Huw_Dawson
Member
BBC will announce their debate policy in due course. It sounds like they want one too, though.
The potential for MULTIPLE debates without the PM present...
The potential for MULTIPLE debates without the PM present...
Theresa May Statement: June 8th General Election requested
- Thread starter Wvrs
- Start date
- Status
Principate
Saint Titanfall
If Corbyn is smart he'll pick and choose his debates very carefully. The fact the PM's not present by default means there's no real damning expectation for him to be there. Even just turning up for a few of the most favourable will give him the PR boost without leaving him vulnerable ideally.
Charles Brandon
Member
He's got to do something though, he's down by 20 points. He can't hide.
Not at all surprising.
Their main news source (right-wing press) has distorted their minds for decades.
It's why if it were up to me the press would be punished for having a political agenda.
Huw_Dawson
Member
The SNP will want to kick the Lib Dems too as they stand in Scotland and have a historic base of support, and support maximum devolution which is a reasonably popular compromise solution in Scotland from what I understand.
A socially liberal party that would reform Westminister and fix the UK's massive constitutional issues without Scoxit is sort of a bad thing for the SNP's dominance - even if the LDs are VERY small in Scotland right now.
A socially liberal party that would reform Westminister and fix the UK's massive constitutional issues without Scoxit is sort of a bad thing for the SNP's dominance - even if the LDs are VERY small in Scotland right now.
Huw_Dawson
Member
There's no doubt that the UK press is in a really bad place these days. It's dominated by Murdoch, the Barclays and the Rothschilds.
Charles Brandon
Member
The Guardian is owned by a trust created specifically to preserve it's independence and the Mirror is owned by a PLC and therefore answerable to profit and not vested interests.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I did.
I voted for him because he was idiotic, spineless and clueless with the aim of provoking some serious rethinking and resurgence within the rest of the Labour party. That worked a treat. Not.
Huw_Dawson
Member
One sec, I probably have the names wrong.
EDIT:
RothMERE, not RothSCHILD.
You can also add Richard Desmond to that list. Before he killed the Indy I'd add Levedev, too. Lots of super-rich people.
You mean Jonathan Harmsworth. He's actually quite a nice fella and not particularly right wing considering he owns the mail. He's my step fathers cousin and I've met him a few times.
I mean if you go over his policies it's simultaneously possible to call him spineless and dogmatic. That's the worst bit. I'd be interested to know what specifically they thought was spineless, whether it's lack of opposition a la Miliband or support of a policy perceived as spineless like refugees or Syria or whatever.
If those opinions actually translated to policies and not merely Ed Milliband 2.0, I'd be more sympathetic.
PJV3
Member
Don't be sympathetic, Jesus wept. He should be history after the PLP pissed in his cornflakes and tried to dump him.
But he's running a lovely social club with lots of members and that's what is important to him.
I'm talking in general.
The 2015 GE would've likely had a different outcome if the press had no major political agenda.
anonymous_abc
Member
Ouch.
CyclopsRock
Member
Why don't you just fuck off and join the Tories?
So he is spineless for standing up for the vulnerable? For being the only Labour leader vowing to scrap the WCA, a genocide on disabled people introduced by Blair and something that nobody seems to give a fuck about?
Huw_Dawson
Member
A lot of former Lib Dem MPs standing. Cable, Davey, Swinson, Hughes.
Really happy to see Simon Hughes on that list.
Really happy to see Simon Hughes on that list.
Because when you've got a issue with homophobia, Simon 'The Straight Choice' Hughes is just the guy you need.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
No, of course not. He is spineless for being utterly incapable of pressing his point at PMQs, for being unable to control his own Parliamentary party, for failing even to notice let alone take action on the fact that his party is losing voters about as fast as it has been gaining members. That sort of thing.
As for the rest, hey, if you're never going to get into power you can vow anything you want. That's not spine, that's self-delusion.
