|
jabby posted:BBC News now describing Copeland as an ULTRA safe labour seat. Considering it had like the 26th lowest majority out of 219 seats that seems like stretching the truth slightly. Yeah I mean, the seat has never been anything but Labour. The preceding seat was Labour since 1935. I feel like nitpicking the exact majority of the recent election should probably take lesser relevance compared to what is essentially an 80 year safe-seat for Labour.
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Sure, once he's indicted for war crimes. Insanity
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
ronya posted:I know "triangulation" is a curseword and all, but you're really stretching for why a left-leaning party might play up its right-wing rhetoric and vice versa I'm saying he saw the opportunity to say that because of the things that the public didn't like about New Labour. If you're giving Tories the opportunity to say that you're being too tough on crime and demonizing marginalized groups (while of course plotting different and exciting ways to gently caress them over), you're doing something pretty wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:You'd have thought a seat that had been labour since the war would be pretty safe tbf. Declaring a seat safe on any basis other than the most recent election result is patently ludicrous.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Let's hold hands and try and have a kumbaya moment. I'm not sure if I count as pro or anti so I'll do both. I'm definitely pro the left but I also think Corbyn has had plenty of time and has not grown into the role very much, aside from getting better at PMQs now he's not insisting on outsourcing the questions. Blair: People seem to say Sure Start is a very good program. The Good Friday Agreement. Introducing the minimum wage, even if it was still too low. Sorry if that counts as passive aggressive. Corbyn: Principled. One of the few Labour MPs from the early '00s not tainted by the Iraq War. Still has the potential to do the major thing I voted for him for, bringing about increased internal party democracy so that MPs can no longer ensuring certain wings supported by the members go unrepresented in a leadership election, and stopping central party from airdropping favoured candidates into safe seats that might not actually want them (regardless if the leadership is left or right). Fans posted:One of the relative unknowns from 2010 is my bet In a stalking horse role? Or as the actual serious contender? I'm not really in touch with Labour members around the country but it seems that despite the Brexit vote the membership are still kind of on Jeremy's side for the time being. jBrereton posted:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/24/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leader-brexit-uk-political-landscape-copeland-byelection Yeah, that is a really bad take from Corbyn. There is no defending that. Labour are in fact doing a honking job of representing either Remainers or Leavers at this point. Jeza posted:Yeah I mean, the seat has never been anything but Labour. The preceding seat was Labour since 1935. I feel like nitpicking the exact majority of the recent election should probably take lesser relevance compared to what is essentially an 80 year safe-seat for Labour. Don't mistake this as defending Labour's performance. It was a seat they should have won and it reflects terribly (but unsurprisingly) on where Labour is right now, which is to say no where. But ultra safe isn't really a good description for the safe based on the majority in 2015, and the steady downward trend which started at the 2001 election. And it goes much deeper than Corybnistas & Blairites, to the major employer in the area, the failure of the Labour leadership now to have a coherent policy on nuclear power, and of the previous Labour government's failure to actually start on replacing aging reactors like Sellafield. It's still a disaster precisely because of Labour's abject failure to have a coherent policy on nuclear power, made worse by Corbyn's history as an anti-nuclear campaigner. But it was a safe seat, not an ultra safe seat. Yes, it's pedantry but it hints at the coverage being a little overboard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
jabby posted:Declaring a seat safe on any basis other than the most recent election result is patently ludicrous. Are there any safe Labour seats anymore?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Are there any safe Labour seats anymore? Islington North.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
jabby posted:Declaring a seat safe on any basis other than the most recent election result is patently ludicrous. Saying Copeland isn't a safeseat is a bit revisionist. It's not a stretch to call a seat that's been Labour since before the war a safe seat. Like Forkboy said, it's not an utra-safe seat. But it;s solidly labour, and if Labour can't win solidly Labour seats (losing to the tories!) then they're in real trouble. Private Eye fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
Private Eye posted:Saying Copeland isn't a safeseat is a bit revisionist. It's not a stretch to call a seat that's been Labour since before the war a safe seat. So a seat could have a majority of one but still be considered ultra safe because it's never been under anyone else? That seems like a poor use of the word 'safe'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
