', not occasional alignment on other issues.

[HanoiVillan]

On 04/05/2021 at 13:46, icouldtelltheworld said:

You're completely right in what you say here, and I agree with you. My point was more that losing the West Mids mayoral election isn't on the same scale as some of the losses Labour could (and probably will) suffer this week. There does seem to be an element of London-based journalists who don't understand the political dynamics of anywhere north of Watford lumping the West Mids election in with their red wall commentary, when the comparison doesn't really work

 

On 04/05/2021 at 13:48, HanoiVillan said:

I completely agree, especially with the bolded. In fact, I would go further, and say that most journalists are extremely confused about what 'the red wall' is or was on its own, even without the comparison to the Midlands.

Just going back to this chat about the abysmal state of 'red wall' analysis:

The backdrop to this is that everybody expects Tracy Brabin will win the West Yorkshire mayoralty, which will necessitate her resignation as an MP and hence a by-election in Batley & Spen. This has got a lot of people excited this morning, because the seat has a fairly small Labour majority (3.5k). But it is not part of 'the red wall' in the sense that the term was first used, and the only one in which it is useful: a list of constituencies in which Labour historically over-performed the result you might have expected based on demographics. If 'the red wall' simply means 'any Labour seat in the north of England', then it doesn't really mean anything.

Sebastian Payne is the Whitehall Editor of the Financial Times. He's literally written a book about 'the red wall' (called 'Broken Heartlands: A Journey Through Labour's Lost England', natch). Here he is writing about Batley and Spen:

Note the claim here that 'many other seats in West Yorkshire went Tory for the first time'. FACT CHECK: Of the Tory-held seats in West Yorkshire, every single one was won in 2010 and before, with the sole exception of Morley & Outwood, which was won in 2015. Literally zero West Yorkshire seats 'went Tory for the first time'. In fact, the Tories have previously held every single seat in West Yorkshire (though to be fair with Wakefield you have to go back to before World War 2).

The guy wrote a book on this. Hopeless.

Edited May 6, 2021 by HanoiVillan

[chrisp65]

2 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

You will be delighted to hear my council isnt even up for nomination this year! 

 

Or that’s what they’re telling you...

 

[Demitri_C]

37 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Or that’s what they’re telling you...

 

Im moving soon thank god.

Enfield council its been a pleasure 

[bickster]

21 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Im moving soon thank god.

Enfield council its been a pleasure 

Where to?

[blandy]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

My point is about Labour members' interests *as Labour members*, ie about internal matters to do with the Labour party and its so-called 'internal democracy'

Cool  (to the whole post, not just the quote) - sorry I didn't get the humour.

On the quoted bit, and to stay on topic, do you think Labour could seriously improve their processes? I mean I was wondering - we're what 12 or 3 months or so into Starmer being leader and they appear not to have any policies as such. I know pandemic and wotnot, but it seems a bit too long to sort of drift, really. It's all very cumbersome, too.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

bit too long to sort of drift,

He (Starmer) just can't get traction with anything,  the subjects seem to just pop up for a day and then disappear + any opposition can say "Give them 4%" but it never improves Labours position IMO.

Eg Nurses,  yes they are ace but the economics for it are just not there for a pay rise in a pandemic is the view of the public at a guess.  

[Demitri_C]

36 minutes ago, bickster said:

Where to?

Ill be under broxbourne council.

You will come see me? Im honoured

Edited May 6, 2021 by Demitri_C

[blandy]

25 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

Eg Nurses,  yes they are ace but the economics for it are just not there for a pay rise in a pandemic is the view of the public at a guess.  

I dunno about that - the economics bit, I mean. Surely people must see "they spent billions on track and trace and contracts for their mates, but they can't find 4% for nurses?". Could be wrong though.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Cool  (to the whole post, not just the quote) - sorry I didn't get the humour.

On the quoted bit, and to stay on topic, do you think Labour could seriously improve their processes? I mean I was wondering - we're what 12 or 3 months or so into Starmer being leader and they appear not to have any policies as such. I know pandemic and wotnot, but it seems a bit too long to sort of drift, really. It's all very cumbersome, too.

No worries, apologies if I was being testy.