The issue here, as somebody already said in this thread, is that his party and the people of this country doesn't want what he is selling. The country wants to see poor families struggling and begging at food banks. The country wants to see disabled people being killed off. the country wants to see homeless people on the streets. That is what this country votes for. Now there is somebody in power that is actually opposing such things and trying to change public opinion, you call him spineless. That is wrong.
CyclopsRock
Member
Worth remembering, perhaps, that politics is about the obtaining and utilising of power. If you're not doing the obtaining, you're a pressure group at most. There's no special medals for second place. If you don't win, you lose, and if you lose you're failing the people you claim to represent. This isn't football, there's no virtue to a glorious defeat.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Is this what the left really believes?
To deny it is crazy. Look around you man. None of this was some secret that was only revealed after Cameron got in. He shouted austerity/welfare cuts, people listened and voted him in. He got a majority by shouting those things.
Huw_Dawson
Member
Hughes is bi.
Actually wait a sec, still googling to double check...
EDIT: Yeah, bisexual. My memory is bad.
hydrophilic attack
Member
tbf, it's more that people valued tax cuts over supporting these people
it's more about selfishness than pure cruelty
You're right. Perhaps my wording was abit extreme and there are other reasons. The referendum was also important to Cameron getting in. The fact is still that the country generally does not care about those things.
I do think there is some enjoyment from seeing poor people in the position they are in, though. That is why shows like Jeremy Kyle/Channel 5 benefit documentaries exist. That is why The Sun/Mail print stories on single mothers on welfare.
CyclopsRock
Member
Do you think the people have always wanted this? Because the Conservatives have been in power for, well, the majority of the last 200 years and Cameron is far and away the most liberal leader they ever had. So are you sure that this is what they want, or is it possible your excitement and rage is getting away from you slightly?
Roberto Larcos
Member
I get holding people to account, but this is over 30 years ago. Peter Tatchell (the man he ran against) has forgiven him for it, and Hughes himself apologised over 10 years ago for how that campaign was run.
Skewer him for more recent things, like voting for the wrecking amendment to the Marriage (same sex couples) Bill.
Huw_Dawson
Member
Cameron got a majority because his coalition partners got a kicking and Labour were an incompetent mess.
Now May wants a majority with a more divisive message, but Labour are a MORE incompetent mess.
So it's basically a question of how many seats the LDs gain vs how many seats Labour lose.
If Labour can recover in the polls enough to prevent major losses and the LDs can recover a number of Tory seats they should not have lost, it is possible that May loses her majority. So basically this entire election for the LDs is about trying to offset how crap Corbyn is.
Now May wants a majority with a more divisive message, but Labour are a MORE incompetent mess.
So it's basically a question of how many seats the LDs gain vs how many seats Labour lose.
If Labour can recover in the polls enough to prevent major losses and the LDs can recover a number of Tory seats they should not have lost, it is possible that May loses her majority. So basically this entire election for the LDs is about trying to offset how crap Corbyn is.
Only if the Jeremy Corbyn OT is just cover for sharing jam making recipes.
hydrophilic attack
Member
Well tbf such selfishness is not unique to the UK.
In threads on US politics I have repeatedly tried explaining what level of taxation is needed for a Scandinavian-style welfare system (and which I'm personally in favour of), and people just ignore me.
In general, people are in favour of government benefits, but do not want to pay for it. Or, well, people in the Anglosphere, specifically
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
That's just way off beam. It's not what the country wants, it's not even what the Conservative party wants. And if that's what you think - or what the Labour party thinks - or what Corbyn thinks, then you've already lost. To defeat the enemy you must first understand them, and this shows no understanding at all.
In power? Sorry, missed the change of timeline.
I do not think people care nearly enough about these issues. People are happy to vote for a party that is committing genocide on disabled people and making life a misery for other poor people. Do they want to see these things happen? I don't know, but they do not care enough to do anything about it. Anyone voting for the Tories is voting for policies that are killing vulnerable people.
I do believe people like to see poor people suffer.
The country doesn't want welfare cuts? That is absolutely what the country wants and it doesn't care how it happens. If it involves people dying and struggling then that is what they want.
People absolutely find entertainment from the poor suffering.