jabby posted:So a seat could have a majority of one but still be considered ultra safe because it's never been under anyone else? That seems like a poor use of the word 'safe'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
jabby posted:So a seat could have a majority of one but still be considered ultra safe because it's never been under anyone else? That seems like a poor use of the word 'safe'. No, a majority of one shouldn't be considered ultra safe, but historical context is still useful. A majority of over 2,500 and the historical context of 80 years control? Yeah. That's a safe seat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:BoJo would probably be a more capable voice for the Labour Party than Corbyn, but no, Labour needs its own guy, or girl. Where is even Labour's Mhairi Black? I'm sure Wes Streeting thinks that's him, but it ain't. Bright young people like Mhairi Black join parties on the up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:No, a majority of one shouldn't be considered ultra safe, but historical context is still useful. A majority of over 2,500 and the historical context of 80 years control? Yeah. That's a safe seat. I think a seat lost wasn't safe by definition.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:BoJo would probably be a more capable voice for the Labour Party than Corbyn, but no, Labour needs its own guy, or girl. Where is even Labour's Mhairi Black? I'm sure Wes Streeting thinks that's him, but it ain't. Well, a lot were put off by the Iraq War. And at New Labour taking the votes of the working class for granted while running away after Middle England. Which is ultimately at the root of Labour's decline in the North and goes deeper than simply Brexit. Of course, Corbyn has done nothing to reverse that, which is on his hands. TheRat posted:I think a seat lost wasn't safe by definition. Good to know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
No matter how safe a seat it, it comes loose eventually.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:11
|
|
I can't get enough of are Dan
|
No single party should have complete control of parliament, they should limit it at like 30% or so. I mean it can't be any worse than the current system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Well, a lot were put off by the Iraq War
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:No single party should have complete control of parliament, they should limit it at like 30% or so. I mean it can't be any worse than the current system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
TheRat posted:I think a seat lost wasn't safe by definition. jabby posted:So a seat could have a majority of one but still be considered ultra safe because it's never been under anyone else? That seems like a poor use of the word 'safe'. This is just coming at this from the wrong place. Yeah you could say it was an at-risk seat because of its gradually hemorrhaging majority, but the term "safe-seat" in political rhetoric is just one that a party has traditionally been able to rely on no matter what. It's been a permanent Labour hold since its inception, and then 50 years previous to that. If you just considered seats safe or not based on their previous election majority, seats would fluctuate between safe and unsafe all the time, even if they never changed hands in a dozen elections. That just flies in the face of common sense. Look at it this way: the seat's election majority does not make it a safe seat for the victorious party if it has historically elected a different party for a century. Look at somewhere like Enfield Southgate. A traditional Conservative safe-seat where Michael Portillo lost in 1997. Then Labour won again with a big majority in 2001. Was it a safe seat for Labour now? No, it swung back to Conservatives in 2005 and every election since.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
I'm 500ish posts behind. I'm going to assume most of them are people arguing with Pissflaps about how Labour losing an 80 year safe seat is actually totally fine? Seriously though, Labour are so hosed. Has Corbyn given any indication that he will step down? Probably too late now I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
DesperateDan posted:It doesn't matter who is in charge of the labour party provided those controlling the media are opposed to the policies labour intend to introduce. Such vested interests aren't suddenly going to give positive press to ideals and ideas they have spent decades of time and effort disparaging- no matter how well presented and prepared the PR team are, or how eloquent and charming the politician is. Doesn't matter, as that won't be what features in the press, so that won't be what the public sees. They will see a nerd eating a bacon sandwich, or socialist jam grandad. This is what people constantly slamming Corbyn always seem to forget, is that Miliband was hammered by the media just as much and got crushed in the GE. The party has the entire media against them and they need to realize that whoever fills the leadership position is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things because they have much bigger problems that need addressing. It's no surprise the electorate is losing confidence in the party when they're still bickering among themselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Look at the Netherlands for what happens when that's more or less the case. You have a Smörgåsbord of neoliberal parties including