Politics

[ewerk 30642]

17 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

starmer and blair are cut from the same cloth

In their political outlooks perhaps but they're very different politicians. Blair was dripping with charisma, people really gravitated towards him in the beginning. Starmer lacks that, though not quite at Gordon Brown levels. Starmer appears to be a little more hesitant than Blair. He has been very reluctant to gain political points from the pandemic and as a result the Tories have lost little support for their abysmal handling but look set to benefit from the success of the vaccine roll out. Starmer is new to the job and four years out from an election, hopefully he can pick it up.

[Meenzer 15552]

Kill the Labour Party but save the country. Weirdest superhero dilemma ever!

[Dr Gloom 21954]

2 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

I don't think anyone is saying he's a wannabe populist, he doesn't have the fire in him for that - the problem is that he's falling over himself to win back socially conservative voters (Renton spot on with that characterisation) who were only allied with us as far as I can tell because of economics. But the divide between these social conservatives and the middle class liberals is wider than ever. It's not clear to me at all that Labour can carry both forward, some aspects of what they're trying to do are outright contradictory.

 

Is there any evidence that this messaging is getting through to and persuading the voters he's targeting? If there is then he's right to do it, but he's risking losses on the other side of his now too big to function party.

 

As I've said before, and as ewerk also said the other day, he needs to build alliances around getting us to a PR system. This would mean the pressure comes flying off Labour and it can disband. Farage would be a decent vehicle to ally with as he's far more likely to win over these red wall voters than Starmer is. And yeah I hate the thought of that too, but that's effectively who Starmer is trying to compete with here.

 

There is no broad church anymore, it's a party that is trying to unite the most fervent remainers with the most fervent leavers. It's fucking doomed.

i think the split you describe between the socially liberal and conservative labour voter is exactly why we need a leader who can build consensus. that is the reality of FPTP. another divisive leader such as corbyn is just going to hand another 5 years to the to the tories. 

 

[ewerk 30642]

5 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

I don't think anyone is saying he's a wannabe populist

 

30 minutes ago, Renton said:

Starmer is a wannabe popularist.

 

[Rayvin 5223]

I've been in a meeting while this has been going on ffs, I skimmed the last 20 posts

 

I see Renton has clarified anyway.

[Monkeys Fist 42460]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

I've been in a meeting while this has been going on ffs, I skimmed the last 20 posts

 

I see Renton has clarified anyway.

I hope you were sitting in front of a Union Jack. 
 

( and if not, why not- do you hate Britain???) 

[ewerk 30642]

Rayvin only recognises the saltire these days.

[Dr Gloom 21954]

8 minutes ago, ewerk said:

In their political outlooks perhaps but they're very different politicians. Blair was dripping with charisma, people really gravitated towards him in the beginning. Starmer lacks that, though not quite at Gordon Brown levels. Starmer appears to be a little more hesitant than Blair. He has been very reluctant to gain political points from the pandemic and as a result the Tories have lost little support for their abysmal handling but look set to benefit from the success of the vaccine roll out. Starmer is new to the job and four years out from an election, hopefully he can pick it up.

i think that's right. their political leanings are aligned and they understand a broad coalition of voters is needed to win an election in this country. whether starmer can execute the plan as skilfully as blair remains to be seen. i can see some parallels though with now and 1997: a tory party staggering towards the end of a long period in power, a centrist labout leader. voters ready for a change. one thing in starmer's favour is johnson's incompetence. his cockups could determine whether starmer is another kinnock or another blair

Edited February 3, 2021 by Dr Gloom

[ewerk 30642]

2 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

i think that's right. their political leanings are aligned and they understand broad coalition of voters is needed to win an election in this country. whether starmer can execute the plan as skilfully as blair remains to be seen. i can see some parallels though with now and 1997. a tory party staggering towards the end of a long period in power. voters for a change. one thing in starmer's favour is johnson's incompetence. 

I still think the print media are going to be a massive problem for Starmer. I'm too young to remember much about Blair's early years but did Blair win over the media or could they see that the writing was on the wall for the Tories and wanted to back the winning horse?

[Rayvin 5223]

4 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

i think the split you describe between the socially liberal and conservative labour voter is exactly why we need a leader who can build consensus. that is the reality of FPTP. another divisive leader such as corbyn is just going to hand another 5 years to the to the tories. 

