Rebecca Long-Bailey sacked (1 Viewer)

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Largely they don’t. Again most people don’t read manifestos in the end most are only engaged every five years.

Politics in the uk is like a duopoly and every 5th year you have yo take market share

Economic competence or perceived confidence is the one thing that wins elections

Right, so really the membership proposing policies shouldn’t be that detrimental according to this?

 

---

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I disagree with proportional representation (PR).

With first first past the post (FPTP), the unequal outcomes leads to majoritarian governments. To use 2019 as an example, whilst I’m against Brexit, the electorate voted Conservative and to ‘Get Brexit Done’. The large Tory majority has broke the parliamentary paralysis and the country and get on with delivering on a divisive policy that was causing a lot of constitutional strain on the UK.

With PR, the result of this election would be a lot more closer in terms of seats. You’d have more Lab-Green-Lib Dems in Parliament, less SNP- Plaid Cymru MPs. More Brexit Party MPs, less Tory MPs.

I’m not sure what the precise make up of Parliament would be, but it would probably have made Brexit drag on even longer.

In Germany, they’ve had grand coalitions for most of this decade because neither the CDU or SDP can find a coalition partner that is palatable to them since the collapse of the FDP (their Lib Dems). That’s not good for democracy either.

As I've said before I'm fine with FPTP for a constituency based system, as the local people should choose who represents them and PR/AV could well end up with that not happening and pleasing no-one. Of course due to low turnout etc you can get an MP elected by only a relatively small percentage of eligible voters, but if someone chooses not to vote then that in itself can be seen as an endorsement that they're OK with who got in. Unless you make voting compulsory which of course has it's own problems.

But there is also a need to have a better representation of the overall vote which should be how the second chamber is chosen and as a voted assembly they have more legitimacy and aren't just rubberstamping. Vote decides how many seats a party get, the party gets to choose who fills those seats. Yes it would see more influence given to extreme parties but that might make people take it more seriously and get out and vote so to reduce that influence in the second chamber. Plus it gives a better barometer as to how prevalent extreme views are in this country.

It might also lead to less tactical voting as you end up with a fair few people voting Tory/Labour even though they'd rather vote for someone else but they've got no chance of getting in using FPTP so you go for the nearest equivalent that does. If every vote counted somewhere then it makes it worthwhile to vote for your actual preferred choice and the Tory/Labour lot can't be as laid back.

 

[Grendel]

Right, so really the membership proposing policies shouldn’t be that detrimental according to this?

Yes because membership is perceived as far left to the country and creates a strategy that ruins messages if economic competency - really all a Tory campaign needs to be in a very big cartoon image of Len McCloskey and a very small image of the labour leader in his suit pocket

Election over

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Since universal suffrage the Conservatives have needed working class votes to win any election. That doesn’t mean that the working class are Tories. Most w/c don’t vote Conservative. Even in northern Red Wall territory the Conservative gains from Labour were significant but small.

Trump lost the popular vote in 2016. Swing is very difficult to read in the USA because of the turnover in the registered vote and differential turnout of those groups that are actually registered to vote. In 2016 Trump and Sanders were both playing the same hand - the anti-establishment outsider. After running against Clinton so hard for the Democratic nomination (mostly on the charge that she thought she was entitled to it) it’s less surprising that some Sanders support found it difficult to transfer to her. Nevertheless it’s still commonly overstated how large this intersection in the diagram actually was.

Currently I can’t see where Trump is going with the culture wars stuff. Electorally it looks like a dead end, very few extra voters are to be won there - those that voted for him despite misgivings in 2016 were insufficient to help him win the popular vote then and it’s hard to see many coming over to the race-baiting tweeter whose former staff are writing books about how he’s not fit to govern. The only clear strategy is to aim at those registered electors who are certain to vote - older, whiter (demographically dwindling) and restricting access to the vote for minorities and younger voters by stopping mail in ballots and registration drives etc.

Trump could win in November but he could also get humiliated. I think the current strategy (more Goldwater than Nixon) suggests they really fear the latter and are going for broke to scare white middle America into voting for him.

whether he’d concede defeat in November might also be a moot point.



Anyway that’s a massive set of interjections from me abt Politics which I don’t normally do here but save for my day job.

With Trump he'll either win or get humiliated I reckon. I can't see him losing a close battle.

But if he loses I can guarantee he won't accept it and neither will his hardcore supporters. It'll be rigged, illegal voting, identity fraud etc and you'll see his supportrs out on the streets with their AR-15's 'defending America'.