their Labour party. But none of them ever win many votes, because it isn't an inspiring message. Jesus gently caress, why do Western Europeans out of all loving people have such a huge raging boner for the right-wing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:That may as well be Suez at this point for people in their twenties. Yeah OK it was sad or whatever right but the last Labour government that was in charge of it was 7 years ago. Early twenties, maybe. For someone born in 1990 it'll be one of the first political events they remember, and was a formative experience for an awful lot of people who are still young in political terms (which is to say under 35). Even if you were 5 at the time of the invasion and all the protests, you were old enough to experience a lot of the gory consequences of the war, there's not a tiny chance you knew someone who served over there in the 8 years our forces were over there. Also "it was sad or whatever" loving hell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Jesus gently caress, why do Western Europeans out of all loving people have such a huge raging boner for the right-wing? Former colonial superpower in being lovely racists shocker
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
SUNKOS posted:This is what people constantly slamming Corbyn always seem to forget, is that Miliband was hammered by the media just as much and got crushed in the GE. The party has the entire media against them and they need to realize that whoever fills the leadership position is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things because they have much bigger problems that need addressing. It's no surprise the electorate is losing confidence in the party when they're still bickering among themselves. The Tories have a small majority. Their win wasn't 'crushing'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
People seeing Labour as Corbyn is precisely a symptom of the problem. It's a big monster. Labour's future probably lies more in the masses of people at local party levels organising better, and not waiting for Beardy to be the magic ticket. Bit tired of people who haven't contributed to anything expecting things to have worked out for them already, but it's inevitable, it's part of the inertia that keeps left wing politics dead in this place. If you want to see change in the Labour party, become more active in your CLP, campaign with socialists and trade unions, influence delegates. It would be utterly futile for Labour to change over to a different leader now, I guarantee you nothing would change. And no it's not cos Corbyn bad, the whole point is that Labour is bigger, the rot is deeper. e: let a Miliband show you why we must resist all forms of Pissflappery. There Are No Dead Ends https://twitter.com/Tom_Gann/status/835077897220198400 Jrbg fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Jeza posted:This is just coming at this from the wrong place. Yeah you could say it was an at-risk seat because of its gradually hemorrhaging majority, but the term "safe-seat" in political rhetoric is just one that a party has traditionally been able to rely on no matter what. This is the problem though, it's not like Jamie Reed was exactly a shining example to the people of Copeland of someone who's going to look after their interests. Not sure the candidate they put up was exactly the best option though. As for "where is the Labour Mhairi Black", a ton of young people have joined the Labour party, but are still getting to grips with everything that's going on, not helped by the immense amount of infighting that is still going on within the party. My local CLP meeting last night was extremely ugly due to divisions over what to do with our former CLP chair who was expelled from the party with no evidence given and no right of appeal. In my local branch meeting, we had people unironically talking about remembering the threat of Militant and Trotskyite infiltration. Not to mention divisions over Brexit. The SNP have the advantage of being united towards what looks like an achievable goal right now, and winning surprise results in the GE due to the total collapse of every other party in Scotland after the Indyref. There are people like Mhairi Black in Labour right now but the same opportunities are just not there. forkboy84 posted:Early twenties, maybe. For someone born in 1990 it'll be one of the first political events they remember, and was a formative experience for an awful lot of people who are still young in political terms (which is to say under 35). Even if you were 5 at the time of the invasion and all the protests, you were old enough to experience a lot of the gory consequences of the war, there's not a tiny chance you knew someone who served over there in the 8 years our forces were over there. People older than me in the Labour party say that Iraq was absolute disaster because it drove away young people from the party in droves. Hence why there is a talent gap at many levels of the party now, thanks to Labour being heavily reliant on its members but not getting nearly enough new ones between 2003-2015. I worry that Brexit might do something similar now, unfortunately. We'll see. MikeCrotch fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Early twenties, maybe. For someone born in 1990 it'll be one of the first political events they remember, and was a formative experience for an awful lot of people who are still young in political terms (which is to say under 35). Even if you were 5 at the time of the invasion and all the protests, you were old enough to experience a lot of the gory consequences of the war, there's not a tiny chance you knew someone who served over there in the 8 years our forces were over there. what you have said is all valid but there isnt actually much evidence to suggest that the invasion of Iraq resulted in disillusioned young peoples turning away from politics or whatever http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/politics/2013/02/18/the-invasion-of-iraq-did-many-things-putting-young-people-off-politics-wasnt-one-of-them/