Really? Because they have done a pretty good job of it so far and we all know there will be more to come.
Yep, this is extremely true. I have two disabled sisters, one borne that way and one who developed incredibly bad MS in her late 20s. Both require constant care and support (one 24 hours). My parents support them both incredibly, and love them dearly - and vote Tory. My father even stood for the party!
It's not as simple as saying people want disabled people to die, or even that they don't care. It's that the messaging on this hasn't worked at all, and the more people scream genocide (which is flatly untrue and insulting, and I'm on your side!) the less those voters will listen to you.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
People just don't give a shit about things that don't impact them. It's apathy more than deliberate evil.
As a working-class student at a predominantly middle-class University, I can only agree that the working class, in general, don't know what they need. Why else would they consistently vote for a party which repeatedly sells them down the river through austerity measures, the appeasement of lobbyists, wage stagnation and social cuts? The rhetoric, stirred up by outlets popular with the working classes such as the Daily Mail, of the Tories as strong, good for the economy, and for the people in a post-Brexit world vs. a weak, fractured and unable to cope with the stresses of Brexit Labour, has become widely accepted.
I only have to go home and speak to my family to know that most working class have been steered into voting against their own interests: it happened with Brexit, it will happen this election, and will happen again in 2022/arbitrary date unless Labour or another progressive party find a way to once again appeal to the everyman and convince him/her to put their trust in them.
More than that. People will vote for things that actively harm them. My disabled sister votes Tory!
Why? Because her dad does. And he does because his family always has, and he believes in a strong defense, opportunity for anyone to succeed, and tight public finance management. My family is northern working class done good, and they are solid blue voters.
Waaaay too many people vote like their parents do. And many people vote that way because that's how they first voted and that's stuck - it's their team. It's not a personal attack, and it's not cause they want to hurt disabled people (hell, the opposite!).
Your sisters are very lucky to have a caring family who can look after them. The same cannot be said for every disabled person. Disabled people who live alone in social housing and need support. My aunt committed suicide after suffering a mental breakdown due to the WCA. I know people are being killed by this policy. It's a policy that makes no sense at all. A policy in which the government pays a private organisation to ignore GP advice.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
I'm left wing but man is this incredibly patronising!
Principate
Saint Titanfall
It has a lot of do with how toxic the Blair and Brown years made the labour party and he fact UK is just naturally conservative. Blair went to war in Iraq for no real reason crash happened under labour they sold the gold at a cheap point and benefits went out of control. Also some think they'll eventually be rich. The memory is too recent and the Tories haven't been seen to truly shit the bed yet so they're sticking with them. Papers also reinforce and now good old dislike of immigrants.
My sisters also require constant support from social services - there's no humanely possible way my parents could provide it. They have social housing, with social care support, and disability benefits, and provided care support (one 24 hour care, she's that disabled).
I don't disagree that people are suffering hugely under this, and some people have killed themselves over it / and I'm sorry for your loss. I have arguments with my family ALL the time on this (well, and the LGBT thing, but half of us are gay and they've always been very socially liberal anyways).
My point was about messaging. Ultimately, we need those voters. We need the people who voted labour in 97 and the 2000s and then switched to Tory to switch back. I don't know how to do that, but I know telling them they are killing people and genociding disabled people ain't going to work.
Charles Brandon
Member
The country does care about all those things but it is not prepared to entrust its government to a man whose politics are way left of the overton window, backed up by a shadow chancellor who deems it fit to wave Mao's little red book in the house.
You cannot win from the far left. You cannot win from the far left. Everyone knows that. Corbyn knows it but instead of making way for someone who is actually electable, someone who may be able to take some of those policies forward, he clings on and consolidates. He is to blame, in part, for all of this through his inaction and truculence.
You cannot win from the far left. You cannot win from the far left. Everyone knows that. Corbyn knows it but instead of making way for someone who is actually electable, someone who may be able to take some of those policies forward, he clings on and consolidates. He is to blame, in part, for all of this through his inaction and truculence.
- Status