Besides, he can't afford to lose. The shit that would be able to come out about his administration may well see him behind bars.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Guns don't kill people. Rappers do.

They do indeed. That's why they have that warning of it being a suffocation hazard on them.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Yes because membership is perceived as far left to the country and creates a strategy that ruins messages if economic competency - really all a Tory campaign needs to be in a very big cartoon image of Len McCloskey and a very small image of the labour leader in his suit pocket

Election over

But then you have to ask why a picture of a very big 'fat cat' with a small image of the Conservative leader in his pocket wouldn't do the same? It's the opposite side of the same coin.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Yes because membership is perceived as far left to the country and creates a strategy that ruins messages if economic competency - really all a Tory campaign needs to be in a very big cartoon image of Len McCloskey and a very small image of the labour leader in his suit pocket

Election over

I guess it’s that which I dislike

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

But then you have to ask why a picture of a very big 'fat cat' with a small image of the Conservative leader in his pocket wouldn't do the same? It's the opposite side of the same coin.

Yeah, but who controls most of the printing presses?

 

[shmmeee]

They may well have done but the seat composition is now hugely different and the swing required is sizemic - Corbyn received a huge percentage of the vote in 2017 and still was the minority party.

Because his electoral “strategy” was to stack up votes in safe seats. It was also mostly Brexit based votes which are stacked in those same safe seats.

We do need a ridiculous swing, as we did in 2017, 2015 and 2019 were absolute ass whoopings that are/were virtually impossible to come back from in one election.

I’m not saying it’s not easier without the SNP, especially thanks to the easy weapon it gives the Tories whenever Labour look like winning “OmG LaBoUr aRe In tHe sNpS PoCkEt”, but the reality is it’s the loss of middle England since the start of the century that’s had the biggest impact. If Labour win that back Scotland isn’t an issue and in reality the SNP would be pressured to vote with Labour anyway by their mostly left wing voter base. You also always see more independence calls when the Tories are in for a while which would likely subside and weaken the SNP anyway.

 

[shmmeee]

Largely they don’t. Again most people don’t read manifestos in the end most are only engaged every five years.

Politics in the uk is like a duopoly and every 5th year you have yo take market share

Economic competence or perceived confidence is the one thing that wins elections

Perceived economic competence perhaps, which is basically PM viability rating. People vote with their gut and these days mostly by which PM “feels like a PM”.

I’m not sure anyone can make the argument the Brits reward economic competence/punish economic incompetence with a straight face.

 

[shmmeee]

Yes because membership is perceived as far left to the country and creates a strategy that ruins messages if economic competency - really all a Tory campaign needs to be in a very big cartoon image of Len McCloskey and a very small image of the labour leader in his suit pocket

Election over

While this is probably true it’s absolutely nuts when you think about it. I hate Big Len as much as the next sane person but given a choice between wealthy individuals influencing a party like seen with the Tories repeatedly or the literal elected representatives of the working class, I know which I’d prefer.

The quality of the unions is a whole other point but you could say the same about the individuals who influence the Tories.

 

[Nick]

Seems like hes back tracking.

Like I said at the time, a lot of it was like the NHS clapping that people did for PR / because they felt they had to. Hes taken a picture of himself kneeling and backing BLM but now has to backtrack.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Perceived economic competence perhaps, which is basically PM viability rating. People vote with their gut and these days mostly by which PM “feels like a PM”.

I’m not sure anyone can make the argument the Brits reward economic competence/punish economic incompetence with a straight face.

I definitely agree it's perceived economic competence. It's just a long standing belief the Tories can manage the economy and Labour can't when the reality doesn't necessarily back it up. Brown's handling of the 2008 crisis wasn't that bad (although he did make mistakes as Chancellor) whereas the austerity of the Tories arguably lengthened the more recent problems.

I think many people mistake greed for economic competence. Stuff like markets become emboldened under Tories because they're less likely to regulate so they make riskier, higher return gambles. This short term will lead to gains but will inevitably at some point burst and leave us with a problem. At which point the Tories decide to focus on making the average man pay for it with cuts rather than deal with the actual root cause of the problem.

 

[skybluetony176]

Seems like hes back tracking.

Like I said at the time, a lot of it was like the NHS clapping that people did for PR / because they felt they had to. Hes taken a picture of himself kneeling and backing BLM but now has to backtrack.

