|
Poll: Who Should Be Leader of HM Most Loyal Opposition? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Jeremy Corbyn |
|
95 | 18.63% |
| Dennis Skinner |
|
53 | 10.39% |
| Angus Robertson |
|
20 | 3.92% |
| Tim Farron |
|
9 | 1.76% |
| Paul Ukips |
|
7 | 1.37% |
| Robot Lenin |
|
105 | 20.59% |
| Tony Blair |
|
28 | 5.49% |
| Pissflaps |
|
193 | 37.84% |
| Total: | 510 votes | ||
|
Fangz posted:Why do I think this is total bullshit? Fangz posted:So, basically nothing like 'Labour is 18 points behind the tories'. Most recent poll (Suffolk university) quote:Favourable/Unfavourable, most to least So no it's definitely not labour level yet, but a ways down from the 45%/47% they were at before and which is more normal for them and not looking super good, trend-wise, for either the party as a whole or most of their specific candidates. If the numbers hold or worse keep moving in the same direction we're looking at a Republican wave in 2018. Or maybe it's just a bad poll, but regardless it had me despairing and I figured the UKMT thread would be a good place to come and commiserate over the rise of fascism and to hear about bad news that is unlikely to effect me personally. Thanks to you guys for providing. edit: March 15th, 1882: The Standard Oil Trust was secretly created to control multiple corporations set up by John D. Rockefeller and his associates, and officially becomes a "trust" on this date to get around monopoly laws. This year also saw the establishment of the London Chamber of Commerce a month and a half earlier. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Mar 15, 2017 |
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
Grumpy schoolteacher Corbyn can be pretty entertaining. https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/842033442434998272
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:Shy Tories are real they're called Lib Dems. Pissflaps posted:I've never voted Lib dem. This exchange and the followup was amazing btw, thank you Pissflaps for giving me my first laugh of the day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Paxman posted:Even with all the things Labour did wrong, that's a lot better than a Tory government. I could quibble with details in your list (for example I don't think Labour were responsible for the shifting attitude to gay rights which is hardly limited to these shores, and your claims about the Overton window are backwards), but I think my main objection to your argument is that you ignore opportunity cost altogether. Under FPTP governments oscillate between two main parties (whose identity may change once a century or so). By 1997 the Tories were going to lose to anyone. For similar reasons, if Labour had won in 2005 it is unlikely they'd have won in 2010. Every minute Blairites are in power pissing away socialist opportunities is a minute closer to the next Tory victory. If the alternative to the Tories does not take serious steps to undo their work, it's basically just a Tory PR exercise taking over for them when they've disgraced themselves a bit too much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Most recent poll (Suffolk university) Like I said, that's not comparable if you compare presidents to parties. The correct comparison is "Democratic party" to "Republican party" which is within margin of error. Warren was included in that poll and has better favourability than Trump. It strikes me as rather dishonest to omit those points. Also Suffolk never previously asked those questions about party favourability, so "45%/47% they were at before" is simply bullshit. Fangz fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Think there's more here. These cunts wouldn't even be competent enough to stack a shelf, let alone guide the UK through its biggest political moment since the Suez crisis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:At the minute Clive Lewis seems to be the living embodiment of the "Anybody Else" candidate. Like he's been an MP for less than two years and essentially his only major act is resigning from the shadow cabinet over the A50 vote; I get the feeling people are projecting more than a little bit over how good a leader he would be (if he even wanted it). Lewis also has the army thing, doesn't he? That'd at least take away the militarist anti-left arguments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Lewis is nowhere near ready. Starmer should in theory be capable but has been thoroughly unconvincing so far. Either of them would hopefully get a more competent team around them than whatever Jeremy has now.spectralent posted:I don't think the sentiment of englishness has much to do with it; it's ultimately about whether or not people are suffering. If people's living standards are bad, they'll vote for things to change. If they aren't, they'll vote for more of the same. The label of "we need this to stop" will change, but it's ultimately the facepaint a desire for radical change wears. Remember that Labour was also promising austerity, including being "tougher on benefits than the tories". I don't think Labour would've seen people any happier with the way the country's gone as it was in 2015, though I expect they wouldn't have been boneheaded enough to leave the EU. I don't agree with some of her analysis & conclusions but at the moment it's refreshing to hear a left-leaning Labour politician speak who at least sounds like they aren't loving clueless : https://youtu.be/0IzwruVnGPE El Grillo fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I don't think the sentiment of englishness has much to do with it; it's ultimately about whether or not people are suffering. "It's about taking back control innit" is an issue of English nationalism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Paxman posted:She wouldn't though. She may be less left wing that many people here would like but she's not the same as Theresa May. She's not a Tory. Just because Tony managed to do some good in his spare time from crusading in the middle east doesn't mean that his cargo cult would. Paxman posted:And for all Yvette Cooper's faults, the alternative people seem to be offering is a Labour leader who is actively destroying the party and helping the Tories stay in power for God knows how long to come. The current crop of New Labourites have done far more harm to the party than Corbyn ever could, so I don't see how putting them back in charge would improve the medium to long-term situation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:I could quibble with details in your list (for example I don't think Labour were responsible for the shifting attitude to gay rights which is hardly limited to these shores, and your claims about the Overton window are backwards), but I think my main objection to your argument is that you ignore opportunity cost altogether. by 1992 the Tories were going to lose to anyone. then they didn't