Regarding wider policies, you're right that they don't appear to have any, beyond something about 'covid recovery bonds'. I don't think the lack of specific policies is a problem, as such, however; what I sincerely think is dragging back Labour is that they appear to lack a clear vision of what they want the country to be. Starmer is a really inexperienced politician - only elected in 2015 - and he is not associated with any particular interests or causes (apart from opposing Brexit, which is a liability). His top team were chosen mostly because they were reliable hands in the centre of the party and most people would think 'at least it wasn't X', rather than due to any experience or particular skill, and have mostly made no impression on voters. If they absolutely have to pick policies, I think they should start with a project that contains an aspirational view of the country and a better life - a four-day week springs to mind - and think seriously about what policies that are (ideally) both popular and possible could lead towards that vision.

IMO Starmer is just not a very arresting person. He's pretty much a generic white bloke in a suit, with a quiff and a slightly nasally, querulous voice, and his political hinterland - human rights lawyer, Brexit opponent - is likely to be off-putting to lots of voters. If the party can't organise around him as an inspiring figure, then having an inspiring-if-not-particularly-detailed-yet vision of the country to organise and promote themselves around might be the next best option.

Of course, I'm usually wrong about things, so maybe that's complete guff, but it's how I see it.

Edited May 6, 2021 by HanoiVillan

[blandy]

30 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Regarding wider policies, you're right that they don't appear to have any, beyond something about 'covid recovery bonds'. I don't think the lack of specific policies is a problem, as such, however; what I sincerely think is dragging back Labour is that they appear to lack a clear vision of what they want the country to be. Starmer is a really inexperienced politician - only elected in 2015 - and he is not associated with any particular interests or causes (apart from opposing Brexit, which is a liability). His top team were chosen mostly because they were reliable hands in the centre of the party and most people would think 'at least it wasn't X', rather than due to any experience or particular skill, and have mostly made no impression on voters. If they absolutely have to pick policies, I think they should start with a project that contains an aspirational view of the country and a better life - a four-day week springs to mind - and think seriously about what policies that are (ideally) both popular and possible could lead towards that vision.

IMO Starmer is just not a very arresting person. He's pretty much a generic white bloke in a suit, with a quiff and a slightly nasally, querulous voice, and his political hinterland - human rights lawyer, Brexit opponent - is likely to be off-putting to lots of voters. If the party can't organise around him as an inspiring figure, then having an inspiring-if-not-particularly-detailed-yet vision of the country to organise and promote themselves around might be the next best option.

Of course, I'm usually wrong about things, so maybe that's complete guff, but it's how I see it.

Yeah, I get that as sound reasoning.

I slightly think though that policies are the indicators of vision. I mean politicians talk about fairness or levelling up, or better education or ...apple pie and motherhood - all parties have "visions" which are almost by definition completely meaningless and anodyne without some signifying detail (policies). I think we see the same flaw from slightly different angles, which is fine.

On his top team, yeah, I don't know who they are basically, most of them. I'm personally glad they're not the mostly useless Corbyn adherents and oxygen thieves like Burgeon and so on, but the ones I've seen have been mostly unimpressive as people/politicians. Less bad than their tory counterparts, but that's not hard. MacDonald wasn't too bad,  I suppose, though not great either. There's no one inspiring at the forefront of Labour. It doesn't have to be the leader, but they need a bit of pizzazz sprinkling on them, even though I prefer people who are competent than those who are essentially just flakey dreamers.

In that big America over there, you've got a steady Eddy as President, but there are charismatic people pushing ideas around him. That's what need to happen with Labour I think. Presenting a competent, generic white bloke in a suit is not a problem - it's still, to many voters, an advantage. But the lack of inspiration is a problem, definitely. I guess a bunch of posters have been saying this for months, really. Given how long they've had to think of an idea or two, they better come out with something soon. I worry that infighting will then stifle anything they do come up with. Their processes are very cumbersome, too.

or TL:DR - Starmer's OK, but he needs a better team around him and some policies/vision to communicate

[HanoiVillan]

My impression of Biden is that for 'normie' voters who don't really care about politics that much he's both quite reassuring - he's old! he was Obama's VP! - and also that he's a bit of an aspirational figure. Hard to articulate exactly, but while it's kind of lame there's also something people can aspire to in an old dude in a bomber jacket, aviators on, baring his white teeth in a car with no roof etc, and he's pretty good at seeming like the grandad people hope they'll be.

I think Starmer has literally 0% of that charisma.

[blandy]

Just now, HanoiVillan said:

My impression of Biden is that for 'normie' voters who don't really care about politics that much he's both quite reassuring - he's old! he was Obama's VP! - and also that he's a bit of an aspirational figure. Hard to articulate exactly, but while it's kind of lame there's also something people can aspire to in an old dude in a bomber jacket, aviators on, baring his white teeth in a car with no roof etc, and he's pretty good at seeming like the grandad people hope they'll be.

