NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Interesting new guidelines from the Arts Council...
Do you want to discuss boring politics? (11 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
It's one of those things where I struggle to understand why, if PVA is part of a local history group applying to research the history of ribbon weaving in Coventry, his views as written on here about the Rwanda policy can see funding for said project withdrawn.
That seems... extreme.
That seems... extreme.
Have you been spying on me?
duffer
Well-Known Member
"Soft left" or not mate, there were a set of policies Starmer agreed to take forward that he then dropped almost immediately after being elected.
You asked who is there on the left as a plausible candidate, and the most plausible person at that time who supported left-ish policies was Starmer. I think we agree on that.
Where we seem to disagree is that you think that his shift to the right is acceptable, whereas I don't.
You seem to saying now that no matter who fronts up the Labour party, left-ish policies won't get you elected.
Again, on that I would politely differ - the evidence seems to suggest that a lot of the policies that Starmer has ditched would be popular with voters. It would also offer a point of difference to the Tories.
Now that Labour have taken on Tory economic orthodoxy (the maxed-out credit card analogy) they've constrained themselves to centre-right austerity-driven policies. It doesn't have to be this way.
Why is Labour still using the self-defeating, discredited ‘maxed out credit card’ analogy? | Yanis Varoufakis
It is one thing to U-turn on a modest green transition programme. It is another to do so using mendacious Tory economic paradigms, says the economist Yanis Varoufakis
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
"Soft left" or not mate, there were a set of policies Starmer agreed to take forward that he then dropped almost immediately after being elected.
You asked who is there on the left as a plausible candidate, and the most plausible person at that time who supported left-ish policies was Starmer. I think we agree on that.
Where we seem to disagree is that you think that his shift to the right is acceptable, whereas I don't.
You seem to saying now that no matter who fronts up the Labour party, left-ish policies won't get you elected.
Again, on that I would politely differ - the evidence seems to suggest that a lot of the policies that Starmer has ditched would be popular with voters. It would also offer a point of difference to the Tories.
Now that Labour have taken on Tory economic orthodoxy (the maxed-out credit card analogy) they've constrained themselves to centre-right austerity-driven policies. It doesn't have to be this way.
Why is Labour still using the self-defeating, discredited ‘maxed out credit card’ analogy? | Yanis Varoufakis
It is one thing to U-turn on a modest green transition programme. It is another to do so using mendacious Tory economic paradigms, says the economist Yanis Varoufakiswww.theguardian.com
Sorry but if you have to put scare quotes around standard Labour faction descriptions I have to question how much you understand Labour internal politics. If you think the soft left and the right are the same you’ll never win a single leadership election. Soft left win every one as they’re by far the biggest faction.
I’m not sure how in my walls of text repeatedly going “the left need to put their big boy pants on and take elections seriously because their policy is fine” you’ve managed to get “I don’t think any left wing policy can win” TBH.
I’m saying you can’t have everything all at once fronted by a crank with zero credibility who gets visibly angry every time he’s asked to do basic politics.
Is that all the left has? Joke politicians? Is it incapable of getting past a permanent victim complex and refusal to look in the mirror or face voters after a defeat like everyone else? None of these things are about policy. Just basic political hygiene.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
You're just jealous that despite your support he passed you over
StrettoBoy
Well-Known Member
Is Starmer really soft left? In his younger days he was ultra-hard left:
The only thing we really know about his principles is that they are very flexible, as he bends with the breeze trying to appeal to whatever audience he is addressing at the time.
He was left wing when he held a senior shadow cabinet position under Corbyn, held to that line when appealing to the party membership in the leadership election and has since moved to the right as he seeks the votes of the British public. In doing so he has done U-turn after after U-turn.
He is a man of no principles, who is only interested in promoting his own interests. I will never vote for Labour while he is the leader.
The only thing we really know about his principles is that they are very flexible, as he bends with the breeze trying to appeal to whatever audience he is addressing at the time.
He was left wing when he held a senior shadow cabinet position under Corbyn, held to that line when appealing to the party membership in the leadership election and has since moved to the right as he seeks the votes of the British public. In doing so he has done U-turn after after U-turn.
He is a man of no principles, who is only interested in promoting his own interests. I will never vote for Labour while he is the leader.
Last edited:
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Almost every politician including Michael Gove was hard left in their youth.
StrettoBoy
Well-Known Member
I posed it as a question because given his flexible principles - or perhaps his lack of them - it is almost impossible to say.