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:This is a bit of a simplification and voting records of lower income classes doesn't support it. There has been a shift amongst some poorer voters. But that's nowhere near the whole story. Lisa Nandy has been writing & speaking about cultural/political disenfranchisement a lot: https://www.huffpost.com/uk/entry/15216124 Your first link appears borked. But the issue is that it's not poorer voters; it's everyone. The UK's growth for the man on the ground has been stagnant; almost nobody is seeing any improvements in their circumstances lately. That's an issue. jBrereton posted:As any good cybernat will tell you, the idea you can hearken back to halcyon days when things were Not As poo poo For You (fatuously or no) is a powerful idea for people who are suffering. Yes, but people want control because things didn't turn out well for them. If everyone was doing great, who'd care?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Not so much though apparently how have they got those numbers? it's not in line with what I've seen anywhere else, e.g. http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/Analysis_votermigration.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Yes, but people want control because things didn't turn out well for them. If everyone was doing great, who'd care? Are you sure? People aren't exactly known for being generous and loving even when they're doing well. case in point: every millionaire ever barring a handful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Yes, but people want control because things didn't turn out well for them. If everyone was doing great, who'd care? Everyone if the hedonistic treadmill is to be believed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Yes, but people want control because things didn't turn out well for them. If everyone was doing great, who'd care?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:Under FPTP governments oscillate between two main parties (whose identity may change once a century or so). By 1997 the Tories were going to lose to anyone. For similar reasons, if Labour had won in 2005 it is unlikely they'd have won in 2010. also... https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/842054948892360708 https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/842055112050761729 https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/842055162285965312
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Let's not forget that Yvette Cooper has a not-insignificant role in where we are today, by completely failing to challenge Theresa May in her tenure as Shadow Home Secretary and allowing poo poo like Yarl's Wood to get through without proper scrutiny for fear of not looking like she was tough on crime. If Theresa May had actually had to defend herself properly and had the poo poo she was getting up to properly exposed, she might not be PM right now. May was the longest serving Home Secretary for 50 years, despite the Home Office being dogged by weekly fuckups and scandals. It wasn't down to May being supremely competent. It was because Cooper failed to land a single punch on May in 5 years. As far as high profile shadow cabinet performances go, that's got to be one of the worst records in modern times. She had the easiest job in the entire of UK politics, had years to make an impact, and still hosed it up. For comparison, the not very competent David Davis was SHS for a similar length of time and opposed 4 different Labour Home Secretaries. http://alwynturner.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/human-till-she-talks-portrait-of-yvette.html quote:She spent most of the Ed Miliband era as shadow home secretary, one of the easiest jobs in politics, since there's always something going wrong in the Home Office to provide you with ammunition. This was, famously, where Tony Blair had made his name in 1992-94 in his 'tough on crime' days. But Cooper failed completely to make the same kind of impact and was largely invisible. 'Home secretary Theresa May was fighting for her political life last night as she was engulfed by the border checks scandal,' read the papers in 2011, but Cooper failed to exploit the situation, and of the two you'd probably bet on May being the one to make it to prime minister. Paxman posted:She's from the same tradition that introduced the National Minimum Wage in the face of opposition from the Tories and right wing media and moved the Overton Window so now even the Tories boast about increasing it; increased funding for schools; increased the number of nurses and doctors; wrote off a lot of debt for the developing world; introduced devolution; created paternity leave; increased child benefit; created sure start; signed the Good Friday agreement; cut pensioner poverty; cut child poverty; doubled the overseas aid budget; abolished Section 28; introduced civil partnerships, and moved the Overton window so even the Tories now try to boast about who loves LGBTQ people the most. The internal politics in the Labour party today doesn't include the option "more 1997 era New Labour". The right wing of the party didn't even want that option in 2007. Labour haven't run an election on that kind of platform since 2005 (Brown promised spending cuts deeper than Thatcher in 2010, Miliband promised to spend less on the NHS than Cameron in 2015). In 2017 Blue Labour is more influential on internal Labour party politics than New Labour. New Labour policies circa 1997-2008 sound depressingly absurd in the current climate: lets double the NHS budget in real terms in 10 years and increase welfare spending by 70%. Do you anticipate a Labour leader from any wing of the party proposing policies like that? Would you want them to? Cerv posted:how have they got those numbers? it's not in line with what I've seen anywhere else, e.g. British Electoral Survey: https://www.ncpolitics.uk/2015/11/where-the-polls-went-wrong.html/4/