I think Starmer has literally 0% of that charisma.

Each to their own. My perception was that he (because of his history) was not scary to Rep. voters in the way that (say) Saunders or Warren would have been - they see him as not radical left, someone who works with others,  not charismatic (like Trump, or Obama), but not dangerous, so  a bunch of them voted for him. I think there are some parallels for Starmer - not threatening like Corbyn, the opposite of Johnson's clown act. But he needs to be able to come across as less lawyerly at times, you're right. But in terms of appealing to people Labour needs to to win over, or win back. he's got quite a few plus points.

I have also been known to be wrong

[Demitri_C]

Another 3 years of khan ergh 

But isnt going to be a 1st round wipe out like the polls all predicted.  Thats why you have to take the polls with a pinch of salt

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Each to their own. My perception was that he (because of his history) was not scary to Rep. voters in the way that (say) Saunders or Warren would have been - they see him as not radical left, someone who works with others,  not charismatic (like Trump, or Obama), but not dangerous, so  a bunch of them voted for him. I think there are some parallels for Starmer - not threatening like Corbyn, the opposite of Johnson's clown act. But he needs to be able to come across as less lawyerly at times, you're right. But in terms of appealing to people Labour needs to to win over, or win back. he's got quite a few plus points.

I have also been known to be wrong

I sort of agree re Biden, but I don't think many actual Republicans voted for him - he won by a fairly small margin, in a country where there are slightly more Democrats than Republicans - but Dems were even more highly motivated to turn out than Repubs. Where I do agree is that I think it's harder for them to portray this old white guy with a multi-decade track record of being a moderate Senator as any kind of dangerous radical, and that clearly blunts some attacks.

But I think there's big differences there to Starmer. Doubtless he's trying to earn Biden's kind of reputation as a moderate who won't scare the horses, but Britain is just a very different political climate. Johnson is more of a chameleon than Trump, who was more of a blunderbuss. I don't think Johnson is going to unite opposition against him in anything like the same way, and one consequence of that is that the internecine warfare in Labour, involved in spending most of the time splitting off the left and the membership, is just pointlessly damaging unity at a time when it's hard to come by anyway.

Anyway, such is Westminster politics that the narrative will be set for weeks or months by the outcome of today's elections, so we might as well wait and see if it's as bad as trailed or if there are some pleasant surprises.

[bickster]

2 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Ill be under broxbourne council.

You will come see me? Im honoured

Nah, zone 8 man too expensive, if you'd remained in Zone 5 I might have considered it 

[OutByEaster?]

I think with Labour what's particularly difficult is that they had a set of policies that did bring all that pizzazz, just with a slightly wooly leader that didn't look like a policitican, hadn't learned the necessary PR tools and was an easy target for the media. The problem they now have is that they've replaced him with someone who looks a lot more like a leader, can play the game of politics and has more traction with the press, but they're jettisoning the policies that had actually brought them back into relevance. I'm sure the delay in announcing policy is partly about distancing themselves from what will be an unpopular move away from the most popular set of policies they've had this century. Baby, meet bathwater. 

It's a shame, but Labour seem to always have either the leader or the policies, but never both.

 

[Demitri_C]

15 minutes ago, bickster said:

Nah, zone 8 man too expensive, if you'd remained in Zone 5 I might have considered it 

I was gonna make you a nice tea...the laxatives that would have gone in were a accidental mistake. Honest

[Demitri_C]

7 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think with Labour what's particularly difficult is that they had a set of policies that did bring all that pizzazz, just with a slightly wooly leader that didn't look like a policitican, hadn't learned the necessary PR tools and was an easy target for the media. The problem they now have is that they've replaced him with someone who looks a lot more like a leader, can play the game of politics and has more traction with the press, but they're jettisoning the policies that had actually brought them back into relevance. I'm sure the delay in announcing policy is partly about distancing themselves from what will be an unpopular move away from the most popular set of policies they've had this century. Baby, meet bathwater. 

It's a shame, but Labour seem to always have either the leader or the policies, but never both.

 

Only thing i hope for is if starmer goes khan takes over  so we no longer have him here and you can see what a imbecile he is, like boris.

[blandy]

42 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

they're jettisoning the policies that had actually brought them back into relevance.

I don't get this bit - afaik they haven't set any new or different policies. They need to jettison some, in as much as there were far too many at the last election. KISS basically is what's needed, IMO..