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Jesus gently caress, why do Western Europeans out of all loving people have such a huge raging boner for the right-wing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
The SNP are crushing everyone with less media support than Labour. With a competent Leader and loyal MPs a hostile media can be overcome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
marktheando posted:The SNP are crushing everyone with less media support than Labour. With a competent Leader and loyal MPs a hostile media can be overcome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
marktheando posted:The SNP are crushing everyone with less media support than Labour. With a competent Leader and loyal MPs a hostile media can be overcome. No, not when the party is as big as it is. Thinking the party is structured like the Conservative Party makes you think the problem is merely at the top. The rot goes deeper, the solution is at an invisible, local level.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:yes Labour can and should pull itself together. And I presume your role in all this is merely to shout encouraging words from the sidelines
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Comrade Cheggorsky posted:what you have said is all valid but there isnt actually much evidence to suggest that the invasion of Iraq resulted in disillusioned young peoples turning away from politics or whatever http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/politics/2013/02/18/the-invasion-of-iraq-did-many-things-putting-young-people-off-politics-wasnt-one-of-them/ That's an interesting study but I didn't actually say it turned da yoof off politics. I said it turned young people off Labour who may have gone on to be active members and MPs. Like Mhairi Black for instance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:The SNP does not have less media support than Labour in Scotland, which is where it matters. But yes Labour can and should pull itself together. Labour still have the Mirror, the SNP don't have any real newspaper support except for the Sunday Herald (the National isn't a real newspaper, and only appeared after the surge in SNP support).
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:The SNP does not have less media support than Labour in Scotland, which is where it matters. But yes Labour can and should pull itself together. What guff is this? The SNP has the support of The National and The Sunday Herald and some assortment of websites like Wings Over Scotland. Meanwhile Labour has The Daily Record, whose circulation is over 10 times that of The National, the Daily Mirror. Without getting into other papers like The Scotsman and Press & Journal which are not necessarily pro-Labour but certainly are anti-SNP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:The SNP does not have less media support than Labour in Scotland, which is where it matters. But yes Labour can and should pull itself together. That wasn't always the case though, the SNP have only turned it around pretty recently. Edit: I actually agree with ForkBoy, majority are still hostile but they get a far more friendly reception than they did a few years ago in my view.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
J_RBG posted:And I presume your role in all this is merely to shout encouraging words from the sidelines Why would it be a problem if it was?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Why would it be a problem if it was? Something something positive collective action, something something politics of spectacle is a cancer, something something be the change u want 2 c
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:The SNP have the advantage of being united towards what looks like an achievable goal right now, and winning surprise results in the GE due to the total collapse of every other party in Scotland after the Indyref. There are people like Mhairi Black in Labour right now but the same opportunities are just not there. So once again it comes back to Labour lacking anything close to a coherent set of headline policies for people to latch on to. Simple but popular goals that can be shouted about over and over until they sink in and the voting public begin to think that perhaps there is an option beyond "more of this poo poo forever" or "this but with a smiley face" or "this but with a pint and a fag and no browns" Better and cheaper public transport (nationalisation) Sort the housing crisis (building projects, restrictions/taxes on BTL and second homes, increase council control) Investment in infrastructure and utilities (control of energy/water/phone/internet suppliers, nationalisation again maybe because it just makes sense) Save the NHS Proper Living Wage Get someone dynamic in to front it all, watch those votes roll in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:50
|
|
