Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
crispix
Mar 28, 2015

Grand-Maman m'a raconté
(Les éditions des amitiés franco-québécoises)

Hello, dear

kingturnip posted:

Labour's infantile obsession with focus groups and political consultants is entirely because they've misunderstood how Blair won elections.
They think it's because he triangulated and focus-grouped everything to death, when actually it's because he Human Centipeded himself to Murdoch's arse and rode the coattails of tabloid approval. The focus groups and triangulation were red herrings.

And they're so comfortable middle class that there's never been a reason for any of them to have their own ideas about policies. They choose the policies that are popular, and they know that these are popular because the tabloids praise the Tories when they talk about them.

this post should be framed imo - it encapsulates why labour is a loving lost cause

justcola posted:

I wonder who people are who end up in focus groups.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Pistol_Pete
Sep 15, 2007

Oven Wrangler

Niric posted:


I'd say that does exude confidence, at least of a certain kind. Using focus groups as a factional tool to give the answer you want (so you can effectively say "look, the public agrees with me") suggests you are confident people will believe you. It's setting the agenda, or at least saying your agenda is also the public's agenda, and I think that gets to what Pistol Pete was saying.


I was actually pretty much just spitballing but I like your interpretation, so I'll go with that. I do believe that Labour under Blair were much more actively shaping the national agenda, instead of just reacting to events initiated by the Tories as Starmer does.

Put even more simply, in the runup to '97, you got the very clear impression that Labour were confident of winning and actively preparing for government while today the leadership shows this consistent lack of nerve that turns people off from them.

1965917
Oct 4, 2005

Bobby Deluxe posted:

Good thread summarising the BBC'S 'mistakes' from 2019 that just happened to be in the tories favour. The 0.6 / 0.06 thing seems like it might have been an honest mistake but remembering some of the others, especially the question time stuff, made me go a bit Rafael Behr.

https://twitter.com/docrussjackson/status/1206992886841192451?s=19

A year later and I'm still angry

Barry Foster
Dec 24, 2007

What is going wrong with that one (face is longer than it should be)

1965917 posted:

A year later and I'm still angry

anger is a gift, comrade

The Perfect Element
Dec 5, 2005
"This is a bit of a... a poof song"

1965917 posted:

A year later and I'm still angry

Doesn't even include the famous Kuenssberg tweets about punches being thrown by Labour activists that turned out to be completely fabricated.

Rupert of Hentzau
Nov 23, 2005
Victim of gross furniture discourtesy.

Pistol_Pete posted:

I was actually pretty much just spitballing but I like your interpretation, so I'll go with that. I do believe that Labour under Blair were much more actively shaping the national agenda, instead of just reacting to events initiated by the Tories as Starmer does.

Put even more simply, in the runup to '97, you got the very clear impression that Labour were confident of winning and actively preparing for government while today the leadership shows this consistent lack of nerve that turns people off from them.
it also helped a lot that Blair was young and charismatic, whereas Keir Starmer is Gordon Brittas. this isn't a particular reflection on Starmer, useless poo poo though he is, but rather that the Labour party machine seems to consciously select for Gordon Brittases instead of anyone with a personality and personal dynamism that could bring people along with them. it's a self-perpetuating loop.

Dead Goon
Dec 13, 2002

No Obvious Flaws



Rupert of Hentzau posted:

whereas Keir Starmer is Gordon Brittas.

You take that back!

Gordon Brittas stood for something and had a dream :argh:

Jose
Jul 24, 2007

Adrian Chiles is a broadcaster and writer

NotJustANumber99 posted:

Jose's mate just on radio 4 being gently caressed about Bellingcat funding sources.

What

Guavanaut
Nov 27, 2009

Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998



Toilet Rascal
Just had my first dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech/Mojang/Starbucks vaccine an hour ago. Not dead yet, but not a gay frog yet either.


Nope, nothign.

Second appointment in April assuming that they haven't replaced all the vaccines with vials of expired milk drizzled down Boris's syphilitic cock by then.

Dead Goon posted:

Gordon Brittas stood for something and had a dream :argh:
Kieth Rimmer, Quidditch Certificate

Microplastics
Jul 6, 2007
Probation
Can't post for 6 hours!

The Perfect Element posted:

Doesn't even include the famous Kuenssberg tweets about punches being thrown by Labour activists that turned out to be completely fabricated.

Haha, remember when someone had a go at Boris in a hospital and kuensberg found his twitter and said "here he is!"

Niric
Jul 23, 2008

Dead Goon posted:

You take that back!

Gordon Brittas stood for something and had a dream :argh:

Out of morbid curiosity I just googled "what does Keir Starmer stand for?" and the first result is a BBC news article which sums it up quite well:

quote:

Labour leadership: What does Keir Starmer stand for? - BBC ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk › news › uk-politics-51140301
16 Jan 2020 — Sir Keir Starmer wouldn't today reveal whether he saw his ideas and his ambitions for the country as closer to Jeremy Corbyn or Tony Blair.

