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

[OutByEaster?]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

They're not, and haven't been for decades. it's not a line, it's a multi axis spectrum, even in its simplest representation. I know your comment is a throw away line, but (not relating to you) I find it kind of infuriating that there's a whole bunch of anti Starmer/Labour comment based around treating it only as a line and that Labour/Starmer is too right wing. It's utter bollex, IMO. Starmer is more progressive and less radical than yer man Catweazle, and if people want to criticise him or Labour for that, then fine, if that's their view.

But the game the tories are playing is to move economically left onto Labour ground, albeit in an illiterate fashion, and to jump around between authoritarianism and libertarianism socially, in part because they've got a throbber wing which appears to be anti mask and a throbber wing which appears to be anti the foriners.

Labour is trying to get its house in order for the day when the tory's mess hits home with people, but that day never seems to come. So we're left with angry Corbynites raging at Starmer for being too right wing and no one raging at the tories for being ginormous cunderthunts.

I genuinely have absolutely no idea the point you're trying to make here as it relates to my comment. I think you've misread my comment in your urgency to defend your man. 

What made me ask was that the Green's are polling at 8%, which makes them the fourth largest party, and very nearly the third largest party in the country, but they are presented as being an outlier - all the way over on the right hand side of the chart - there's a subconscious connection that says to the reader, the two important parties are here on the left, at the start of the chart, and so the parties must get less important as we go from left to right. The ordering therefore suggests to the reader that even though the Green's are quite popular at the moment according to the poll, you the voter shouldn't pay them too much mind, they're a novelty and barely worthy of any consideration.

I'm not sure why the parties aren't just presented in a descending order of popularity, from left to right.

Sometimes left just means, y'know, nearer to the left hand side of something. 

 

 

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, darrenm said:

they explicitly name 5 people who they think may have leaked the submission to the EHRC around party infighting, costing the party millions in legal fees is all just so amateurish. Perhaps deal with what was leaked rather than go after the alleged whistleblowers might help to move forward.

That's an odd way to phrase it. Particularly the use of the term "whistleblowers". Whoever leaked it (and it's believed to be Corbyn's close chums), leaked a report that Corbyn's own lawyer assessed and warned

Quote

Labour’s most senior lawyer under Jeremy Corbyn formally warned the party that an internal report on antisemitism was deliberately misleading and relied upon improperly obtained private correspondence...

Thomas Gardiner, Labour’s director of governance and legal until last month, wrote that the report should not be circulated because party employees’ emails and WhatsApp messages had been “presented selectively and without their true context in order to give a misleading picture”.

 That's not whistleblowing, more like trying to pre-emptively skew the story. And as a direct consequence of that particular leaking, the people whose mails and whatsapps were referenced and named in the report are suing/sued Labour for that "deliberate misleading" and consequent reputational damage..

And now the infighting and general sh*tshow gets worse and more bitter as more stuff is leaked and counter-leaked.

[blandy]

33 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I genuinely have absolutely no idea the point you're trying to make here as it relates to my comment. I think you've misread my comment in your urgency to defend your man. 

What made me ask was that the Green's are polling at 8%, which makes them the fourth largest party, and very nearly the third largest party in the country, but they are presented as being an outlier - all the way over on the right hand side of the chart - there's a subconscious connection that says to the reader, the two important parties are here on the left, at the start of the chart, and so the parties must get less important as we go from left to right. The ordering therefore suggests to the reader that even though the Green's are quite popular at the moment according to the poll, you the voter shouldn't pay them too much mind, they're a novelty and barely worthy of any consideration.

I'm not sure why the parties aren't just presented in a descending order of popularity, from left to right.

Sometimes left just means, y'know, nearer to the left hand side of something. 

Starmer isn't "my man". I think he's a better leader than Corbyn, but he's no genius. I also think he's broadly on the right lines in trying to make Labour more electableand professional and competent looking, but I can't claim it's going particularly well.

My point as it related to your comment was just using your terminology as a starting point for my comment about the "left to right line" being used as a gauge, when all the surveys etc. tend to show a more 3 D representation - that "left" isn't a unitary place, and nor is "right"

On the Greens - yes, i agree with your comment, and that would be one of the advantages of not just referring to everything as this over-simple left v right sliding scale that they use.

And on the comment you make about the parties ... presented in a descending order of popularity, from left to right - again, from my perspective, left to right isn't the right measure - I mean yes, the Tory's anti-immigration stuff is very "typical right wing", but intervening to support steel and CO2 and etc. industries is pretty "typical left wing". The scale doesn't work and can't reflect that. The Tories know this ambiguity helps them, but I'm not sure some of Labour's internal and external critics quite get that. They're having the Tories do (what seem to the general population) as "quite Laboury" things, while at the same time doing things that are the bits of Toryism that they also like "be mean to the forins and wave a flag". But if Starmer (or whoever) does a flag thing, then half of Labour goes all #STARMER OUT. Labour has to find a way to show people that

1. It's not the forins/EU who made things bad.

2. The tories dun it. They broke everything.

3. And here's the credible alternative way things could be.

But Labour daren't mention Brexit, and as yet hasn't started on number 3. As for point 2, it seems the population still credits the Tories with vaccine success and the EU being nasty.

