|
jabby posted:There are two kinds of people you can talk to. There are people who don't know all the bad things this Tory government is doing, or who don't know Labours policies, and they should be educated. Then there are people who are fully aware of those things but who say 'you need to convince me to vote Labour' because they want an opportunity to be a smug douchebag and make disparaging comments about naive socialists. I thought the crimes of this govt were just millibands policies?
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 11:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:45 |
|
|
Breath Ray posted:I thought Don't lie
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:I don't disagree that it's a decision that put him against his base. I just don't see what else he or anyone else could do. Labour are haemorrhaging support from pro-leave voters, not remainers. How would a free vote have put him in a stronger position with those voters? Consider Hillary - when your own base aren't enthusiastic about you what then will drive other people to reconsider their choices? Either Labour should've gone full blown pre-Brexit the entire way, thus making Brexit apolitical for both sides (awful policy) or hard against thereby solidifying themselves as a passionate opposition. Instead under Corbyn the policy was a complete clusterfuck and no one knew where Labour stood, so to the general observer it could be anything and thus no one believed anyone. This is less about a free vote as much as a uniform front, instead they tried to appeal to both sides and ended up appealing to none.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 11:46
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:I don't disagree that it's a decision that put him against his base. I just don't see what else he or anyone else could do. Labour are haemorrhaging support from pro-leave voters, not remainers. How would a free vote have put him in a stronger position with those voters? they're losing leavers to the Tories but do the polls reflect remainers who might stay home because they feel no-one represents them?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 11:50
|
|
|
Lot of ppl vote for their MPs not labour leader so would have been good to give them that wriggle room imo
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 12:01
|
|
|
Baron Corbyn posted:they're losing leavers to the Tories but do the polls reflect remainers who might stay home because they feel no-one represents them? Nope, that statement was based on internal Labour polling. Some remainers might well do but not in nearly the numbers to outweigh the leavers. Also very few people know much about their personal MP or what they do for them. Having different messages from different MPs in neighbouring constituencies would make for weird and unhelpful optics.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 12:26
|
|
|
Breath Ray posted:Lot of ppl vote for their MPs not labour leader so would have been good to give them that wriggle room imo
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 12:28
|
|
|
Labour has managed to make itself irrelevant on the biggest political issue for decades.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
Should just have done a free vote. I fail to see how an announcement on the along the lines of the following wouldn't have worked: 'Although the British people have voted for brexit by a very small majority I cant in all conscious instruct my MP's to vote for it, so I will therefore allow a free vote so my MP's can vote however the majority of their constituents voted.' (sub-text, do what you want while we will loose it anyway but at least democracy is observed and the party line is covered either way unless there is a massive Tory rebellion which there wont be because posh cunts know which side their bread is buttered)
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 12:32
|
|
|
Which is why if you're going to get rid of a lame duck leader, you better finish the job. Instead of making the situation worse.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 12:34
|
|
|
Replacing Corbyn won't make a blind bit of difference to the outcome of this general election, it's far too close to do anything but distract from campaigning to save all the seats they can. Only thing that would happen is the new person would have losing a general election as the first thing on their leadership CV, and that would be lunacy. It's politics 101. FYI, the reason a lot of people only come into this thread when something major happens is because when nothing is going on it's the same circlejerk about Corbyn going on and on and on and on and it's all really rather predictable and dull at this point. learnincurve fucked around with this message at 12:52 on May 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 12:47
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:Nope, that statement was based on internal Labour polling. Some remainers might well do but not in nearly the numbers to outweigh the leavers. It seems from the outside even now no one knows what Labour's position is and there are different messages because the leader is a believer in brexit (insofar as the EU is a bad thing to socialism) while the membership are against brexit and the MPs are every which way with some falling in line and some being forced into line. Its just over and needs a hard reset, its a clusterfuck. learnincurve posted:Replacing Corbyn won't make a blind bit of difference to the outcome of this general election, it's far too close to do anything but distract from campaigning to save all the seats they can. Only thing that would happen is the new person would have losing a general election as the first thing on their leadership CV, and that would be lunacy. It's politics 101. You are correct it won't make a lick of difference. It is however a disaster there are true believers who think he is the only way forward and thinking a replacement of him wpuld be "Corbyn would've won". Corbyrnouts. Lid fucked around with this message at 12:54 on May 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Should just have done a free vote. I fail to see how an announcement on the along the lines of the following wouldn't have worked: "I and the Labour Party are clear that a majority voted for Brexit, it has an always will be our policy to respect the outcome of that referendum and deliver a Brexit that works best for the UK.", but don't three-line whip, which gives some MPs the freedom to vote against. And then if pushed on "but why didn't you whip?" "I reiterate that it is the policy of the Labour Party to respect the outcome of the referendum and deliver a Brexit that works best for the British people. On this occasion, given the unique and monumental nature of Brexit, and acknowledging that the British people across the country that we the Labour Party represent hold wide and varied views on Brexit. We must remember that we work for the British people, and it is our job as MPs to represent the views of our constituents in Parliament. Therefore, on this occasion, I have decided to allow Labour Party MPs a free vote on this matter." Ewan fucked around with this message at 13:01 on May 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
John Harris has done another mini-edition of Anywhere but Westminster: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/06/brexit-britain-theresa-may-election-victory
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