 

 

But how can we? Consensus around what?

 

I really do think the ship has sailed - you're either going to get a jarringly right wing Labour party that, given where we were a year ago, effectively disillusions a lot of younger left wing and socially liberal people - or you get a Labour party that holds true to what it's meant to represent on the values side but can't win over the right wing working classes who will put their patriotic zeal ahead of every other consideration.

 

It was the latter group that used to compromise, not us - they were in it for economic interests. Now that they've apparently decided this isn't their number one priority, how far to the right are Labour going to have to move to outdo or match the Tories on patriotism? Quite some way, by the sounds of it. Frankly, if Starmer is serious about this he should call for a return to the death penalty - that would get them on board. That's the kind of thing it'll need. But if he does that, if he goes that far, he sure as fuck isn't taking me and quite a good many others with him.

 

In total fairness, I shouldn't have to vote for the same party as people who believe in this socially conservative vision of the country. And they shouldn't have to vote for things I believe either. And while the Tories are in power, these social conservatives have a better option than Labour to achieve their primary aims anyway. Why would they risk switching? They don't believe anything we say about how useless the Tories are anyway.

[Dr Gloom 21954]

16 minutes ago, ewerk said:

 

He's just one step away from populists like Hitler, Mussolini and er... Bernie Sanders.

it is weird how the left in this country is so ashamed of the flag when even a socilaist like sanders is compelled to embrace it in the states. 

i posted this already earlier in the thread but blair understood the power of patriotism. 

[Dr Gloom 21954]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

But how can we? Consensus around what?

 

I really do think the ship has sailed - you're either going to get a jarringly right wing Labour party that, given where we were a year ago, effectively disillusions a lot of younger left wing and socially liberal people - or you get a Labour party that holds true to what it's meant to represent on the values side but can't win over the right wing working classes who will put their patriotic zeal ahead of every other consideration.

 

It was the latter group that used to compromise, not us - they were in it for economic interests. Now that they've apparently decided this isn't their number one priority, how far to the right are Labour going to have to move to outdo or match the Tories on patriotism? Quite some way, by the sounds of it. Frankly, if Starmer is serious about this he should call for a return to the death penalty - that would get them on board. That's the kind of thing it'll need. But if he does that, if he goes that far, he sure as fuck isn't taking me and quite a good many others with him.

 

In total fairness, I shouldn't have to vote for the same party as people who believe in this socially conservative vision of the country. And they shouldn't have to vote for things I believe either. And while the Tories are in power, these social conservatives have a better option than Labour to achieve their primary aims anyway. Why would they risk switching? They don't believe anything we say about how useless the Tories are anyway.

you unite those voter groups with economic policy. the problem is this tory party has stolen labour's lunch - whether it delivers on levelling up is another matter. i suspect they won't and that's where starmer has an opportunity. 

[The Fish 10863]

16 minutes ago, Meenzer said:

Kill the Labour Party but save the country. Weirdest superhero dilemma ever!

My spidey sense tingled.

[Rayvin 5223]

Just now, Dr Gloom said:

it is weird how the left in this country is so ashamed of the flag when even a socilaist like sanders is compelled to embrace it in the states. 

i posted this already earlier in the thread but blair understood the power of patriotism. 

 

I really don't see many people on the left being ashamed of it, although there are certainly many who associate it with our imperial past and feel the need to point this out so that the atrocities committed by our empire don't fall from view.

 

I will admit to being ashamed of the UK, in general, for Brexit. And Boris Johnson.

[ewerk 30642]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

I really don't see many people on the left being ashamed of it, although there are certainly many who associate it with our imperial past and feel the need to point this out so that the atrocities committed by our empire don't fall from view.

 

I will admit to being ashamed of the UK, in general, for Brexit. And Boris Johnson.

And that's why the UK needs a new vision of patriotism. Allowing yourself to be proud of your country while recognising past mistakes and realised that you're no longer a superpower. You could have done with losing a World War.

[Dr Gloom 21954]

Just now, Rayvin said:

 

I really don't see many people on the left being ashamed of it, although there are certainly many who associate it with our imperial past and feel the need to point this out so that the atrocities committed by our empire don't fall from view.