Guavanaut
Nov 27, 2009

Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998



Toilet Rascal
Is this shameful cancel pylon culture or is that just when Ash Sarkar does it?

Jose
Jul 24, 2007

Adrian Chiles is a broadcaster and writer
https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/1356207000431030277?s=19

blunt
Jul 7, 2005

Niric posted:

Out of morbid curiosity I just googled "what does Keir Starmer stand for?" and the first result is a BBC news article which sums it up quite well:

Kier's busy talking less, smiling more.

Failed Imagineer
Sep 22, 2018

blunt posted:

Kier's busy talking less, smiling more.

Pfft. Burr tried to conspire with Mexico against the US and start his own country. Keith doesn't exactly have that level of zeal

Jedit
Dec 10, 2011

Proudly supporting vanilla legends 1994-2014

blunt posted:

Kier's busy talking less, smiling more.

He's making more but enjoying it less.

hooman
Oct 11, 2007

This guy seems legit.
Fun Shoe

Necrothatcher posted:

The child grew up to be Toby Young, so I'd say the results are inconclusive.

Look that ape might have bitten off my nose, soiled itself and then flung the poo poo everywhere, but I bet the chimpanzee isn't doing too good either.

Regarde Aduck
Oct 19, 2012

c l o u d k i t t e n
Grimey Drawer
They spent so much energy and probably money loving over the labour left so even if they discovered that yes, the british public would actually really like leftist policies, they can't anymore. Their choices are gently caress around in the middle committing to nothing or move right chasing the tories. We're so blessed that they have currently decided to merely be useless centrists. Remember, leftism is now anti-Semitic. Can't backtrack now.

therattle
Jul 24, 2007
Soiled Meat
Interesting piece about Sky News

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/art...research-finds/

Failed Imagineer
Sep 22, 2018

To which I would say - yes, but now do the BBC

Jose
Jul 24, 2007

Adrian Chiles is a broadcaster and writer
lol i didn't realise Hodge set it all off. She was so loving mad he beat her at a debate years ago jfc

https://twitter.com/troovus/status/1355928971674849287?s=20

The Question IRL
Jun 8, 2013

Only two contestants left! Here is Doom's chance for revenge...

blunt posted:

Kier's busy talking less, smiling more.

During the BLM protests didn't Stammer say that "this is not a movement, just a moment."

So obviously he watched Hamilton, but took all the wrong lessons from it.




The Question IRL fucked around with this message at 14:22 on Feb 1, 2021

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

Shortly before doing the performative kneel and then whingeing about statues, yes.

Jose
Jul 24, 2007

Adrian Chiles is a broadcaster and writer
:eyepop:

https://twitter.com/georgvh/status/1356207941473460225?s=20

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

Did someone lock all the EU politicians in a room over christmas and pipe in some sort of gas that makes people into pillocks?

Guavanaut
Nov 27, 2009

Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998



Toilet Rascal
EU big brains look at a big whiteboard of potential future problems, land on 'Irish reunification'.

"Insinuate you're in league with Rome again," says one, "this will go over very well."

Private Speech
Mar 30, 2011

I HAVE EVEN MORE WORTHLESS BEANIE BABIES IN MY COLLECTION THAN I HAVE WORTHLESS POSTS IN THE BEANIE BABY THREAD YET I STILL HAVE THE TEMERITY TO CRITICIZE OTHERS' COLLECTIONS

IF YOU SEE ME TALKING ABOUT BEANIE BABIES, PLEASE TELL ME TO

EAT. SHIT.


Something something might be a French (or Belgian or whatever) saying?

Seems a bit silly given the context though yeah.

Failed Imagineer
Sep 22, 2018

what the gently caress lmao

ronya
Nov 8, 2010

I'm the normal one.

You hate ridden fucks will regret your words when you eventually grow up.

Peace.

Niric posted:

I pretty much entirely agree with you, and your effort posts about Labour's factional history are always appreciated, but I'd query your reading of this:


I'd say that does exude confidence, at least of a certain kind. Using focus groups as a factional tool to give the answer you want (so you can effectively say "look, the public agrees with me") suggests you are confident people will believe you. It's setting the agenda, or at least saying your agenda is also the public's agenda, and I think that gets to what Pistol Pete was saying.

It's difficult to get proper reads on current internal party/LOTO's office machinations just because these things are by their nature pretty opaque, but it seems a bit of a mess right now and I do think even judged on his own terms Starmer has done a poo poo job so far and failed to impose a coherent identity or any kind of vibe that makes sense beyond the very very narrow scope of labour infighting.

I know the Blair years get mythologised way too much in UK politics, but it really does seem like the current crop of Labour politicians and commentariat don't really understand it, or care to understand it, beyond "Blair was on the right of the party," and think that that in itself is a guarantee of electoral success.

