|
That's exactly how the british press works though, if you start taking issue with literally anything people do that doesn't involve their personal interactions with you then the entire thing would fall apart because they're all a bunch of utterly reprehensible noncing freaks. Killing their wives is probably the least harmful thing most of them have ever done.
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 13:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 05:17 |
|
|
Reveilled posted:I do wonder how 2017 would have gone with him at the helm. Maybe it would have made no difference, but I feel McDonnell projects more "authority" than Corbyn did, maybe that could have pushed us over the line. Harder to sing his name to Seven Nation Army though, so, swings and roundabouts. "Ohhh, Big John McDonnell!"
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 13:14
|
|
|
Big John was one of the people completely against Corbyns no 2nd referendum stance, saying so on twitter if I recall correctly. So if anything I hold him partially responsible for labours 2019 defeat. But it was what the party wanted as a whole. I just don't think it'd have made much of a difference, or even a positive one.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 13:19
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:I feel McDonnell projects more "authority" than Corbyn did, maybe that could have pushed us over the line. Nah, McDonnell looks and sounds like a politician and indulges in triangulatory political gaming as with his pledge on sticking within Tory spending rules. Corbyn had kindly grandpa appeal and seemed refreshingly different and honest, until all the political gaming around Brexit helped undermine that. We really need to move away from suits.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 13:24
|
|
|
McDonnell was a poo poo shadow chancellor who signed up to Osborne austerity while simultaneously bringing maos book into the commons for the world's most ill advised political stunt
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 13:51
|
|
|
Communist Thoughts posted:bringing maos book into the commons for the world's most ill advised political stunt That was a loving great joke tbh.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 13:54
|
|
|
Communist Thoughts posted:the commons for the world's most ill advised political stunt I'm not a huge McDonnell fan (see above), but I don't believe the little red book joke changed a single political mind.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 14:02
|
|
|
It was the worst of both worlds imo, austerity economics while also waving around krazy kommie stuff And with the purpose of accusing Osborne of being too commie iirc E corbyn had his own problems but was a lot better choice as leader imo. Communist Thoughts fucked around with this message at 14:10 on May 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 14:08
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Big John was one of the people completely against Corbyns no 2nd referendum stance, saying so on twitter if I recall correctly. So if anything I hold him partially responsible for labours 2019 defeat. But it was what the party wanted as a whole. I just don't think it'd have made much of a difference, or even a positive one. Oh dear me posted:Nah, McDonnell looks and sounds like a politician and indulges in triangulatory political gaming as with his pledge on sticking within Tory spending rules. Corbyn had kindly grandpa appeal and seemed refreshingly different and honest, until all the political gaming around Brexit helped undermine that. Both fair points, I guess in the fog of the past I'd forgotten about his flaws, and those are large ones.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 14:12
|
|
|
I don't really see the problem with the spending promises, they highlight that even taking all the austerity nonsense at face value it's very possible to do better than the Tories are now, and it's not like previously elected governments have been consistently brought to task over election spending promises.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 14:18
|
|
|
josh04 posted:I don't really see the problem with the spending promises, they highlight that even taking all the austerity nonsense at face value it's very possible to do better than the Tories are now, and it's not like previously elected governments have been consistently brought to task over election spending promises. Well, the problem was that the whole point for a lot of us of electing Corbyn as Labour leader was to have a prominent public official, a prominent political party, to make a case for ending austerity. Not doing that was bad. Not making a bold enough case for why Labour was different AND better than the Tories on the economy as well as on social issues hurt.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 14:21
|
|
|
It was validating the Tory economic perspective, playing a game around managerial competency rather than class politics of resistance and anger. Corbynism relied massively on rhetoric to cover it's limitations so it was a major strategic and ideological mistake to go along with the fiscal rule rather than just reject it.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 14:22
|
|
|
I don't think there are very many people who think of 2016-19 labour and think "they were too pro austerity"...
