Do you want to discuss boring politics? (234 Viewers)

[SBT]

So why not go into target constituency football stadia in bigger places?

My guess is that appearing at non-league teams is a way of appealing to football fan voters without dabbling in the hyper-partisanship that comes with Premier League/EFL teams these days (and would probably trump any party political loyalty in the minds of a swing voter).

 

---

[Philosoraptor]

I could bring up the latest stadia visit. Starmer didn't even got on to the pitch There was six or seven of them stading in what could be a car park..

 

[Philosoraptor]

There are more crowds at Chess and that is seriously depressing.

 

[Philosoraptor]

As we all know the number of people at a rally is massively relevant to electoral prospects and that’s why we enjoyed a Labour victory in 2017/19

I guess if there was a crowd there you would be over it like a hot rash.

There isn't though.

The public just doesn't give a fuck.

How low a turnout do you think there will be countrywide?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

My guess is that appearing at non-league teams is a way of appealing to football fan voters without dabbling in the hyper-partisanship that comes with Premier League/EFL teams these days (and would probably trump any party political loyalty in the minds of a swing voter).

Really? Even with more constituencies at play compared to non league towns?

I assume the real answer is that hardly anyone would go and it would lead to bad ‘optics’. Stoke has 3 Tory MPs, which I assume Labour are targeting-so why not there?

 

[shmmeee]

No crowds at events tell me the public cares fuck all in what the political parties are saying.

The public well known for rocking up to political rallies.

 

[shmmeee]

Really? Even with more constituencies at play compared to non league towns?

I assume the real answer is that hardly anyone would go and it would lead to bad ‘optics’. Stoke has 3 Tory MPs, which I assume Labour are targeting-so why not there?

What do you mean? He’s not in the stadium to fill the stadium. He’s there using it as a backdrop like any of these things.

 

[SBT]

Really? Even with more constituencies at play compared to non league towns?

I assume the real answer is that hardly anyone would go and it would lead to bad ‘optics’. Stoke has 3 Tory MPs, which I assume Labour are targeting-so why not there?

Bad optics is my real answer in the post you just quoted, and you don’t need to act all mystified when a politician moves preemptively to avoid them!

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Bad optics is my real answer in the post you just quoted, and you don’t need to act all mystified when a politician moves preemptively to avoid them!

Well you were more on about not wanting to upset fans of other clubs as opposed to nobody being interested. And if he only cares about the back drop then he could easily go to Molineux/Vale Park/Gamble Dome.

Is it odd to think he should be trying to hit more birds with one stone?

 

[shmmeee]

Well you were more on about not wanting to upset fans of other clubs as opposed to nobody being interested. And if he only cares about the back drop then he could easily go to Molineux/Vale Park/Gamble Dome.

Is it odd to think he should be trying to hit more birds with one stone?

It’s like you’re intentionally missing the point at this point.

 

[shmmeee]

Two photos of rallies from the last election, I assume the guy in the first one won by a landslide, yes? Can either @Brighton Sky Blue or @Philosorapter explain?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Two photos of rallies from the last election, I assume the guy in the first one won by a landslide, yes? Can either @Brighton Sky Blue or @Philosorapter explain?

View attachment 35846View attachment 35847

Didn’t you just say that the British public don’t care about political rallies?

 

[shmmeee]

Didn’t you just say that the British public don’t care about political rallies?

I did. Didn’t you say it was an indicator of how popular a politician was?

Why did Corbyn lose here? The two aren’t even close.

Here’s some from 2020, maybe you can explain these? Rally attendances being such a strong indicator of electoral performance and all.

 

[SBT]

Well you were more on about not wanting to upset fans of other clubs as opposed to nobody being interested. And if he only cares about the back drop then he could easily go to Molineux/Vale Park/Gamble Dome.

Is it odd to think he should be trying to hit more birds with one stone?

If he goes to Molineux (or The Hawthorns, or Vale Park) then it’s bad optics to WBA/Port Vale/etc fans, who he’s presumably also trying to get to vote for him. It isn’t much more complicated than that.

 

[Philosoraptor]

What do you mean? He’s not in the stadium to fill the stadium. He’s there using it as a backdrop like any of these things.

What Starmer should do is to pop into a library or two on his visits and see how the Conservatives and Labour have fucked up local services

 

[shmmeee]

What Starmer should do is to pop into a library or two on his visits and see how the Conservatives and Labour have fucked up local services

No no. Let’s not run off to something else. Explain why Corbyn didn’t win in 2019 with such huge rallies. Turnout must have been massive for him, no?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I did. Didn’t you say it was an indicator of how popular a politician was?