 

I will admit to being ashamed of the UK, in general, for Brexit. And Boris Johnson.

if someone flies a union jack or st george flag in their window, what's your first thought? patriot, or facist?

the flag has been hijacked to the extent that we can't even tolerate our leader standing in front of it while delivering a televised address. 

[Rayvin 5223]

Just now, Dr Gloom said:

you unite those voter groups with economic policy. the problem is this tory party has stolen labour's lunch - whether it delivers on levelling up is another matter. i suspect they won't and that's where starmer has an opportunity. 

 

But that's it though, the economic angle isn't working - if it was, we wouldn't have had Brexit, Corbyn might have won, and Starmer wouldn't now be doing what he is.

 

The whole paradigm of how to appeal to these voters has shifted, and again, he's going to have to unite internationalist, educated remainers with patriotic over everything, socially conservative leavers.

 

I mean, how is he going to do that?

 

I reckon it continues much like this for the next 3/4 years, we get to the election, there's a low turnout, he gets stuffed, resigns, and Labour accepts that it can't win those voters back and gets back to doing what it should be doing/gets into bed with whoever it has to to bring about PR which effectively becomes the only way to stop us being a one party state.

[Dr Gloom 21954]

i confess, i would think far-right wrong un too

[ewerk 30642]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

But that's it though, the economic angle isn't working - if it was, we wouldn't have had Brexit, Corbyn might have won, and Starmer wouldn't now be doing what he is.

 

The whole paradigm of how to appeal to these voters has shifted, and again, he's going to have to unite internationalist, educated remainers with patriotic over everything, socially conservative leavers.

Without austerity there would be no Brexit. It all comes back to the economy in the end.

[Dr Gloom 21954]

Just now, Rayvin said:

 

But that's it though, the economic angle isn't working - if it was, we wouldn't have had Brexit, Corbyn might have won, and Starmer wouldn't now be doing what he is.

 

The whole paradigm of how to appeal to these voters has shifted, and again, he's going to have to unite internationalist, educated remainers with patriotic over everything, socially conservative leavers.

 

I mean, how is he going to do that?

 

I reckon it continues much like this for the next 3/4 years, we get to the election, there's a low turnout, he gets stuffed, resigns, and Labour accepts that it can't win those voters back and gets back to doing what it should be doing/gets into bed with whoever it has to to bring about PR which effectively becomes the only way to stop us being a one party state.

it's alliance with farage then? 

[Rayvin 5223]

Just now, ewerk said:

Without austerity there would be no Brexit. It all comes back to the economy in the end.

 

Agreed in terms of the facts, but not in terms of the narrative - and the narrative is now miles away from what reality is. We have consistently failed, under Brown, Miliband, Corbyn and very likely now Starmer, to be heard on economics. And the Tories are now outflanking us on it anyway. So I do get it, why Starmer is changing tack - but then economics can't and won't become the winning part of this argument. Starmer would in effect be asking people like us to ignore all of the bullshit he will bring about to appease the socially conservative voters, while at the same time asking us to vote to make their lives better (and it is them more than us who will benefit from a Labour government, economically).

 

I just don't see it. I think Brexit killed that, honestly. The amount of contempt between the two groups is not going to permit that unity.

[Gemmill 44956]

I don't see the problem with him standing in front of a flag. I mean there quite literally is no problem with it, and if it brings back some lost voters then there quite literally is the opposite of a problem with it. 

 

I want him to start hugging it and flossing his balls with it, like Trump did. 

[ewerk 30642]

What sort of bullshit are you referring to?

[Rayvin 5223]

3 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

it's alliance with farage then? 

 

Farage can do exactly what Starmer's trying and failing to do, would probably jump at it, and it would free Starmer up to actually stick to his guns on Labour values while granting Farage compromise concessions here and there which everyone would understand would be to bring about a system that isn't as fucking useless as FPTP. Everyone feels represented by their party and we all get the outcome we want.

 

4 million people voted for Farage's party before Brexit, he'd be a useful asset and he'd love the attention.

 

It'd be sickening but this whole thing is sickening to me anyway - so I'd rather it actually worked if we have to go through it.

[Dr Gloom 21954]

there has to be another way