I'm listening to Radio 4 and in the past 15 minutes or so they've given Paul Nuttall, head of the racist party with no MPs and one councillor, three audio quotes. Nothing from notably more successful minority parties Plaid, the SNP, the Greens, and only a quote each from the big 3 (only Farron got a voice recording). Northern Ireland doesn't exist of course.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:I'm listening to Radio 4 and in the past 15 minutes or so they've given Paul Nuttall, head of the racist party with no MPs and one councillor, three audio quotes. Nothing from notably more successful minority parties Plaid, the SNP, the Greens, and only a quote each from the big 3 (only Farron got a voice recording). Northern Ireland doesn't exist of course. The BBC sure love giving UKIP oxygen
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
The topic of BBC bias is always an interesting one. The left often accuse it of having a right/Tory bias (often with legitimate examples) and the right often accuse it of having a leftist bias (often with legitimate examples). Maybe this means it's actually doing an OK job in a pretty difficult political climate.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
A free vote on Brexit is even easier than that: "The people of Britain have voted in a referendum and now parliament will pass legislation to reflect that result. Labour's policy is to respect the will of the people and so I shall expect every Labour MP to vote in accordance with the wishes of their constituents, to represent not just the majority who voted to leave but also to make sure that those areas of the country which voted to remain are not forgotten".
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
Lid posted:It seems from the outside even now no one knows what Labour's position is and there are different messages because the leader is a believer in brexit (insofar as the EU is a bad thing to socialism) while the membership are against brexit and the MPs are every which way with some falling in line and some being forced into line. Its just over and needs a hard reset, its a clusterfuck. Again, there isn't a cult of personality around Corbyn, it's just that people signed up to vote for him because he's the only explicit socialist who ran either time. If someone more polished who is also a confirmed socialist ran, people would probably vote for them. So far, that hasn't been a option. Ewan posted:The topic of BBC bias is always an interesting one. The left often accuse it of having a right/Tory bias (often with legitimate examples) and the right often accuse it of having a leftist bias (often with legitimate examples). Maybe this means it's actually doing an OK job in a pretty difficult political climate. The BBC has a heavy liberal bias, which is why both the far right and the left accuse it of bias. Essentially the BBC is a mouthpiece of the liberal status quo, which considers a socialist Labour a much greater threat than UKIP. MikeCrotch fucked around with this message at 13:14 on May 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 13:11
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:It's as bad as those who think that the lurch to the right by all levels of society is an issue entirely down to one man. A sacrificial lamb who once slaughtered will bring us back to the 'moderate' centre 'non-loony' ground. it is all down to Tony Blair and his participation in a religious war which has defined the last 15 years
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 13:19
|
|
|
Socialists - and more broadly the Left - need to accept this Human selfishness and use it to their advantage. At the moment Conservative viewpoint of money/wealth/ownership = life success is prevailing, and this benefits them hugely and will see their powerbase grow. The Left needs to stop trying the compassion card - it does not work - it needs to demonstrate why their policies will benefit the voters' core interests (and influence what people perceive their core interests to be) and slowly change the mentality of the electorate. Until this happens, the Left will become increasingly irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 13:20
|
|
|
lol now we have Nigel Farage on Any Questions along with the big three English parties. Cool. e: don't know much about Emily Thornbury but she seems at least pretty good at radio in this format and is saying reasonable stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
Ewan posted:You missed one, possibly the most important. Their policies might be good, but it's no good if they're so incompetent they can't implement them without loving up. That is the perception most people have - and frankly you can't say it's not true because there is no evidence (equally you can't say it is true either). the thing people seem to forget is that it isn't really the politicians who implement policies, it's the loving civil service. ALSO the tories are loving poo poo at implementing policies as well - see Ian Duncan Smith's colossal gently caress up of the universal tax credits system
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Again, there isn't a cult of personality around Corbyn, it's just that people signed up to vote for him because he's the only explicit socialist who ran either time. If someone more polished who is also a confirmed socialist ran, people would probably vote for them. So far, that hasn't been a option. Yeah, I voted for Corbyn the 1st time round because the alternatives were so poo poo. Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper going: "we lost because we just were'nt grey enough, were'nt timid enough, didn't triangulate hard enough. If we double down on the greyness and timidity and triangulation, we'll surely win next time round!" And Liz Kendell with her hot take that in order to beat the Tories, Labour must become the Tories. The 2nd time around, it was Corbyn or Owen Smith. As soon as a better alternative to Corbyn comes up, I'll cheerfully vote for them instead but for all the triumphant denunciatons of Corbyn from the Labour establishment, alternatives remain strikingly thin on the ground!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:it is all down to Tony Blair and his participation in a religious war which has defined the last 15 years forkboy84 posted:The BBC sure love giving UKIP oxygen
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 13:33
|
|
|
Yeah, most "Corbynistas" or whatever bollocks you want to parrot are just people unwilling to put "winning" before ideology. Because they have critical thinking skills and realise that winning on the wrong platform isn't actually winning. Who is "you"? YOU know who you are. Regarde Aduck fucked around with this message at 13:38 on May 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:His deep suspicion on the home front that ordinary working people, especially brown ones, might be up to something also put a lot of people off him. Maybe more than the war. yup, and that suspicion but also the huge war against Islam has made people in the UK more right wing, more racist and more jingoistic.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 13:36
|
|
|
Hi I'm a fat dumb American gawking from the sidelines, what is Yvette Cooper's ideological stance like? I gather more centrist than Corbyn but to what degree? More of a 2016 Hillary, saying left-ish things but very clearly with no heart in it, or more genuinely soft-left? Or Blairite Third Way monster?
icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 14:13 on May 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
Ewan posted:
This isn't backed up by evidence - people have a limited capacity for empathy, yes, but only in the sense that there are limited number of people an individual can care about. People certainly can and do feel empathy for others - what we are seeing today is the result of decades of liberal culture convincing everyone that the only way to get ahead is to outcompete with everyone else by any means necessary, which of course is going to create a society where people look at anyone outside of their immediate friends and family as a potential threat to their own well being. There is absolutely nothing to say that this is the default situation and that there is no other way a society can be run, as can clearly be seen from the fact that all parties in the UK used to be much more socialist than they are today. Labour is definitely trying to appeal to people's interests anyway, since the majority of people are in the situation where they use the NHS, can't afford a house and haven't seen their wages improve. Socialism provides answers to these problems, but it's incredibly difficult to convince people of that because of the current political and cultural climate. It's going to take time and effort to turn that around. icantfindaname posted:Hi I'm a fat dumb American gawking from the sidelines, what is Yvette Cooper's ideological stance like? I gather more centrist than Corbyn but to what degree? More of a 2016 Hillary, saying left-ish things but very clearly with no heart in it, or more genuinely progressive? She is a dyed in the wool neoliberal centrist, and I don't remember ever hearing her espouse any sort of left wing ideas. She's slo really keen on the idea of being tough on crime, to the degree that David Cameron had the Tories run on a campaign that they would be softer on crime than her when she was Shadow Home Secretary. She also completely failed to hold Theresa May to account over the Yarls Wood incident, where people waiting to be deported were raped and killed by the private prison company running the place, but May refused to investigate because it would hurt the company's share price. MikeCrotch fucked around with this message at 13:49 on May 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Yeah, most "Corbynistas" or whatever bollocks you want to parrot are just people unwilling to put "winning" before ideology. Because they have critical thinking skills and realise that winning on the wrong platform isn't actually winning. What are you on about?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Yeah, most "Corbynistas" or whatever bollocks you want to parrot are just people unwilling to put "winning" before ideology. Because they have critical thinking skills and realise that winning on the wrong platform isn't actually winning. It's like those exams with multiple sections, where if you fail one section you fail the whole thing. That's Corbyns leadership. Insufficiently good enough at elements you need to be sufficiently good enough at or you'll fail. And his supporters think his good qualities can make up for his bad, whereas the majority of people saw at least a year ago that they can't. Edit: or, I should say, they weren't. He's getting better and improving his strategy a lot recently and may continue to do so. But it pretty much is down to him that people don't want to vote labour right now and it was a grave and consequential mistake to make him leader Hoops fucked around with this message at 14:15 on May 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
Hoops posted:They're actually people who don't realise that it is not a competition to find the most left-wing MP, with the highest scoring socialist to be the person appointed leader of a large and complicated organisation. It's not a competition to find the most left-wing MP, but anyone who isn't a socialist has no loving business running a nation state half the thread seems ready to adopt long-bailley based on one QT
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
The trouble is that, given the way our system works, if Labour's not making a serious effort to win then it's literally helping the Tories.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
i can't wait for 2022, andy burnham's race to party leadership, where everyone in here forgets that they apparently hated him in 2015/6 and are suddenly big supporters because the alternatives are worse
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
The Labour party itself is a socialist party, the idea that a socialist running it is some sort of extreme case of entryism is a compliment to Tony Blair and his lot.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
Essentially, this entire question boils down to whether you think socialist policy is a bigger key to victory in the long term than better pr with no guarantee of truly left wing policy. Personally I think you need to have Obama levels of charisma to sell liberalism these days, which is why I'm thoroughly unconvinced that Cooper or Smith would be doing a better job than Corbyn right now.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:I'm not disputing that. I'm just wondering why the specific order of negotiations matters, because I'm legit unsure. The Brexiteers were adamant that we could conduct negotiations in parallel despite the EU saying they didn't want to. They were wrong and people said so at the time, now reality is just confirming it. Zephro fucked around with this message at 14:38 on May 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
That's the depressing thing about Corbyn, he's simply not racist enough to be successful
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:45 |
|
|
We need a new version of this for Corbyn https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YCKs-aBdyw
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 14:51
|
|