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Miftan posted:Are you sure? People aren't exactly known for being generous and loving even when they're doing well. case in point: every millionaire ever barring a handful. Yeah, but nobody goes "I'm good where I am, and my kids have a good shot of being better, so let's burn the entire system down". People who think they've got nothing to lose because everything's poo poo vote for burning the whole system down. Go back a couple of pages; that brexit guy was literally saying that it'd only be bad for London because the North was already too poo poo to notice. jBrereton posted:For sure, but the vector of nationalism is how they expressed it, and I think it was largely because it was made more acceptable by the Tories that it was an appealing idea. Oh, sure. But, as I said, that's just the facepaint. If it'd been some kind of undying new labour government, it'd be something about asylum seekers or knife crime or exiling terrorists to the arctic or something. It is, to forgive my vicky reference, an intersection of high militancy and low consciousness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Listening to Nandy she does seem to have a reasonably good diagnosis of the issues; why's she not in the running for leadership? A case of "I've got the diagnosis right and treatment wrong" or what?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Yeah, but nobody goes "I'm good where I am, and my kids have a good shot of being better, so let's burn the entire system down". People who think they've got nothing to lose because everything's poo poo vote for burning the whole system down. Go back a couple of pages; that brexit guy was literally saying that it'd only be bad for London because the North was already too poo poo to notice. Oh yeah, but they'd still be up for burning down a different system! That's basically modern capitalism in a nutshell w/r/t the developing world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Bring back the Empire and conquer Argentina, IMHO.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Listening to Nandy she does seem to have a reasonably good diagnosis of the issues; why's she not in the running for leadership? A case of "I've got the diagnosis right and treatment wrong" or what? She's too left wing for the Labour right and she hitched her wagon to Owen Smith in a big way in the coup and so there's some serious bad blood between her and the Labour left.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Miftan posted:Oh yeah, but they'd still be up for burning down a different system! That's basically modern capitalism in a nutshell w/r/t the developing world. The economic exploitation of the developing world isn't even on the agenda for most voters. Do you think any of them could even name any of those places with more specificity than the continent they're on? Lord of the Llamas posted:She's too left wing for the Labour right and she hitched her wagon to Owen Smith in a big way in the coup and so there's some serious bad blood between her and the Labour left. That'd do it, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:She's too left wing for the Labour right and she hitched her wagon to Owen Smith in a big way in the coup and so there's some serious bad blood between her and the Labour left. Isn't there a poster here who's one of her constituents and said she's not interested in sticking her head above the parapet after the poo poo she got for resigning from the shadow cabinet?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
dispatch_async posted:The internal politics in the Labour party today doesn't include the option "more 1997 era New Labour". The right wing of the party didn't even want that option in 2007. Labour haven't run an election on that kind of platform since 2005 (Brown promised spending cuts deeper than Thatcher in 2010, Miliband promised to spend less on the NHS than Cameron in 2015). In 2017 Blue Labour is more influential on internal Labour party politics than New Labour. Centrist triangulation under a Tory government normally takes the form of 'like the Tories but'. Like the Tories but we'll fund the NHS. Like the Tories but we'll invest in schools. Like the Tories but we'' cut the prison population. If they're going for More Tory Than Tories on spending and health, what the gently caress is their USP? Like the Tories but you cross a different box?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
I thought they were more socialist than the Blairites but socially conservative and anti-immigrant?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:What do Blue Labour even stand for? I've only seen their sponsored posts with huge flags and 'traditionalism'. Blue Labour are the "We stand for working class concerns, and when we say that we mean white working class concerns about race and the gays and literally nothing else"
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Sorry, but this just doesn't hold water at all. Do you really believe that, for example, if the Tories in 2003 had stuck with IDS and held their course without listening to May's warnings about their public perception and grudgingly embracing Cameron's makeover, they'd have been able to come out on top in 2010? I was arguing that rightwing Labour governments that do little are bad because they give Tories time to recover their popularity and what little they do can easily be overturned when the Tories get in. At the most you're arguing that the process might have taken longer than it did (and I'd agree, and blame the LibDems).
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Bring back the Empire and conquer Argentina, IMHO. Raise the Belgrano and sink the fucker again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Your first link appears borked. But the issue is that it's not poorer voters; it's everyone. The UK's growth for the man on the ground has been stagnant; almost nobody is seeing any improvements in their circumstances lately. That's an issue. On tube at the mo so I can't find any more sources right now but I really think the situation is more complicated than this. Scotland and NI have had plenty of poverty/wage stagnation/deindustrialisation right? But they have had effective political and cultural leadership from the left to combat the popularist poo poo that's taken hold in 'provincial' England.. (I think?) e: in any case, I think we need to recognise the cultural issues as well as the economic ones. So that we can fight back on both fronts. It's not like there are many sections of the voting public that labour can afford to ignore right now.. spectralent posted:Listening to Nandy she does seem to have a reasonably good diagnosis of the issues; why's she not in the running for leadership? A case of "I've got the diagnosis right and treatment wrong" or what? El Grillo fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
dispatch_async posted:The internal politics in the Labour party today doesn't include the option "more 1997 era New Labour". The right wing of the party didn't even want that option in 2007. Labour haven't run an election on that kind of platform since 2005 (Brown promised spending cuts deeper than Thatcher in 2010, Miliband promised to spend less on the NHS than Cameron in 2015). In 2017 Blue Labour is more influential on internal Labour party politics than New Labour. Surely it didn't seem like I was suggesting Labour should today should just echo the policies of 1997 to 2005. I'm saying Labour's record in Government suggests it's not true that the party is just as bad as the Tories when it gets into power, even when it has a centrist leader. It's actually better than the Tories, and would be again. Having said that, there's no denying people like Yvette Cooper did a really bad job of explaining what Labour should stand for today, during the 2015 leadership campaign, and looked a lot like they hadn't bothered to think very hard about it. She'd still be a better leader than what we have now though in my view (it's a low bar). So would Lisa Nandy. I don't think proposing a huge increase in NHS funding is a bad idea, even if it means tax rises. McDonnell's plan to set up an independent authoritative body to work out just how much extra spending the NHS needs might be a sensible way of preparing public opinion for this,. rather than simply naming a figure now. On welfare, I'd like to see a government axe the bedroom tax and reverse various cuts on people with disabilities and people in low incomes generally, but I don't know what the correct figure is or claim to know enough about the welfare system to know exactly what's needed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Raise the Belgrano and sink the fucker again. No need for a war, just buy the country, it'll be a lot cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Paxman posted:Surely it didn't seem like I was suggesting Labour should today should just echo the policies of 1997 to 2005. I'm saying Labour's record in Government suggests it's not true that the party is just as bad as the Tories when it gets into power, even when it has a centrist leader. It's actually better than the Tories, and would be again. Labour's record in government is irrelevant since the people who ran the government back then are not the New Labour of today, and every indicator shows that New Labour of today would in fact be the Tories with human-esque face. And even if that's a bit better than the Tories, it quite simply isn't good enough to actully fix any of the problems that need solving.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
wait hang on, blue labour is a thing not just an insult ?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:wait hang on, blue labour is a thing not just an insult ? Unfortunately not. Blue Labour website posted:The challenge to conventional politics at the moment is the question of what the political world might look like if it tried to work with rather than against the grain of our humanity.’ – from the Foreword by Rowan Williams
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Paxman posted:Surely it didn't seem like I was suggesting Labour should today should just echo the policies of 1997 to 2005. I'm saying Labour's record in Government suggests it's not true that the party is just as bad as the Tories when it gets into power, even when it has a centrist leader. It's actually better than the Tories, and would be again. The point is you can't use the good things New Labour did in 97-05 as justification for supporting the Labour right in 2017 because the current Labour right thinks a lot of the good things you identified were mistakes. Pointing out that they introduced the modern form of tax credits doesn't change the fact that in 2017 they want to cut tax credits. Paxman posted:Having said that, there's no denying people like Yvette Cooper did a really bad job of explaining what Labour should stand for today, during the 2015 leadership campaign, and looked a lot like they hadn't bothered to think very hard about it. I don't think the problem is lack of effort. The Labour spadosphere has been producing massive amounts of material on that topic for the last decade. JFairfax posted:wait hang on, blue labour is a thing not just an insult ? Oh man have I got some bad news for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Labour quote:Blue Labour suggests that abstract concepts of equality and internationalism have held back the Labour Party from linking with the real concerns of many voters, its concern over equality leading to an 'obsession with the postcode lottery'[7] and its belief in internationalism leading to it ignoring the fears of low-paid workers about immigration. As an alternative to those ideas, Blue Labour emphasises the importance of democratic engagement and insists that the Labour Party should seek to reinvigorate its relationships with different communities across the nation, with an approach based on what historian Dominic Sandbrook describes as "family, faith, and flag"
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
dispatch_async posted:Chuka Umunna, the Labour former Shadow Business Secretary, has said Blue Labour "provides the seeds of national renewal" Hahahahahahahahahahahahaah Every time I think Chuka can't be more of a oval office
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Jesus.  I'd rather he called Momentum beta cucks than unironically rehashing 30s fascist slogans,
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
Lib dem broadcast on atm. It's poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 19:29
|
|