How’s he backtracking?

 

[Nick]

How’s he backtracking?

I mean jumping in sending pictures of kneeling and backing things but then it goes to "not agreeing with all of it".

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I mean jumping in sending pictures of kneeling and backing things but then it goes to "not agreeing with all of it".

When you're at a football match, singing Sky blue songs etc are you endorsing the prick that was being racist in Broadgate? As you both support CCFC you must therefore agree on everything. Do you support everything those in control of the club do?

As football fans we often get annoyed with those who have no interest in the game and perceive themselves to be 'better' making generalisations about football fans as a whole and seeing everyone as the same rather than a load of individuals who happen to share this one specific belief. Yet that's exactly what you're doing here.

Starmer can take the knee as a sign of support for racial equality. It doesn't mean he can't disagree with other parts of the message or those that are using it to further different agendas.

 

[Nick]

When you're at a football match, singing Sky blue songs etc are you endorsing the prick that was being racist in Broadgate? As you both support CCFC you must therefore agree on everything. Do you support everything those in control of the club do?

As football fans we often get annoyed with those who have no interest in the game and perceive themselves to be 'better' making generalisations about football fans as a whole and seeing everyone as the same rather than a load of individuals who happen to share this one specific belief. Yet that's exactly what you're doing here.

Starmer can take the knee as a sign of support for racial equality. It doesn't mean he can't disagree with other parts of the message or those that are using it to further different agendas.

So to use a crude example, could you do a nazi salute but not agree with everything they did?

It's hardly the same as supporting the same football team as somebody, is it?

 

[skybluetony176]

I mean jumping in sending pictures of kneeling and backing things but then it goes to "not agreeing with all of it".

So how is he backtracking. He’s clarifying what he agrees with isn’t he? Taking the knee stems specifically from Colin Kaepernick and he did it about the specific issues of police brutality against people of colour and racial inequality.

 

[JimmyHillsbeard]

I mean jumping in sending pictures of kneeling and backing things but then it goes to "not agreeing with all of it".

It’s not backtracking to pledge support for the movement but fall short of the associated claims of some of its members. It’s also possible to favour defunding the police in one country but not another.

 

[shmmeee]

So to use a crude example, could you do a nazi salute but not agree with everything they did?

It's hardly the same as supporting the same football team as somebody, is it?

But a Nazi salute only means support for the Nazi ideology. Just like support for CCFC only means following the team and support for BLM only means thinking black lives matter as much as white ones.

If I started making a Nazi salute then claiming it meant also support for fucking pigs or something genuine Nazis would be legitimate in telling me I’m wrong and misappropriating their symbol.

 

[JimmyHillsbeard]

So to use a crude example, could you do a nazi salute but not agree with everything they did?

It's hardly the same as supporting the same football team as somebody, is it?

ffs Nick you must know that’s a ridiculous argument.

taking the knee equivalence with a nazi salute. Hmm

 

[Nick]

ffs Nick you must know that’s a ridiculous argument.

taking the knee equivalence with a nazi salute. Hmm

I said it's a crude example of being able to pick and choose what it stands for.

I mean the guy has just sacked somebody for saying something about Israel but has no issue pushing the politics of a group that also says stuff about them.

 

[skybluetony176]

I said it's a crude example of being able to pick and choose what it stands for.

You’re doing the equivalent of saying that everyone who attended Sixfields and/or St Andrews thinks SISU are awesome. I’m sure you’ll agree that it was possible to attend either and still think SISU are a bunch of cunts.
Just because all racists voted brexit it doesn’t mean that everyone who voted brexit is a racist.
I can’t stand raw tomatoes but love them cooked in a sauce and tomato soup is my favourite flavour.

 

[Nick]

You’re doing the equivalent of saying that everyone who attended Sixfields and/or St Andrews thinks SISU are awesome. I’m sure you’ll agree that it was possible to attend either and still think SISU are a bunch of cunts.
Just because all racists voted brexit it doesn’t mean that everyone who voted brexit is a racist.
I can’t stand raw tomatoes but love them cooked in a sauce and tomato soup is my favourite flavour.

Not really, I'd bet everybody who went thought CCFC were awesome and not SISU.

 

[skybluetony176]

Not really, I'd bet everybody who went thought CCFC were awesome and not SISU.

In the same way you can take the knee in the original sentiment without agreeing with the bloke next to you that it doesn’t go far enough and the police need defunding. They’re agreeing on an illness not a cure.