Why did Corbyn lose here? The two aren’t even close.

Here’s some from 2020, maybe you can explain these? Rally attendances being such a strong indicator of electoral performance and all.

View attachment 35848View attachment 35849

My apologies for thinking it’s a positive thing for a politician to get otherwise politically apathetic people engaged in politics to that extent.

 

[shmmeee]

My apologies for thinking it’s a positive thing for a politician to get otherwise politically apathetic people engaged in politics to that extent.

Sure sure. Lovely stuff for a celebrity or whatever. Doesn’t actually help get you elected though does it?

Brexit and Trump got a lot of politically apathetic people engaged in politics too. Positive? Or just populism?

 

[Grendel]

No no. Let’s not run off to something else. Explain why Corbyn didn’t win in 2019 with such huge rallies. Turnout must have been massive for him, no?

It was in 2017 similar to what Starmer is projected in this election

 

[Philosoraptor]

My apologies for thinking it’s a positive thing for a politician to get otherwise politically apathetic people engaged in politics to that extent.

What these guys are suffering from is the apathy from people who have vote Labour in the past and then been largely ignored.

Reingaging with these voters is much harder then going for other parties votes.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Sure sure. Lovely stuff for a celebrity or whatever. Doesn’t actually help get you elected though does it?

Brexit and Trump got a lot of politically apathetic people engaged in politics too. Positive? Or just populism?

It got Trump the presidency and Brexit turned into reality. Getting more people motivated to vote for you isn’t a negative.

This idea that if he appears in front of Molineux then all West Brom fans will vote Tory is surely not serious? Though since we have a political Gareth Southgate leading Labour, perhaps it is.

 

[Philosoraptor]

Still waiting on any of the parties using a central library on their campaign trails. The problem being is that this will show what an absolute shitshow these people have done to local services.

 

[SBT]

This idea that if he appears in front of Molineux then all West Brom fans will vote Tory is surely not serious?

No, it isn’t - otherwise I might have said it.

 

[SBAndy]

Well there’s a bit more meat on the bone regarding the National Service idea.

Spoiler alert: the meat is rotten.

 

[shmmeee]

It got Trump the presidency and Brexit turned into reality. Getting more people motivated to vote for you isn’t a negative.

This idea that if he appears in front of Molineux then all West Brom fans will vote Tory is surely not serious? Though since we have a political Gareth Southgate leading Labour, perhaps it is.

I know you’re not stupid enough to actually believe your second paragraph so I’ll ignore that.

Getting people enthused is great and in a straight fight like Brexit or the US presidency can even lead to success. However that’s not how MPs are elected in this country and it’s not an effective strategy for a UK general election. At best Corbyn “enthused” people who were already voting Labour and turned off a whole swathe of swing voters in key seats.

 

[shmmeee]

Still waiting on any of the parties using a central library on their campaign trails. The problem being is that this will show what an absolute shitshow these people have done to local services.

Honestly don’t get the obsession with libraries in 2024. Or why you’re blaming Labour for them after 14 years of Conservative govt.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Still waiting on any of the parties using a central library on their campaign trails. The problem being is that this will show what an absolute shitshow these people have done to local services.

They can't. As council run they'd be being seen as not being impartial and that's against election rules.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

We definitely need to reverse the decline, but I’m not sure I buy the idea we are particularly unique globally in terms of personality. Literally every country is like this and they manage. The idea that the yanks are perfectly happy with their service levels or the French with their tax levels is nonsense.

We need economic growth and proper long term investment. The US gets to be mental cos it’s minted, everywhere else just has sensible long term policies around investment. We are always trying to penny pinch and are massively anti development so we get the worst of both worlds: low income and high expenditure.

HS2 is by far the best example of this. But equally the short termism of cuts to public services the last 14 years has been very expensive. As had the refusal to close tax loopholes. The refusal to build literally anything.

You and the author seem to have the belief that income is fixed and we just have to raise taxes or cut spending but the fact is that’s the plan of the last 14 years and it’s lead to anaemic growth and no better public finances. We’ve raised taxes to their highest level and cut spending pretty much as much as possible. I’m not sure more of the same is going to produce different results.

While I agree with some of that, it's far too simplistic to just say 'growth'. If you want growth then the most vital thing has to be WHERE and WHO gets that growth. Without that information then it's meaningless. Most of the country could be getting poorer while a handful of people just chuck a load more cash on their pile.