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 14:22
|
|
|
Mebh posted:Maybe I'm being far too charitable but is that what Labour are really doing? The opposite of the Tories' Speak about socialist policies and nice poo poo but do nothing to fix it. To be honest Labour are just addicted to drama. Doesn't matter who the leader is there's always someone willing to go to the press and poo poo talk them. The press love drama so it just goes on and on and on. It's incredible to see.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 14:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't think there are very many people who think of 2016-19 labour and think "they were too pro austerity"... Did you not see the voxpop from Hartlepool where they said they voted Tory because of Labour's austerity?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 14:28
|
|
|
Aramoro posted:Did you not see the voxpop from Hartlepool where they said they voted Tory because of Labour's austerity? Voters say a lot of stupid things, because a lot of them are stupid people. They probably also think diane abbot is going to personally come and cut their cocks off or something. If people want to believe labour under corbyn were a pro austerity party then they might as well believe the moon is made of cheese and you might as well ignore them because they live in a different dimension.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 14:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't think there are very many people who think of 2016-19 labour and think "they were too pro austerity"... i think thats probably true, afaik its just been me. its pretty hard to tell after the fact what individual events hosed us but imo it did mark the corbyn team as not understanding economics and not actually being interested in the reality of transformative policy, it was basically just PR to reassure.... i dont really know who, neoliberals? I think the FT crowd would have actually been interested in an alternative economic plan. I suppose more likely they just didn't really know enogh to take initiative on it, which is most MPs interaction with economics. so they had the new economists they breifly pretended to listen to explaining complicated things to them but theyve also got the times financial editor or whoever going "well its like a credit card innit"
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 14:33
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't think there are very many people who think of 2016-19 labour and think "they were too pro austerity"... I like Big John because he's hard as nails & interviews well, but he's far too much of a thug and a politician to command the love & loyalty that Corbyn got.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 14:35
|
|
|
Aramoro posted:Did you not see the voxpop from Hartlepool where they said they voted Tory because of Labour's austerity? i think theyr talking about local government there, which may well be pro-austerity labour ghouls
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 14:35
|
|
|
I don't think there are very many people who either understand or care enough about economics enough for it to be a relevant part of a political party's messaging rather than the far plainer storybook version of events, and 2017 was very much labour saying they could spend money and builld social structures and do things to help people vs may saying no we can't do any of those things. 2019 is different because of course johnson just lies about everything and the press goes "how can we possibly tell the difference" and so do the voters because again, they're idiots.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 14:37
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Yeah, the Tories want the liberal option where OwlFancier posted:I don't think a lot of them do, no. It's what they genuinely think therefore it must be popular and correct. That's what being a politician is, belieiving in your own rightness axiomatically and enforcing that on the world. Corbyn looks at popular opinion and thinks 'how can we shift it towards our ideology?' Keith looks at opinion polls (probably rigged by the party right) and thinks 'what can we say to appeal to that?' That's the difference. He also reeks of the kind of manager who gives you a carefully worded bollocking for failing to meet targets he knew you couldn't meet. Corbyn looks like the old boy who's been on the shop floor forever and will happily take five minutes to show you how something works.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 14:38
|
|
|
yea i dont think electorally it was a bad thing, i think like... grip on reality wise it was a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 14:38
|
|
|
If politicians understood reality they wouldn't be politicians.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 14:41
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:Corbyn looks at popular opinion and thinks 'how can we shift it towards our ideology?' Keith looks at opinion polls (probably rigged by the party right) and thinks 'what can we say to appeal to that?' That's the difference. I don't think this is true, I think starmer and his ilk already know exactly what their desired answer is (it is moving right) and simply assemble a body of fact shaped things to support that. And selectively ignore or elide or minimise anything that would threaten that conclusion. Which I don't really have a problem with as a process because that is how you construct a consensus, I just object to what he believes in.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 14:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If politicians understood reality they wouldn't be politicians. They understand reality, it's just their objectives might be opaque to us some of the time.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 14:47
|
|
|
yeah i agree with owl that the labour right, similar to the labour left, genuinely beleive their own policies and ideology is both Correct and actually really popular if given a chance (difference is we actually are Correct and pretty much demonstrably more popular currently, if still not popular enough) thats why the blairites are trying to purge not just the left but the centre left and blue labour and basically every other group
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 14:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't think this is true, I think starmer and his ilk already know exactly what their desired answer is (it is moving right) and simply assemble a body of fact shaped things to support that. And selectively ignore or elide or minimise anything that would threaten that conclusion. In traditional politics I think you're absolutely right, and the leadership fudges stats to get them to say whatever they want. In Starmer's case though I think he's being fed bad stats and interpretations and genuinely believes it all.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 14:48