[darrenm]

57 minutes ago, blandy said:

That's an odd way to phrase it. Particularly the use of the term "whistleblowers". Whoever leaked it (and it's believed to be Corbyn's close chums), leaked a report that Corbyn's own lawyer assessed and warned

 That's not whistleblowing, more like trying to pre-emptively skew the story. And as a direct consequence of that particular leaking, the people whose mails and whatsapps were referenced and named in the report are suing/sued Labour for that "deliberate misleading" and consequent reputational damage..

And now the infighting and general sh*tshow gets worse and more bitter as more stuff is leaked and counter-leaked.

Not sure what could be skewed or misleading about these specific and uncontested statements:

 

 

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Not sure what could be skewed or misleading about these specific and uncontested statements:

Well that's the point, isn't it?

Some people said some nasty things about other people in private messages. Yep, seems so.

Corbyn's appointed lawyer says the quotes used in the report were selectively presented, obtained improperly and used misleadingly. So you're right ,we can't see what could be skewed or misleading about the incomplete picture we're presented with because the report is by the lawyer's assessment misleading and selective. Clearly there's been an ongoing, particularly bitter and acrid squabble and fight between different parts of Labour for the past 6 years or so and people have said and probably done nasty things and most likely it's not confined to any one wing. That's the problem. bitter internal struggles, slaggings off, undermining, leaking and counter leaking....

meanwhile, tories keep on torying "never mind them tories, Corbyn/Abbott/Starmer/delete as applicable is the real bastard here. Booo.".

[chrisp65]

3 hours ago, Jareth said:

I can't look at that and not think Labour, Greens and Lib Dems need to coordinate to oust the tories. Meanwhile at Starmer HQ -"Can we win it on our own? Yes we can!" deluded numpties.

In the land of proportional representation, you could be on to something.

In the UK, not so much.

That ‘4’ for the SNP, that’s 45 seats.

That ‘8’ for the Greens, that’s 1 seat.

You’re asking Labour to get in the wrong bed.

Anyway, it wouldn’t work, whether it’s SNP or Green, they’d be perceived as a bit too leftie for where Labour HQ want to pitch themselves.

[Chindie]

It's a funny old game.

You hate the leader so you sabotage your party in every way you can, going to the most heinous lengths to salt the earth. Those that support this effort hand wave all of it because the ends justify the means. Any means. Those that don't support this effort point out how evil it all is, but are shouted down. Meanwhile the party's name is dragged through the mud and barb wire and left bereft of anything of worth, but the leadership is gone so hooray.

Then as the efforts to build impenetrable new walls are put in place, and the ones shouted down are pointing out all the rubbish done and being done, they are shouted down again that they're contributing to Tory success. 

The other side can't be allowed to win. When in charge, no tactic from the dissenting side was too low, no effort too far, no damage too much. When the leadership changes, no discussion of how horrific those efforts were is allowed, it's all contributing to Tory's winning, but let's ignore that for years forces inside the party directly contributed to Tories winning, and continue to do so with damage done to the party by their good work.

It's **** grim.

[OutByEaster?]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

Starmer isn't "my man". I think he's a better leader than Corbyn, but he's no genius. I also think he's broadly on the right lines in trying to make Labour more electableand professional and competent looking, but I can't claim it's going particularly well.

My point as it related to your comment was just using your terminology as a starting point for my comment about the "left to right line" being used as a gauge, when all the surveys etc. tend to show a more 3 D representation - that "left" isn't a unitary place, and nor is "right"

On the Greens - yes, i agree with your comment, and that would be one of the advantages of not just referring to everything as this over-simple left v right sliding scale that they use.

And on the comment you make about the parties ... presented in a descending order of popularity, from left to right - again, from my perspective, left to right isn't the right measure - I mean yes, the Tory's anti-immigration stuff is very "typical right wing", but intervening to support steel and CO2 and etc. industries is pretty "typical left wing". The scale doesn't work and can't reflect that. The Tories know this ambiguity helps them, but I'm not sure some of Labour's internal and external critics quite get that. They're having the Tories do (what seem to the general population) as "quite Laboury" things, while at the same time doing things that are the bits of Toryism that they also like "be mean to the forins and wave a flag". But if Starmer (or whoever) does a flag thing, then half of Labour goes all #STARMER OUT. Labour has to find a way to show people that

1. It's not the forins/EU who made things bad.

2. The tories dun it. They broke everything.

3. And here's the credible alternative way things could be.

But Labour daren't mention Brexit, and as yet hasn't started on number 3. As for point 2, it seems the population still credits the Tories with vaccine success and the EU being nasty.