There's so much we need to do in terms of infrastructure that should be done by public not private, which would create employment and improve living conditions. Plus we need people to understand that there actually is a 'magic money tree' as we have a sovereign currency. Just you don't want to pick from the tree too often and devalue the currency too much.

First thing pops into my head - energy. A lot of coastal towns and communities are deprived so make them the backbone of a green energy revolution with wind and tidal, as well as solar in the south. Redevelopment and jobs for struggling communities, reducing our energy dependency and helping save the planet. Three big things that could be massively improved with one set of infrastructure improvements. I'd say that's worth printing a bit of money for.

But then we've still got health and care service, education, transport, sanitation as well a loads of others to pick from.

 

[shmmeee]

While I agree with some of that, it's far too simplistic to just say 'growth'. If you want growth then the most vital thing has to be WHERE and WHO gets that growth. Without that information then it's meaningless. Most of the country could be getting poorer while a handful of people just chuck a load more cash on their pile.

There's so much we need to do in terms of infrastructure that should be done by public not private, which would create employment and improve living conditions. Plus we need people to understand that there actually is a 'magic money tree' as we have a sovereign currency. Just you don't want to pick from the tree too often and devalue the currency too much.

First thing pops into my head - energy. A lot of coastal towns and communities are deprived so make them the backbone of a green energy revolution with wind and tidal, as well as solar in the south. Redevelopment and jobs for struggling communities, reducing our energy dependency and helping save the planet. Three big things that could be massively improved with one set of infrastructure improvements. I'd say that's worth printing a bit of money for.

But then we've still got health and care service, education, transport, sanitation as well a loads of others to pick from.

Well I believe in wealth redistribution so who and where not as important as getting something. Anything. We’ve had virtually nothing since 2010. Get that back then we can worry about if it’s the right type of growth.

Mostly housing and transport are needed IMO so where the growth is doesn’t matter so much because people can more easily get to it or live by it.

 

[shmmeee]

Quadruple lock now? What the fuck? This rant is spot on. Not mentioned because the renter is a Brexiter but Brexit also was a choice by the old to fuck the young.

 

[clint van damme]

Quadruple lock now? What the fuck? This rant is spot on.

It is, though if you look at the detail it's not quite a 'quadruple lock'.
There's the usual tory slight of hand in there, most of it is just returning to a tax threshold they'd previously taken from pensioners.

We still have shit pensions compared to most of Europe, let's not get into an inter generational private sector/ public sector style debate, e eryone deserves better.

 

[shmmeee]

It is, though if you look at the detail it's not quite a 'quadruple lock'.
There's the usual tory slight of hand in there, most of it is just returning to a tax threshold they'd previously taken from pensioners.

We still have shit pensions compared to most of Europe, let's not get into an inter generational private sector/ public sector style debate, e eryone deserves better.

No lets. He’s right. Taxes are high to fund health and social care for the elderly. We left the EU for the elderly. Housing is expensive to protect the investments of the elderly. Transport doesn’t improve because of the complaints of the elderly. Immigration is high to care for the elderly. And all because the elderly are a majority of voters. Lockdown was almost exclusively to protect the elderly.

The fact the pension is still shit doesn’t change all that.

I’m not sure I class as young any more. But if there’s an intergenerational issue happening, the Boomers most certainly started it.

 

[clint van damme]

No lets. He’s right. Taxes are high to fund health and social care for the elderly. We left the EU for the elderly. Housing is expensive to protect the investments of the elderly. Transport doesn’t improve because of the complaints of the elderly. Immigration is high to care for the elderly. And all because the elderly are a majority of voters. Lockdown was almost exclusively to protect the elderly.

The fact the pension is still shit doesn’t change all that.

'They started it'

Fucks sake. Everyone deserves better, no ifs or buts, like I said, I agree with what he's saying, I think the younger generation have it hard, but I don't think fuck the elderly is the,way to solve it.

 

[Grendel]

The only people really who’d benefit would be the poorest pensioners reliant on state pensions

 

[jimmyhillsfanclub]

So the richest section of UK society received a 10.1% "pay" rise, followed by a 8.3% "pay" rise and now get a tax break not available to anyone who still actually works for a living......on top of all their other extra benefits they already receive for simply being retired.....

I'm firmly Generation X, but if I was under 30, i think Id feel like smashing shit up about now.....