|
|
|
No one has a mind the size of the universe capable of understanding all reality. Politicians understand realities, as do voters, and the divorce between those realities is stark. And as for the tory reality, there is no contradiction in the fact that Tories are spending. They are not idealists, they are classical realists, whose One Nation principles are built not on a moral or ideological foundation, but on Realpolitik, and the understanding that appeasements made from a position of economic strength can restore their balance of power in the class war. They need a loyal class, possibly a middle class, to become a two in the war of three, and not a bourgeois against the proletariat.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 14:51
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:The important thing to remember is that if you are a politician like Corbyn or McDonnell with an actual ideology, it's kind of your job to argue that case. In the case of the media and labour right though, the case is purely 'we want to be in power' and they bend ideology to make that happen. I think unfortunately you need both strands of this, you need to push people towards you ideology but that takes time, sometimes more time than election cycles. So you also need to workout how to appeal to bend you polices to appeal to people as well. That's why it's so easy for the Tories just now, we've had this neo-liberal ideology for so long and it 'feels' so appealing to people that they can just focus on the tactical part of getting votes, they don't need to bother with the strategic part of moving people towards you ideals.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 14:51
|
|
|
Aramoro posted:They understand reality, it's just their objectives might be opaque to us some of the time. I don't think it is possible for an ideologue to understand reality, not fully, and certainly not the kind that becomes a successful politician. It necessitates being able to act with complete conviction that you are in the right regardless of any evidence. I think a specialized ignorance is a more likely explanation for that than highly advanced compartmentalization where they are actually aware of all the condradictions.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 14:51
|
|
|
In other news: https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1391710357379497986?s=19 "Cases are where they were last summer." Weren't they nightmarishly bad last summer? I'm mostly pissed off because it means the stalker we picked up last year is going to start harrassing us to meet up again and I'm too nice to just tell him to gently caress off and find someone else.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 14:52
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:I currently don't have any legal ID. It costs £70 to renew a passport and £30 for a provisional driving license, which not everywhere accepts as ID. That's a huge chunk out of the budget of anyone expected to survive on the £600 a month the government think you can survive on. Pretty sure any kind of national ID card is going cost somewhere in that range, if not more. That created a system that people wanted to get involved with. We're given a choice between "we don't believe in mandatory ID but if you can't afford £70 you can't vote and we might Windrush you" and "our mandatory ID would come with strong security features like the police hitting you if you're not carrying it" and they wonder why people are against it.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 14:54
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:In traditional politics I think you're absolutely right, and the leadership fudges stats to get them to say whatever they want. In Starmer's case though I think he's being fed bad stats and interpretations and genuinely believes it all. It can be both, he can simply ignore all information or interpretations that do not favour his pre-established conclusion, and he can do this almost automatically. It's quite easy to do, you probably do at least part of it yourself because you will automatically jump to explanations that fit your pre-conceived left wing bias because you don't see the need to work it all out from first principles every time you are exposed to a new situation. You instead pull up previous experiences and see if any of them contain a pattern than fits your new situation.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 14:54
|
|
|
I saw an interesting discussion on voter ID on Twitter basically saying it's a policy that Tories who watch too much American news have stolen with zero consideration of whether it actually tracks to the UK (in terms of benefitting them). The numbers on passports, drivers licenses etc are all over the place but if you dig in you start seeing a lot of things that aren't that consistent with how people assume it will apply. Like the type of voter least likely to have a passport is people aged 60+ who voted Labour in 2017 and Leave (ie. the exact demographic that has swung heavily Tory). Not that any disenfranchisement is good, just that the whole idea has been brainlessly imported without any serious assessment of whether it achieves even its cynical goals. peanut- fucked around with this message at 15:02 on May 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 14:59
|
|
|
I also wonder both that and how many brain rotted old tory gits end up screaming at a polling station on election day while younger voters think ahead. I doubt it will be good but I am also a bit curious as to whether they have actually thought about the likely effects.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 15:00
|
|
|
Strength without virtue is barbarism. Virtue without strength is frivolity. No one yet has married the two, so we are ruled by barbarians and moralised by empty conjectures.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 15:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You instead pull up previous experiences and see if any of them contain a pattern than fits your new situation.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 15:03
|
|
|
The Starmer Effect.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 15:03
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:In other news: Nah they were very low for most of summer (particularly the back half), it’s spring that was the nightmare. They started picking up hugely in September when the hot weather came to an end and people started spending a lot more time indoors
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 15:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 05:17 |
|
|
lol Keir publicly ate fish and chips in the Hartleypool campaign in order to connect with the working man, even though he's a lifelong vegetarian.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 15:07
|
|