Sorry, you've misunderstood - you haven't used my terminology at all, you've used the alternative - I wasn't talking about political left, or social left, or left wing or right wing, or right leaning or any of those labels or ideologies. I'm talking about actual left and right - the physical properties. The word "physical" is to the left of the word "properties" in that sentence. I drive on the left side of the road, I have a mug of tea next to my right hand.

I was asking what criteria was used to decide on the arrangement of the parties in the chart, from left to right, as there doesn't seem to be any logical progression - it's not alphabetical order, it's not based on the results of the survey with the highest totals toward the left, I couldn't figure out why it was laid out that way and it seems to do the Green's a disservice.

 

 

[bickster]

2 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Sorry, you've misunderstood - you haven't used my terminology at all, you've used the alternative - I wasn't talking about political left, or social left, or left wing or right wing, or right leaning or any of those labels or ideologies. I'm talking about actual left and right - the physical properties. The word "physical" is to the left of the word "properties" in that sentence. I drive on the left side of the road, I have a mug of tea next to my right hand.

I was asking what criteria was used to decide on the arrangement of the parties in the chart, from left to right, as there doesn't seem to be any logical progression - it's not alphabetical order, it's not based on the results of the survey with the highest totals toward the left, I couldn't figure out why it was laid out that way and it seems to do the Green's a disservice.

 

 

Party in Power

Official Opposition

The other Party you can vote for in most constituencies 

Next biggest party (region specific)

ditto above

The Green Party (the only oddly placed one I think)

if it was done on number of MPs it would be right apart from SNP / Libs should swap but I think they are just taking National over Regional initially. It’s wrong but only a little bit

[OutByEaster?]

6 minutes ago, bickster said:

if it was done on number of MPs it would be right apart from SNP / Libs should swap but I think they are just taking National over Regional initially. It’s wrong but only a little bit

Yep, it's not big wrong, it just didn't seem to make a lot of sense in an area where you'd think a lot of thought would go into that sort of thing making sense. I wondered if it was most votes in the last election or something.

 

[bickster]

I've said a few times here, that I don’t like Councillor Small, he's a bit of an arse but…

by all accounts this actually happened. 

[blandy]

13 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I was asking what criteria was used to decide on the arrangement of the parties in the chart, from left to right, as there doesn't seem to be any logical progression - it's not alphabetical order, it's not based on the results of the survey with the highest totals toward the left, I couldn't figure out why it was laid out that way and it seems to do the Green's a disservice.

Gotcha. In my defence I can’t see the chart on the computer I typed my comments on, as Twitter graphics is blocked.  Now I can see it on my iPad I see what you mean. Sorry.

edit - here's what I see on the PC - you can see that "left to right" isn't there in terms of physical position, so I took it as political left to right.

[darrenm]

Attacked the left to chase a Tory vote that was never there and ends up turning everyone against him. Absolute genius move.

 

 

[Genie]

5 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Attacked the left to chase a Tory vote that was never there and ends up turning everyone against him. Absolute genius move.

 

 

I feel like the opposition are playing against a side with no goalkeeper but they’ve fielded 11 defenders.

[Seat68]

I would definitely put value in a poll ran by 2 people connected to the Tories. I can't see any problem with their focus group or results. 

[darrenm]

19 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

I would definitely put value in a poll ran by 2 people connected to the Tories. I can't see any problem with their focus group or results. 

Yougov any better?

basically he's got the Lib Dem vote which is pointless because there are no Lib Dem Labour marginals.

 

[darrenm]

26 minutes ago, Genie said:

I feel like the opposition are playing against a side with no goalkeeper but they’ve fielded 11 defenders.

And they're already 5-0 up.

[bickster]

50 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Yougov any better?

You mean another company run by Tories who in that case consistently underplay the Labour vote? (founde by someone who might just happen to be currently the Secretary of State for Education)

[Wainy316]

50 minutes ago, Genie said:

I feel like the opposition are playing against a side with no goalkeeper but they’ve fielded 11 defenders.

The leader of the opposition, the right honourable Gareth Southgate.

[Seat68]

2 hours ago, darrenm said:

Yougov any better?

basically he's got the Lib Dem vote which is pointless because there are no Lib Dem Labour marginals.

 

That's a gotcha. What about that 22% of Labour voters who are neither get rid or keep. They are Labour voters historically so where do they go if nothing happens to your leader. Do they stop being Labour voters, then surely they would want rid? Don't knows, the blight of politics. Historically I was a Labour voter, this leader isn't the reason I am not voting for them, I suspect therefore I would be in the 22%.