 

[Nick]

In the same way you can take the knee in the original sentiment without agreeing with the bloke next to you that it doesn’t go far enough and the police need defunding. They’re agreeing on an illness not a cure.

I guess my point is more that it's about the terminology about it all.

Nothing wrong with agreeing about racism but taking the knee is pretty much now known as "Black Lives Matter".

 

[chiefdave]

Not sure being endorsed by Nigel Farage is going to do much to help the concerns of those on the left of the Labour party that Starmer is too centrist.

 

[shmmeee]

Not sure being endorsed by Nigel Farage is going to do much to help the concerns of those on the left of the Labour party that Starmer is too centrist.

Is this where I remind you of all the nationalists that endorsed Corbyn?

Starter for ten: Farage backs Corbyn to be next Labour leader

 

[chiefdave]

Is this where I remind you of all the nationalists that endorsed Corbyn?

Starter for ten: Farage backs Corbyn to be next Labour leader

That's great but we're not in 2015 and Labour aren't in the middle of a leadership election.

Also fairly important difference that Farage backed Corbyn on the basis that he was a socialist and the Labour Party is supposed to be a left wing party, not that Farage believed in Corbyn's politics. Farage has endorsed Starmer on the basis that his views align with his own.

As I said I'm not sure anyone on the left of the party who is concerned about the direction Starmer is going to take them in will be reassured to find his stance backed by Farage.

 

[shmmeee]

That's great but we're not in 2015 and Labour aren't in the middle of a leadership election.

Also fairly important difference that Farage backed Corbyn on the basis that he was a socialist and the Labour Party is supposed to be a left wing party, not that Farage believed in Corbyn's politics. Farage has endorsed Starmer on the basis that his views align with his own.

As I said I'm not sure anyone on the left of the party who is concerned about the direction Starmer is going to take them in will be reassured to find his stance backed by Farage.

Maybe this one is more your speed: Nick Griffin declares his support for Jeremy Corbyn

Point is you can’t stop people saying they like you. Farage isn’t praising Starmers right wing views is he? He’s talking about race not economics and the idea that some BLM protesters are making outlandish claims that are too far removed from the original protest is hardly the preserve of the right either.

 

[chiefdave]

Maybe this one is more your speed: Nick Griffin declares his support for Jeremy Corbyn

Point is you can’t stop people saying they like you. Farage isn’t praising Starmers right wing views is he? He’s talking about race not economics and the idea that some BLM protesters are making outlandish claims that are too far removed from the original protest is hardly the preserve of the right either.

Are you deliberately trying to miss the point?

 

[shmmeee]

Are you deliberately trying to miss the point?

Are you? What even is your point?

First you claim Farage agreeing on social issues proves Starmer is pulling the party to the right. Makes no sense. Then you claim it’s different when he supports Corbyn because that was a leadership campaign, again makes no sense.

You’re just desperate to have something to whinge about with Starmer is all. No the leader of a party wanting to get elected shouldn’t endorse nonsense imported from the States like “defund the police” just because. It’s suicide and he’s right to stay away.

 

[chiefdave]

Are you? What even is your point?

Pretty simple one, would have thought it was obvious from what I posted.

Not sure being endorsed by Nigel Farage is going to do much to help the concerns of those on the left of the Labour party that Starmer is too centrist.

But if you need it breaking down there is a part of the left wing Labour membership who fear Starmer's Labour will be, in their opinion, moved too far towards centrism from their leftist position under Corbyn. They, at least the ones who haven't already left, are looking for signs that fear is unfounded. So far they've seen a left wing purge, culminating in Long-Bailey's removal, ignoring of the issues in the leaked internal report and now Farage's endorsement. Maybe I've got it wrong and Farage's endorsement will be welcomed.

First you claim Farage agreeing on social issues proves Starmer is pulling the party to the right. Makes no sense. Then you claim it’s different when he supports Corbyn because that was a leadership campaign, again makes no sense.

Actually I didn't claim Farage agreeing with Starmer proves he is pulling Labour to the right - although I didn't realise Starmer moving Labour in that direction compared to where it was under Corbyn was something anyone was disputing. I was under the impression that was generally accepted and seen as a positive.

You’re just desperate to have something to whinge about with Starmer is all.

You've completey made something up there to try and support your argument. Why would I be desperate to whinge about Starmer? I'm not even historically a Labour voter let alone a member. My preference would be to have a strong opposition to hold the government to account.