I'd gloss Gould's adventurism as genially tolerated intellectual dishonesty in service of something a reasonable observer would have agreed to be, in the balance of evidence, probably true - but not unambiguously provable in the context of a vicious intraparty battle where every scrap of countervailing evidence would be seized upon as a debunking. It was not enough for the party marketing studies to merely agree with two decades of BSAS trends; it had to be really unanimous. And so it was, with some helpful prodding. Such focus group data, some of better quality than others, was critical during New Labour's ascent in rallying supporters to the confidence would victory would eventually arrive after the shock of 1992

it's important to remember that before Blair actually won, large swathes of the Left genuinely did not think that the Great Moving Right Show was working, even as electoral strategy. Labour being crushingly defeated in 1992 was merely the wages of failing to speak up for the class that had cried out for a champion in the poll tax riots &c - certainly not a sign of an electorate basically reconciled to Thatcherism with the most confrontational aspects filed off. Conversely, two defeats in (and the second one even more resounding than the first), voices on the Labour right were somewhat more circumspect about forecasting imminent victories or tying oneself to any inconveniently immobile masts, no matter what the long-term trends in polls appeared to suggest.

In 1995 itself - in between Blair's initial salvo as leader to reform Clause IV in the 1994 Conference and his eventual success at the next - there was a brief nationalist-populist moment when the Tory press - the Telegraph and Mail included - rallied against privatization and broke news stories on scandalously high directorial pay at formerly nationalized industries. And Blair ("Until those companies are properly regulated in the public interest, they will continue to be seen, rightly, as the unacceptable face of privatization") promptly turned like a weathervane, because Gallup and MORI were suggesting some appetite for nationalization. It would only be once the public lost interest that the party returned to banging on the drum of reform.

His Divine Shadow
Aug 7, 2000

I'm not a fascist. I'm a priest. Fascists dress up in black and tell people what to do.
I don't think people in the continent are that well versed in the troubles or the causes thereof, or if they are, it's distant enough in their heads they don't make the connection.

hooman
Oct 11, 2007

This guy seems legit.
Fun Shoe

OwlFancier posted:

Did someone lock all the EU politicians in a room over christmas and pipe in some sort of gas that makes people into pillocks?

Maybe there's some ancient curse, that one country in the EU has to be run by total pillocks, and now that the UK has left, it's trying to find the new victim.

Failed Imagineer
Sep 22, 2018

hooman posted:

Maybe there's some ancient curse, that one country in the EU has to be run by total pillocks, and now that the UK has left, it's trying to find the new victim.

Interesting theory, only scuppered by looking at the current governments of probably every single EU country

Barry Foster
Dec 24, 2007

What is going wrong with that one (face is longer than it should be)

lmao

I actually quite like this as a complete poo poo-posting answer

Failed Imagineer
Sep 22, 2018
Feeling blessed to live in the green zone lol

https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1356203389630218243?s=19

Somehow I feel this is under representing the vast network of British tax havens, but I am not a Forensic finance freak

Communist Thoughts
Jan 7, 2008

Our war against free speech cannot end until we silence this bronze beast!


Barry Foster posted:

anger is a gift, comrade

It's the gift that keeps on giving until you die

Try jokerfication instead imo, the UK is funny as gently caress

DesperateDan
Dec 10, 2005

Where's my cow?

Is that my cow?

No it isn't, but it still tramples my bloody lavender.

someone forgot about bovril

peanut-
Feb 17, 2004
Fun Shoe

Failed Imagineer posted:

Feeling blessed to live in the green zone lol

https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1356203389630218243?s=19

Somehow I feel this is under representing the vast network of British tax havens, but I am not a Forensic finance freak

It's not really. British-linked tax havens are heavily used in the finance/asset management industry as places to hide funds and personal wealth, which isn't what that map is showing and isn't the engine of the biggest global tax avoidance.

The really massive crimes are in the way multinationals shift profits around and very little of that runs through the UK. It's all driven by the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Ireland.

Particularly the Netherlands which somehow retains a reputation as being an excellent global citizen despite having an economy that's constructed almost entirely on the most rampant multinational corporate tax avoidance imaginable.

Guavanaut
Nov 27, 2009

Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998



Toilet Rascal

DesperateDan posted:

someone forgot about bovril
:hmmyes:

Bobby Deluxe
May 9, 2004

Failed Imagineer posted:

Pfft. Burr tried to conspire with Mexico against the US and start his own country. Keith doesn't exactly have that level of zeal
I have little to no knowledge of the real Burr, but Hamilton's Burr in the 1st act is absofuckinlutely Keith.

The point of the character in the show being that Hamilton is absolutely right to say that he doesn't stand for anything and is a vacuous career politician. Which works up to a certain point, but once you hit cabinet / leadership positions you need to actually put forward positions and be seen as leading.

Then in act 2 he sees how successful Hamilton gets by playing dirty and tries to emulate it, and absolutely eats poo poo because Hamilton, despite being politically ruined after his affair, is so much better at playing that kind of game. And it drives him completely nuts.

But yes, the Hamilton version of Burr definitely has some interesting parallels with Starmer's 'play it safe' politicking.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Jose
Jul 24, 2007

Adrian Chiles is a broadcaster and writer
:hmmyes:

https://twitter.com/tommyhale91/status/1356195094202896384?s=20

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply