UK PoliGAF |OT2| - We Blue Ourselves

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maledict said:
Not sure why you think labour didn't campaign for Richmond Crab. I was bombarded with details about the campaign, and numerous door knocking exercises. Local labour voters switched to lib dems, but the party was damn well trying its hardest.

Labour has such an intrinsic dislike of the idea of a 'progressive alliance'z. I've said before, I know several labour politicians who hate the libs more than the tories.
Click to expand...

But why?
 
Bleepey said:
But why?
Click to expand...

Because they have the same view Crab outlined. Lib's are seen as traitors to the left who let the tories get in, and they should just drop their idealism, join labour and beat the tories. It's as if the conservatives are a nebulous enemy you hate at a distance, whereas the Lib's are your next door neighbours who piss you off more because they live right next to you. The conservatives are evil by default in this world view - whereas the Lib's are people who enable evil by not joining labour. for some people that makes them worse.

(Note, not my own views!)

It ignores the very real policy differences between the two parties, and takes it for granted that all lob voters would vote labour if there were no Lib's. It also misses the point in that labour could fight for those lib voters if they wanted to.
 
Seeing many Labour activists online cheering and gloating over Lib Dems losing their seats to Tories last year really (further) cemented my dislike of that party. As if Labours failures are because of the Lib Dems and that they should just fall in line and disband. They have the same disdain for the Greens as they went after Caroline Lucas pretty hard. In light of this and the SNP being rebuffed whenever they've tried to extend a hand to the Labour party the idea of a "progressive alliance" being possible is a pipe dream. It's all or nothing for Labour, they are petty minded authoritarians who think they should have a monopoly on the not-Tory vote and that anyone who is not on their side in their feud must be a Tory themselves or are a traitor splitting the vote. They have the mentality of children.
 
Maledict said:
Because they have the same view Crab outlined. Lib's are seen as traitors to the left who let the tories get in, and they should just drop their idealism, join labour and beat the tories. It's as if the conservatives are a nebulous enemy you hate at a distance, whereas the Lib's are your next door neighbours who piss you off more because they live right next to you. The conservatives are evil by default in this world view - whereas the Lib's are people who enable evil by not joining labour. for some people that makes them worse.

(Note, not my own views!)

It ignores the very real policy differences between the two parties, and takes it for granted that all lob voters would vote labour if there were no Lib's. It also misses the point in that labour could fight for those lib voters if they wanted to.
Click to expand...

Not my views, either. It's just very understandable because it is probably true - I think it is very difficult to argue that more liberal things do not get passed in the world where the Liberal Democrats cease to exist as a party; in the same way it is probably true that more leftwing things get passed if the American Greens just didn't exist as a party (2000...). Now, I don't take this very mechanical view towards these things. The democratic system does not work at the point that the electorate are simply required to stamp off on one of two choices, both of which are sub-par, in an attempt to stave off whichever one they feel is slightly worse. The right of the voter to chose as they may is paramount to democracy, it takes place before you can make any other suppositions; questioning it leads to dark places.

But regardless, it is incredibly easy for Labour to see Liberal Democrat seats as: stolen seats. Conservative seats, well, you have to fight for those, but Liberal Democrat seats feel like they should almost rightfully be Labour's and have been unfairly whisked away to be put to very little use. It's true that there are policy differences between the Liberal Democrats, and it is true not every Liberal Democrat voter would vote Labour if the Liberal Democrats did not exist. But it's also true that the Labour party is the second choice of the clear majority of Liberal Democratic voters. And the coalition just made this an extra kick in the teeth, because those seats were, for the first time in a long time, not just wasted - they were actively put towards Conservative goals and values. It was a betrayal, of sorts. The Liberal Democrats took our votes, and they built a Conservative government with them. It's not at all unsurprising many Labour supporters were happily dancing a jig on Nick Clegg's grave.

That'll fade, over time, as memories of the coalition go. Most of us here are too young to remember, but in the late '90s, relations between Labour and the Liberal Democrats were excellent - they nearly formed a coalition despite Labour already being a majority party. But in the present era certainly, when Liberal Democrats talk about a progressive coalition, the first reaction for much of Labour is to say: "progessive? you? remind me, which party was in government during the greatest weakening of the state since the second world war? which party was in government when child benefits were slashed, the education budget fell in real terms, the NHS was made less accountable?" That's not going to be overcome for a while yet.
 
Starting the New Year off with a bang, the Fabian Society has published a paper entitled 'Stuck: How Labour is too weak to win, and too strong to die'

They predict that Labour will win between 140 and 200 seats at the next election.

Labour politicians need to do more to understand the nature of the threat. MPs in the British equivalent of America’s ‘rust belt’ talk up the risk of Ukip. But Paul Nuttall will struggle to make inroads, as Labour majorities are mainly large where Ukip is a force. And whatever MPs’ local anxieties, since 2010 Ukip has actually gained relatively few votes directly from Labour and is now losing supporters to the Conservatives. The real threat in marginal seats is that former Labour supporters will scatter in all directions, while the Tories reach out to everyone who voted Leave. Theresa May’s simple electoral strategy is to be the party of Brexit and it is paying dividends.
Click to expand...
 
The boundary changes won't do much to change Labour's plight, but I imagine that May would wait for those to go through in any event.

What's also interesting is that, according to Fabian and John Curtice, it'd take a massive 12.5% lead in the polls for Labour to gain a majority of one. That's a 1997/2001 level election. But if there was a swing of 0.4% away from the Tories and towards Labour, the Tories would lose their majority, opening the way for a progressive alliance.
 
Presumably the biggest repercussion of any boundary changes would be in mass re-selections across a lot of constituencies, no? Not a big deal for the Tories, but for Labour that could see a huge uptake of new candidates, could it not?
 
'Member the Labour party?

(What the fuck has Corbyn even been doing the last few months?!)
 
C1QdMuUWEAE3bwo

C1RWbI7VIAAPQHG
Click to expand...

How can Corbyn continue when even Labour voters think May is the better option?
 
I think that the PLP was premature .... surely even his own supporters will drop him by the time of the next election if he continues to see these polling results. Unfortunately for them, the way the party is set up, they'll just replace him with someone equally unelectable (maybe Diane Abbott's turn next?)

As for Fabian Society saying that UKIP are over-rated and won't win many seats. That's missing the point, they can still gain enough votes from Labour for the Tories to come through the middle. Surely that's how the 140 seat predicton would happen. Pyrrhic victory if they "beat" UKIP into second place against the Tories.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...n-symptom-labour-party?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Prompted by another article saying 'Labour needs to learn it's lessons, etc. etc.'. My issue with this line of thinking—no matter how much I'm coming to think that Corbyn is a disaster—is that I'm no closer to actually understanding what this miraculous Centre Left alternative will look like. He can't look like Ed Miliband (he might have been too left wing?) and he can't look like Gordon Brown (not sure what the accepted reasons for his failure are).

Basically; what policies would this leader have? Do they just want a return to New Labour or is there an acceptance that, as much good as that project did, it failed in key respects? I get that Corbyn's 'ideological purity' is an issue (one that I find increasingly frustrating), but do people think the Labour Party should have any ideological foundations beyond the gaining and holding of power (I have not seen any suggested in all the articles complaining about their current Socialist garb)? What can I expect this New New Labour to do differently, not only from current Labour, but also from the Tories (and no this is not a disingenuous question; we've heard many Labour grandees over the last few years tell people that Labour needs to be seen as 'tough on the deficit', which implies a similar low spending approach that as the Tories).
 
twobear said:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...n-symptom-labour-party?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Prompted by another article saying 'Labour needs to learn it's lessons, etc. etc.'. My issue with this line of thinking—no matter how much I'm coming to think that Corbyn is a disaster—is that I'm no closer to actually understanding what this miraculous Centre Left alternative will look like. He can't look like Ed Miliband (he might have been too left wing?) and he can't look like Gordon Brown (not sure what the accepted reasons for his failure are).
Click to expand...

Gordon Brown was doomed by an incredibly hostile press and his own ineptitude at party and political management. As a prime minister he was actually good at a lot of the job, and in particular his role in the financial crisis cannot be understated. but you also need to be a good politician to be prime minister and you need to be able to lead and inspire and manage a parliamentary party, and he couldn't do any of that.

Policy wise Ed Miliband was actually fairly decent, his issue was again an astonishingly hostile press, the fact that he couldn't assemble a decent narrative if his life depended on it, very very poor communications and unfortunately the fact that he looked like a waxwork alien from another planet.
 
Maledict said:
Gordon Brown was doomed by an incredibly hostile press and his own ineptitude at party and political management. As a prime minister he was actually good at a lot of the job, and in particular his role in the financial crisis cannot be understated. but you also need to be a good politician to be prime minister and you need to be able to lead and inspire and manage a parliamentary party, and he couldn't do any of that.

Policy wise Ed Miliband was actually fairly decent, his issue was again an astonishingly hostile press, the fact that he couldn't assemble a decent narrative if his life depended on it, very very poor communications and unfortunately the fact that he looked like a waxwork alien from another planet.
Click to expand...
Do you not think there's an issue with telling Corbyn's supporters that he's unelectable and that you know what needs to be done; and then taking as your better alternative two versions of the party that actually failed in two elections?

Also the meat of my post was the second half, because that's where most of my unanswered questions are. I want to genuinely know what this alternative looks like and whether it has learned anything from the failures of Third Way centrism (a political position that's as dead in the US as it is in the UK). Because right now my impression is that it hasn't; and if that's the case, I'm not sure I have any greater faith in it than I do in Corbyn.
Dan27 said:
Labour Party have any ideological foundations in the gaining and holding of power?

That's a good one.
Click to expand...
No, that was what I was asking about putative alternatives, not Labour as it currently exists.
 
twobear said:
Do you not think there's an issue with telling Corbyn's supporters that he's unelectable and that you know what needs to be done; and then taking as your better alternative two versions of the party that actually failed in two elections?

Also the meat of my post was the second half, because that's where most of my unanswered questions are. I want to genuinely know what this alternative looks like and whether it has learned anything from the failures of Third Way centrism (a political position that's as dead in the US as it is in the UK). Because right now my impression is that it hasn't; and if that's the case, I'm not sure I have any greater faith in it than I do in Corbyn.

No, that was what I was asking about putative alternatives, not Labour as it currently exists.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make much sense tbh. No-one is suggesting that we bring back Brown or Miliband. Both were flawed, but for various reasons both got their shot. We knew Brown was going to lose going into the election, and the odds were on Miliband losing (although not by that much). It is possible for there to be a credible centre left politician who isn't Brown or Miliband. Plus Corbyn is going to do significantly worse than both of them!

In terms of policy proposals, I think that you are forgetting that the 1997 Labour Manifesto was the most detailed and specific party manifesto in our lifetimes, and it delivered (mostly) on those promises. Specific policy is what centre left does *far* better than Corbyn's wing of the party.

I don't think the "third way" is dead by the way. I think it fundamentally changed politics and how we talk and I think the conservatives stole a lot of its language. May has given numerous speeches which could have been Blair's back in the day.

Ultimately, for labour to win they need to be able to talk to the people who aren't in the bottom 10% or the top 10%, which was the mistake they made in 2015. You won't win an election by going on about austerity and how awful it is because it hasn't affected the majority of the voting public. You need a vision and a positive statement and the appearance of competence, none of which they have currently. Again, I would say go look at 1997 and Blair's promise card for an example of a well run centre left campaign and policy position and communications system.

1997 Labour Pledge card said:
1) Cut class sizes to 30 and under for 5, 6 and 7 year olds by using money from the assisted places scheme
2) Fast-track punishment for persistent young offenders by halving the arrest time from arrest to sentencing
3) Cut NHS waiting lists by treating an extra 100,000 patients as a first step by releasing £100m by cutting red tape
4) Get 250,000 under-25 year olds off benefit and into work by using the money from a windfall levy on the privatised utilities
5) No rise in income taxe rates, cut VAT on heating to 5%and inflation and interest rates as low as possible
Click to expand...

