BS: UK politics

Subject: BS: UK politics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Jan 20 - 01:58 PM

We have been given the thumbs up for a new politics thread. The rules are no personal abuse and no trolling. These actions will only result in thread closure. Any comments on how the current administration is performing? Good or bad. Any views on the Labour leadership contest? Anything else related to politics would be fine. Any attempts to start a fight or abuse fellow Mudcatters will be frowned upon.

I'll start with the Labour leadership. My personal favourite is Rebecca Long-Bailey for multiple reasons but mainly because she seems to be a true socialist. However, being pragmatic, Keir Starmer may do more good for the party. I have until April to decide I suppose but what are the arguments for and against both? Sensible ones that is :-)

Knock yourselves out!

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Jan 20 - 02:10 PM

Whoever is chosen to lead Labour needs staying power,
and must be allowed room by the party
to develop and grow as a person and politician,
over as many years as it will be until the next general election..

Despite perpetual all-out attempts by right wing media and bloggers
to brand them in the general public's minds as crude demonised stereotypes...

For all Labour's problems now and in the future,
there's no other party I consider worthy of my vote...

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Stanron
Date: 20 Jan 20 - 02:32 PM

I saw an interesting program on RT(UK) today called 'Renegade Inc'. Its on again tonight at 11:30. Four Labour supporters discuss the leadership. One thing that got my attention was one of them predicted that the EU is going to collapse economically and we are well out of it. This is something I have thought for ages. Corbyn's change of stance on the EU after becoming leader was also mentioned so neither of these two issues are just figments of my imagination. Many other points were argued during the thirty minute program and I don't think I agreed with any of them apart from the two I mentioned but I will check out this program again in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 20 Jan 20 - 02:37 PM

...to be divided into English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish politics, please - I don't like imperialism/I like "Nationalism without Conquest"

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Jan 20 - 02:47 PM

Thanks Dave. Fingers crossed.

I was never a fan of Corbyn although, his having been elected by a landslide twice, I felt that everyone should have got behind him and cut out the undermining and back-stabbing that he suffered. He spent as much time defending himself against certain factions in his own party as he did opposing the worst Conservative government in living memory - worse even than Thatcher’s bunch.

In order to bring about the change so desperately needed, the LP first have to get elected, and I’m not confident that any of the candidates, with the possible exception of Keir Starmer, could command the respect and confidence of a sufficient number of voters to do that. And, although I like RLB, I feel that she is tainted, in voters’ minds, by her close association with Corbyn.

I do believe that Jess Phillips would be capable of scaring Johnson shitless, but I don’t perceive the oratory capabilities and statesmanship (stateswomanship?) that a leader needs (and which, IMHO, Corbyn also lacked).

So I’d have to go for Starmer. But I’m not a member, so what I think doesn’t actually count for anything.

So.....

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: peteglasgow
Date: 20 Jan 20 - 02:48 PM

yes, good point walketc. personally i first thought angela rayner for leader, then i thought clive lewis seemed to have some good ideas. now i'm coming round to the idea of selling out.
i used to think that PR would be a good idea but only after 3 terms of a socialist government to bring us back to the left centre ground of a sensible, modern european nation. but though a boy can dream - it isn't going to happen. now i think labour could go to the next election proposing PR, in alliance with other parties - principally the SNP.
whoever we go for will never win support in the press but we just have to get rid of the tories at all cost.
like a big majority i suspect, i'll probably go for keir srarmer and angela rayner

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: peteglasgow
Date: 20 Jan 20 - 03:30 PM

has anyone else gone on this thread and seen an advert saying 'tactical brexit - vote conservative'? well, that's a bit worrying and not good timing eh? how much do they pay Mudcat to run this ad?

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jan 20 - 05:22 PM

As I've said, the media will go for any of those five, whichever of 'em gets elected. There is no way I could ever support Nandy or Phillips. They both did their utmost to undermine Corbyn so, in my view, it's risible for them to declare now that they want to unite the party. Neither of them could unite two slices of Mother's Pride into a butty. Thornberry looks in turn smug and patronising. Starmer is Posh London Fence-Sitter. He's a slightly more leftie Blair but without the charisma. I'll go with my principles and vote for the one socialist among the five. The right-wing are scared of her and are already in attack mode. We've already seen at least one sexist attack on Becky Long-Bailey on this forum and you can bet your life we'll see lots of it everywhere in the next few weeks. I'm voting for her and that's final. And she comes from Salford like my mum and her dad worked in Salford Docks like my grandad.

Re the EU collapsing, in your dreams. That's wishful thinking by leavers who are feeling now that they did the wrong thing and they want something horrible to happen to the EU so that they'll be exonerated.