The party can do better than have him as leader.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Wasn't Tony Blair a member of CND?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
The entirety of Spiked magazine.
Imagine if we did this with haircuts or music or any other teenage belief
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Wasn’t Truss too? In between shouting Maggie Maggie Maggie, out out out.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I oddly never was - at 19 / 20 I was in Nottingham as the union rep for my course. There was some old shite about collecting money for striking miners - I suggested a collection for the police - and was met with a typical response from tbe snarking mob
JAM See
Well-Known Member
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Well that’s the point. The moronic left wanted to bring the feee thinking miners down. I just saw King Arthur as a Marxist moron who needed destroying
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
He definitely plays to whoever he's trying to get the vote from"Soft left" or not mate, there were a set of policies Starmer agreed to take forward that he then dropped almost immediately after being elected.
You asked who is there on the left as a plausible candidate, and the most plausible person at that time who supported left-ish policies was Starmer. I think we agree on that.
Where we seem to disagree is that you think that his shift to the right is acceptable, whereas I don't.
You seem to saying now that no matter who fronts up the Labour party, left-ish policies won't get you elected.
Again, on that I would politely differ - the evidence seems to suggest that a lot of the policies that Starmer has ditched would be popular with voters. It would also offer a point of difference to the Tories.
Now that Labour have taken on Tory economic orthodoxy (the maxed-out credit card analogy) they've constrained themselves to centre-right austerity-driven policies. It doesn't have to be this way.
Why is Labour still using the self-defeating, discredited ‘maxed out credit card’ analogy? | Yanis Varoufakis
It is one thing to U-turn on a modest green transition programme. It is another to do so using mendacious Tory economic paradigms, says the economist Yanis Varoufakis
Labour leadership he needs to court people with leftie views so his policies reflected that. For a GE he's having to appeal to a set of people who are more right wing and his policies reflect that.
Personally I don't like it as it seems he's not a man of principles but that's never harmed the Tories has it?
I am left clinging to the hope that if/when they do win the election he will row back on some of these policies and go more to the left again, but I fear that may just be my own wishful thinking.
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
So the Tories took a kicking in both by-elections yesterday, with enormous swings to Labour.
However ... as has been the case in many of the recent by-elections in this Parliament, the result is not as stunning for Starmer as they are suggesting, in my view: In Wellingborough, the number of votes cast for the (winning) Labour candidate yesterday (I would, by the way!!) were pretty much identical, give or take a couple of hundred, to those cast for the (losing) Labour candidate at the 2019 GE. The difference was that the Tory voters didn't show (32,277 in 2019 to 7,408 yesterday).
That is a consequence of the turnout (65% in 2019 vs 38% yesterday), which is often the case for "mid-term" by-elections.
The Tories were batshit crazy to nominate that dickhead Bone's partner as their candidate in the same bloody constituency he got recalled in - she was part of his toxic legacy.
In Kingswood, the number of people who voted for the winning Labour candidate was 5,000 FEWER than for the loser in 2019 (turnout 37% and 71%, respectively.
In both cases, if Starmer and Labour were THAT popular, wouldn't you expect to see more people turning up to vote for them at a by-election? It's not all about percentages and swings, and if Labour DON'T get more actual people showing up next time round, they might get a shock!
However ... as has been the case in many of the recent by-elections in this Parliament, the result is not as stunning for Starmer as they are suggesting, in my view: In Wellingborough, the number of votes cast for the (winning) Labour candidate yesterday (I would, by the way!!) were pretty much identical, give or take a couple of hundred, to those cast for the (losing) Labour candidate at the 2019 GE. The difference was that the Tory voters didn't show (32,277 in 2019 to 7,408 yesterday).
That is a consequence of the turnout (65% in 2019 vs 38% yesterday), which is often the case for "mid-term" by-elections.
The Tories were batshit crazy to nominate that dickhead Bone's partner as their candidate in the same bloody constituency he got recalled in - she was part of his toxic legacy.
In Kingswood, the number of people who voted for the winning Labour candidate was 5,000 FEWER than for the loser in 2019 (turnout 37% and 71%, respectively.
In both cases, if Starmer and Labour were THAT popular, wouldn't you expect to see more people turning up to vote for them at a by-election? It's not all about percentages and swings, and if Labour DON'T get more actual people showing up next time round, they might get a shock!
It definitely is all about percentages and swings!
It's an absolute pasting.
And clearly no one is suggesting this is actually going to happen, but it's a good representation of how big the swing was:
Last edited:
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
Sure, but my point is that the actual Labour vote didn't swing anywhere - it was simply the collapse of the Tory vote. Sure, if the same thing happens at the GE this year, it will be a pasting, but will the inevitably larger GE turnout all vote to the same pattern as yesterday, or are all the Tories just waiting in the wings?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Getting the same number of votes in a by-election as a GE is very very good TBF. Turnout is always well down.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
If only we had an entire industry of statisticians to answer these questions!
duffer
Well-Known Member
From John Curtice, the BBC's chosen expert...
"However, these were by-elections where voters' discontent with the Conservatives was seemingly not matched in equal measure by its enthusiasm for Labour.
In both Kingswood and Wellingborough, the increase in Labour's share of the vote was half the fall in Conservative support, underlining how many discontented Tories are going elsewhere.
Labour's ten-point majority in Kingswood is less than it enjoyed in the seat at each of the 1997, 2001, and 2005 elections, though in Wellingborough the party was on a par with what it achieved when it won the seat in 1997 and 2001."
I think this supports the idea that voters are sick of the Conservatives, but it is also hardly a ringing endorsement for Labour.
Basically, it seems to me that people have got something to vote against, the Tories, but Labour aren't offering much to vote for.
"However, these were by-elections where voters' discontent with the Conservatives was seemingly not matched in equal measure by its enthusiasm for Labour.
In both Kingswood and Wellingborough, the increase in Labour's share of the vote was half the fall in Conservative support, underlining how many discontented Tories are going elsewhere.
Labour's ten-point majority in Kingswood is less than it enjoyed in the seat at each of the 1997, 2001, and 2005 elections, though in Wellingborough the party was on a par with what it achieved when it won the seat in 1997 and 2001."
I think this supports the idea that voters are sick of the Conservatives, but it is also hardly a ringing endorsement for Labour.
Basically, it seems to me that people have got something to vote against, the Tories, but Labour aren't offering much to vote for.
OffenhamSkyBlue
Well-Known Member
That was sort of the point i was trying to make. Trust an academic expert in election statistics to put it better than a tired biosafety specialist!!
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
What a strange comparison, presume I should vote for Gove's party then.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It's interesting that Labour's attempts to court Tory voters don't really seem to be working that well - they're holding on the base and probably taking a few piss diamonds.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Isn’t that your plan anyway?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Yes, now I've heard that they might appear right wing now but had hard left views in the past, it sounds like a good plan.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
BTW i think it's good that Labour won these two seats and look forward to the Tories being obliterated.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
This “oh there’s no appetite for Labour” stuff was wheeled out in ‘97 too. You don’t need to read tealeaves. We know how don’t knows break at a GE and it’s generally the same way as everyone else. Whenever you hear people relying on don’t knows they’re in desperation mode.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
duffer
Well-Known Member
On a slightly unrelated topic, I found myself switching over to GB News this morning. Call it morbid interest, or maybe an attempt to avoid the leftie woke echo chamber of government-funded or billionaire-owned news channels. 
Anyhow... some observations:
The presenters are astonishingly young and incompetent, and it's so, so cheap. Regardless...
They were raging, and I mean much more overtly angry than you'd see on the BBC, about the obscene profits of the utility companies, and the vast salaries of their senior executives.
It was, way, way beyond what anyone in the current Labour party would say, that's for sure.
There's something here that I can't quite put my finger on.
The people that watch this stuff see exactly the same issue here that exercises lefties like me, and yet vote for parties who will certainly do nothing about it.
They also clearly don't believe that Labour will do much either.
It was a genuinely interesting watch for twenty minutes or so. The adverts suggest that their core audience is old, white, people who mostly want a cheap caravan somewhere for their holidays. My folks, as was, basically!
Anyhow... some observations:
The presenters are astonishingly young and incompetent, and it's so, so cheap. Regardless...
They were raging, and I mean much more overtly angry than you'd see on the BBC, about the obscene profits of the utility companies, and the vast salaries of their senior executives.
It was, way, way beyond what anyone in the current Labour party would say, that's for sure.
There's something here that I can't quite put my finger on.
The people that watch this stuff see exactly the same issue here that exercises lefties like me, and yet vote for parties who will certainly do nothing about it.
They also clearly don't believe that Labour will do much either.
It was a genuinely interesting watch for twenty minutes or so. The adverts suggest that their core audience is old, white, people who mostly want a cheap caravan somewhere for their holidays. My folks, as was, basically!