Now, I'm not on-board with all of those (particularly number 2, but Blair was obsessed with crime), but it's a clear vision and policy statement that not only gives a specific promise but also tries to cost it in simple terms and sets the main focus of their agenda (Education, Criminal Justice, Health, Employment - an entirely domestic agenda).

(also don't write third way off as dead in the USA, given that Clinton ran the most left-wing campaign of any democratic nominee in living memory, possibly ever).
 
I don't know if anyone still reads newspapers, but they've been banging on about some new press regulations that are being debated and making it sound to be the death knell of independent papers. Certainly the details they give sound absolutely horrific, but then of course the press themselves would be negative on regulations so I'm not sure how much one can trust their editorials.

anyone know any more about this?
 
British Prime Minister Theresa May said on Monday it was wrong to say she was talking about a "hard Brexit", after the pound fell to two-month lows following an interview she gave on Sunday.

The pound dropped after traders felt May had indicated during the interview that Britain would dramatically rework trade ties with the EU after Brexit.

Asked if her comments had been interpreted wrongly, May said: "I'm tempted to say that the people who are getting it wrong are those who print things saying I'm talking about a hard Brexit, (that) it is absolutely inevitable there's a hard Brexit.

"I don't accept the terms hard and soft Brexit. What we're doing is going to get an ambitious, good and best possible deal for the United Kingdom in terms of ... trading with and operating within the single European market," she added.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...7f8b&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

May has no clue
 
At least it sounds like it's slowly hitting home what a fucking job she has on her hands, and that *just* appeasing those that voted leave with very little consideration for its impact isn't going to be enough.

At least I hope that what I'm reading from that is correct.
 
Martin McGuinness resigns, which means there'll almost certainly be elections in NI (unless SF replaces him, which they won't). Doubt Arlene Foster will survive now.
 
Can you guys imagine how much of a shitshow the markets and currency exchanges are going to be during the negotiations, if the pound takes a hit over what May may or may have not said in a short interview?
 
Truthfully, I don't see the link between this

Jeremy Corbyn proposes law to set a maximum limit for earnings
Click to expand...

and

What Corbyn said about wanting a law to impose a maximum cap on earnings

This is what Jeremy Corbyn said about wanting a law putting a cap on earnings. John Humphrys asked if he would like to limit how much fat cats can earn. Corbyn replied.

I would like there to be some kind of high earnings cap, quite honestly.

When asked at what level the cap should be set, he replied:

I can’t put a figure on it and I don’t want to at the moment ...

The point I’m trying to make is that we have the worst levels of income disparity of most of the OECD countries in this country. It is getting worse. And corporate taxation is a part of it. If we want to live in a more egalitarian society, and fund our public services, we cannot go on creating worse levels of inequality.

Then Humphrys asked him if he was really talking about a law to limit income. At first Corbyn appeared to row back a little bit.

I think let’s look at it ... I’ve got a view on it ... I’m not wedded to a figure on it.

But, when pressed again, Corbyn, was unequivocal.

I would like to see a maximum earnings limit, quite honestly, because I think that would be a fairer thing to do. Because we cannot set ourselves up as being a grossly unequal, bargain basement economy on the shores of Europe. We have to be something that is more egalitarian, gives real opportunities to everybody and properly funds our public services. Look at the crisis in the NHS as an example.
Click to expand...

It's a stupid, ill thought-out, off-the-cuff comment that speaks of airy-fairy "wouldn't it be nice" thinking rather than actual policy - which all has its own negative implications but not this hardcore militant left they seem to be pushing.
 
Cool, he's managed to put all the conversation of the day in to a side-thought. Maybe he really is going for the Trump style.

Relaunch day 1 going swimmingly then.
 
BigAl1992 said:
He might as well be aligned with the Tories. I thought Labour were suppose to be the opposition party, not the receiving party of the BDSM gig?
Click to expand...
Corbyn has spent his entire career trying to get the UK out of the EU. He's as anti-EU as Farage.


Calling for a cap on wages just shows how out of touch with economics and the modern world be really is. You know what will happen when you cap wages? The people who would earn above that cap will leave the country and take their tax payments with them. Given that the richest minority in the country pay nearly a quarter of the total taxes, that would be an absolute disaster.
 
Jackpot said:
It's a stupid, ill thought-out, off-the-cuff comment that speaks of airy-fairy "wouldn't it be nice" thinking rather than actual policy - which all has its own negative implications but not this hardcore militant left they seem to be pushing.
Click to expand...

That sort of talk is fine if you're on the backbenches (and nobody is listening to you anyway), but you can't get away with that sort of thing when you're the leader of a major political party. When you're in that position and you start a sentence with "I would like there to be...", if whatever follows isn't party policy (or something that's going to be party policy), then you should bite your tongue.

Still, he's successfully created a distraction from that earlier leak of his EU speech, so I guess it's not all bad news!
 
Best thing I've heard Corbyn say since he became leader, to be quite honest. Quite how it'd work I've no clue, but it's good to hear that someone's as annoyed about income disparity as I am.
 
Uzzy said:
Best thing I've heard Corbyn say since he became leader, to be quite honest. Quite how it'd work I've no clue, but it's good to hear that someone's as annoyed about income disparity as I am.
Click to expand...
So what do you think about this criticism?

Lagamorph said:
Calling for a cap on wages just shows how out of touch with economics and the modern world be really is. You know what will happen when you cap wages? The people who would earn above that cap will leave the country and take their tax payments with them. Given that the richest minority in the country pay nearly a quarter of the total taxes, that would be an absolute disaster.
Click to expand...
 
*Splinter said:
So what do you think about this criticism?
Click to expand...

Valid, but the mega rich already avoid taxes through sticking their money in tax havens and paying accountants a lot of money to play the tax system.

I'm more interested in seeing the disparity lowered, not just putting a cap on maximum wages.
 
Aye, but the point is this: putting a cap on earnings would lower the disparity but, in real terms, would leave less money to spend on, say, public services.

I'd need a napkin and a biro to work out how true that is.

This does seem to be from the "Trump playbook" - i.e. say some mad shit, hope it resonates, ignore that it would be nearly impossible to implement and possibly disastrous if you somehow managed it.
 
Uzzy said:
Best thing I've heard Corbyn say since he became leader, to be quite honest. Quite how it'd work I've no clue, but it's good to hear that someone's as annoyed about income disparity as I am.
Click to expand...

In all my years in politics and public service, this is possibly the most stupid policy idea I have ever heard - and that's saying something. It is utterly awful in every respect, and the fact he even ponders it is staggeringly stupid.

1) it does absolutely nothing to help a single person get out of poverty. Nothing. Not a single persons life would be improved through this.

2) unlike raising taxes, it generates absolutely no extra income to help those who need it.

3) it is not the fixed salaries that are in issue with extreme wealth anyway. Take home pay is a small part of the problem - stock options, bonuses, capital investments, in work benefits. All of those are part of the income disparity and wouldn't be impacted by this.

4) it would be extremely easy to avoid, and in all likelihood would simply decrease our overall tax base.

It is not only a stupid idea, it does nothing to help anyone and would demonstrably harm the country. It's a child's response to the idea that income disparity is too great. It is nothing more than the politics of jealousy - literally you can't have something because I don't have it.

Corbyn is both intellectually and managerially a once in a lifetime fucked up disaster for the left. The tories must be unable to believe who lucky they are.
 
I'm all for shrinking the inequality and wages gap obviously but this is the most mind-bogglingly stupid and inconceivable thing I've heard in ages. And we're in the time of Brexit for christ sake
 
Corbyn is a lost cause. That is one of the most idiotic things I've heard recently. That does nothing to help people, absolutely nothing. Get him out now, he needs to be gone yesterday.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.
397 398 399 400 401
20K
2M
ShadowSwordmaster replied
  • Locked
UK PoliGAF |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!
37 38 39 40 41
2K
254K
firehawk12 replied
May Wrestling |OT2| We watch it so you don't have to
125 126 127 128 129
6K
349K
H1PSTER replied
  • Locked
Resetera reflects: This place sucks. We want GAF back.
39 40 41 42 43
2K
280K
Palliasso replied
Football Thread 2017/18 |OT2| Fractured but Ox
166 167 168 169 170
8K
547K
Mista replied
Top Bottom