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Stanron
Date: 20 Jan 20 - 05:34 PM

Steve Shaw wrote: Re the EU collapsing, in your dreams. That's wishful thinking by leavers who are feeling now that they did the wrong thing and they want something horrible to happen to the EU so that they'll be exonerated.

Watch the program.

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jan 20 - 06:18 PM

No thanks. I tend not to seek information on tbe EU from a channel that is backed by an undemocratic, anti-European country. Or the Daily Mail, Express, Murdoch press or criminal bloggers. It's hard to get information that is true and accurate. The only way is to seek out multiple sources that are at least respectable enough to not conflate comment with news, unlike all the ones I've just mentioned, be as sceptical as you can, and come to your own honest conclusion. Falling prey to confirmation bias is also a bad idea. Jumping on what someone or other who, against the general consensus, predicts the collapse of the EU, when you are an inveterate leaver, is exactly that. As for Corbyn and his changing stance on the EU (which actually happened to me too, though I beat Jeremy to it by a few years), I'm getting less and less interested as his influence wanes. Going back obsessively over past issues of this kind has already poisoned this forum. Just to repeat. Corbyn supported remain in the referendum campaign though he criticised the campaign and, as he's always done, he highlighted the shortcomings of the EU. Then he voted remain. His position is and was respectable, considered and measured, and not ideologically fixed, as evidenced by the fact that his stance evolved over decades as circumstances changed, which is more than can be said for the ideological troglodytes of the ERG, for example. It was a damn sight more thoughtful than that of the braying masses who insisted that their little cross on the ballot paper represented their views on a whole mass of complex issues that they not only didn't understand but, in many cases, didn't even know existed. If that isn't good enough for you, or if you want to keep digging it up, as if every bloody member of the party thinks the same as him, then you are living in the past. He's retiring very soon so you can stop worrying about him. Geddit?

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but we can't stand by and let the same tired old crap rear its ugly head over and over again. This is a preemptive strike, made without insulting anyone. We can talk sensible politics without necessarily pretending that we always have to proceed as if we're walking over broken glass.

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Stanron
Date: 20 Jan 20 - 07:00 PM

Four committed socialists having a discussion with no dissenting voices and you don't want to watch it. Brilliant.

You don't get it. The Labour party lost the last election because, as a group, they didn't get it. Also brilliant,

Don't go changing for me.

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jan 20 - 07:52 PM

The Labour Party lost the election for multifarious reasons. As you're a hardened Tory you would be the last person we'd come to for an analysis. Knowing why we lost is the easy bit. Uniting all wings of the party so that it doesn't happen again is a whole nother matter. We'll keep you posted.

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Jan 20 - 08:34 PM

"Knowing why we lost is the easy bit. Uniting all wings of the party so that it doesn't happen again is a whole nother matter. "

.. and that's not even getting to the difficult bit..

Which is convincing enough of the general public to vote the Labour Party into Government...

I'm 61 now.. any chance of it happening before I'm 70...???

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jan 20 - 09:03 PM

Yep, when you're 65 going on 66. We mustn't pick a leader who has history when it comes to divisiveness and undermining. For me, that rules out Nandy and Phillips straight away. There are plenty of good young lefties in the party and the bitter old Blair guard is evaporating. The message was good, the leadership let us down. But let's not go mad trying to nationalise everything at once. Let's not make silly promises about four-day weeks or how many billion trees we are going to plant. The Tories made a good fist of betraying Labour's weaknesses. We didn't even get started on the destructive harm that the Tories have been doing for a decade. NHS shredded, schools, falling down, pay freezes for years, pensions screwed, the jobless and disabled demonised and shat on, homelessness and food banks going through the roof, racism and Islamophobia... While we were being all nice and aspirational the Tories and their scumbag lackies were tearing us to pieces. We have to take the lessons and grow a pair. Let's not have a sinister-looking faction apparently setting the leftie agenda (yes, I mean you, Momentum. You looked and sounded like Militant and that, for the tabloids, was like presenting them with the golden chance to shoot fish in a barrel). If Becky gets the job she has to kick them into touch, starting from when she gets on the ticket. She doesn't owe them anything. I fear that Starmer won't be able to do that, and the schism will persist. A split Labour Party can't win. Blair, for all his faults, knew that only too well. He was tough and he had charisma. That's what we need again. Go, Becky.

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jan 20 - 09:04 PM

And there was only one Brexit card and Johnson has played it. There's a big shambles to come. We have to make hay when it does, don't we?

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jan 20 - 12:29 AM

"Yep, when you're 65 going on 66."

Steve - that'd be something nice to look forward to..
especially since no men in my immediate family have made it to 70
since my great grandad back in the 1940s...

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 20 - 02:21 AM

Whoever wins the Labour party election is of zero consequence. You are in the wilderness, and your chances of reaching the promised land in the next decade are on a par with my chances of a mega win on the lottery,
Meanwhile on the sunny uplands we have the BBC running for cover and the procrastination by the Lords will likely lead to their destruction.
Labour is a spent force that is only capable of generating white noise.
You cannot quibble over statistics now, no matter how much mathermagic you apply. The Tories are in the driving seat for the foreseeable future.

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jan 20 - 02:56 AM

More Brexit job losses

Goodbye JP Morgan Chase

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 20 - 03:22 AM

A thousand EU financial firms plan to open UK offices after Brexit

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-banks/a-thousand-eu-financial-firms-plan-to-open-uk-offices-after-brexit-idUSKBN1Z

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Jan 20 - 03:41 AM

It is certainly good news for the people directly employed in those 1000 offices, but whether it is good for the country depends entirely what sort of financial business they do. If they provide a mechanism that is primarily about moving UK funds into the EU it would be very bad for the UK. If it was the opposite and a way for EU funds to get into the UK it would be much better. We need to see what they are in practice.

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 20 - 04:06 AM

Job gains or losses will be very dependent on a deal/no deal brexit.
Die hard remainers at this stage of the game merely sabotage the UK bargaining position with the EU. The remain camp has being trying to undermine departure negotiations since the referendum of June 2016. Their stance aids the EU not the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jan 20 - 04:20 AM

I sincerely hope that any job gains exceed the job losses but I have serious doubts. Money and jobs have already been lost simply by saying we are leaving. Everyone, including leavers, are now saying that we will suffer economically in the short term but, as yet, no one has put a time scale on that. When will we, the ordinary people, start to see those benefits? How long will it take to recover? 5 years? 10? 50? If the press and ERG put as much effort into answering those questions as they did demonising the EU and remainers we may not be so worried.

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 20 - 04:58 AM

The British economy is set to outpace the eurozone in the first two years after Brexit, according to projections published today by the International Monetary Fund. The IMF suggested the euro area would see economic growth of 1.3 per cent in 2020 and 1.4 per cent in 2021.
It is interesting the way this is subjected to spin, depending upon source.

However it was not so long ago the same "august" body threatened a rain of anvils from the sky.
Que sera sera

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: peteglasgow
Date: 21 Jan 20 - 06:21 AM

there has been many projections from both sides about the likely consequences of brexit . this is boring and polintless conjecture . as is raking over the past mistakes of the labour party or lies of the tories. (mind you , i havn't seen much comment on the tories' wholesale dumping of their relatively sensible wing) (sorry, must stop)

we could live in the moment and work out a way to restore our services, humanise our benefits system, end child poverty and foodbanks and protect workers' rights and the environment. all these things would be absolutely urgent matters for any decent government. must we still batter on about the side issue of brexit while failing to deal with the dying elephant in the room?

for now i'm still in the labour party and will decide who i want for the top jobs - is it too much to ask that people who have no interest in labour other to slag them off whenever possible - could just shut up and leave that decision to those who care about it - andhow we progress from this dire point for us and for the british countries

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jan 20 - 07:11 AM

Looks like the penny is finally starting to drop for a few of the Brexiteers at least...

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jan 20 - 07:12 AM

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 20 - 07:24 AM

I presume Brexit Party MEP June Mummery has the IQ of a dead gnat.

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jan 20 - 07:25 AM

Yes - they all do.

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jan 20 - 07:47 AM

Being suggested on Politics Live that Jess Phillips is about to announce she’s pulling out of the LP Leadership contest.

Also comments that Labour are still rattling on about policies, whereas what they should be looking for is a leader who can beat Johnson in a GE, our elections now having taken on a ‘Presidential Election’ slant. This is precisely what I said in an earlier post on this thread. Unless Labour can come up with a personality who ‘appeals’ to the majority of voters, they will remain in the wilderness no matter how good the policies are.

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: DMcG
Date: 21 Jan 20 - 08:45 AM

Now that she is without the backing of USDAW I think it inevitable that Jess withdraws. We will apparently hear around 3pm.

I agree, BMW. It is been a problem for as long as I can remember that Labour especially has to find a way of balancing plans and electability. Blair was ruthless: if any proposal or stance made you unelectable, it had the go: hence the Clause IV changes. Of course, many thought he had betrayed Labour even at that stage, but most were fairly happy with him until the Iraq war.

Compromise is always difficult, but for me a candidate who does not recognise great policies are no use to anyone unless you can get elected is going to be a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jan 20 - 08:59 AM

Reminiscing on the post Michael Foot panic yuppyfication of the Labour Party,
when they all had to stop wearing jeans and jumpers in public
and be forced into suits and ties...

That's probably the point the Party started on the downhill trend of alienating traditional working class voters...???

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jan 20 - 09:15 AM

And my, how that worked! We bigged up Kinnock as the great Labour soft-left hope, the scourge of Militant, etc, but boy did he know how to screw up and we spent fourteen more years in the wilderness once Michael Foot had gone. Lest we forget, chaps. That's why one-more-heave more-of-the-same safe-pair-of-hands (aka Keir Starmer) gives me the heebie-jeebies. We need someone fresh, a bit unknown, energetic and radical, not someone who can't decide which arse cheek to lift in order to fart...

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 20 - 09:26 AM

The problem Labour has is that until the leadership election no one had heard of any of the contenders in the race. Of those only two have any kind of chance. People are more familiar with Len McCluskey the leader of Unite. The man with a face that would sink a thousand ships.
a)THe election manifesto was confused
b)Despite the horrific results Corbyn was not forced to fall on his sword.
c)None of the candidates on offer have the gravitas and persona to be leadership material.
d)The party seems unable to understand why they lost and therefore have no way of reacting.
e)They need a clear incisive outsider to enter the fray - if they can find anyone.
f)The party needs to decide if the membership make the decisions, or Momentum and Unite.
g)The country needs a viable opposition party.

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jan 20 - 09:38 AM

"They need a clear incisive outsider to enter the fray - if they can find anyone."

Iains - so could you be proposing Labour should be run by an American businessman,
or a Rabbi, or a "Tick any other box that appeals to the right wing's idea of a viable opposition party leader"...???

Perhaps Boris should force through legislation that gives him power to appoint a Labour Leader...???????

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Iains
Date: 21 Jan 20 - 09:57 AM

Well PFR let me ask you one question. Are you satisfied with the candidates on offer?

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: peteglasgow
Date: 21 Jan 20 - 10:08 AM

it's surely inevitable that an opponent of the labour party would not want any of the candidates on offer. i wouldn't let any of the tory front bench walk my dog never mind run the country... but that's totally irrelevant in how the parties make their choices. althoughlabour have the problem of hoping to elect someone who half a dozen off-shore billionaires approve of. and iain.

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Rain Dog
Date: 21 Jan 20 - 10:40 AM

Is there any sizeable political party in which all the members agree on every single party policy?

When you vote for any party does that mean that you agree with every single policy of that party?

Given Labour's record in elections since 1945, is it a surprise that they do not win many?

Given the situation in Scotland, how many of you here think that Labour can win another general election?

Personally I think that we need PR in this country, if elections are ever going to give a result that reflects the way people vote. Of course that would need a complete change in the way that all the parties operate.

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jan 20 - 11:22 AM

I repeat, and will continue repeating until people here get it -

1) If you don’t get a majority of candidates elected at a GE, your policies aren’t worth shit. Absolute, incontestable FACT.

2) The UK electoral system has become a ‘pseudo-presidential’system - a large number of voters don’t vote for their constituency MP any longer, or even for the party they support. They don’t vote for policies, they vote for the party leader whose ‘personality’ they find, for whatever reason, the most appealing. The recent GE is proof absolute of this FACT.

3) Unless the LP come up with a leader who is capable of uniting the party, dealing with the back-stabbers, handling the majority Tory-supporting media, demonstrating that the accusations of Labour anti-semitism have been dealt with, and being popular with voters, they will remain in opposition for a very long time to come.

I don’t see any of the candidates (four of them now Jess Phillips has thrown the towel in) being capable of pulling the above off, nor having the personality to attract voters back to the party.

Sorry, but that’s my view.

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jan 20 - 11:33 AM

There's more than a few folks who'd welcome Tom Walker / Jonathan Pie as Labour party leader...

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: peteglasgow
Date: 21 Jan 20 - 12:51 PM

hmmm.....with caroline lucas as environment secretary, nicola sturgeon at the foreign office and jo brand at culture and media?

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jan 20 - 01:02 PM

Funny you should say that..

My mrs would be delighted if Nicola Sturgeon became Labour leader...

.. but then again, she also liked that Scottish tory leader Ruth Davidson who resigned...

My wife is a Welsh Valleys Labourite, and she has a peculiarly strong female celtic bias...

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: peteglasgow
Date: 21 Jan 20 - 02:18 PM

'she liked that Ruth Davidson'!? clearly she is not the woman you think you knew, she has changed into something awful and dangerous. carefully go upstairs and pack a bag very quietly. 'I'm just taking the dog out....bye' run and run for a very long way...don't look behind you.

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jan 20 - 07:34 PM

Growing into the job of party leader is a very unpredictable trajectory. In the particular case of the Labour Party the overriding need right now is for a strong, decisive, charismatic LEADER with the guts to tell demurrers where to get off. Blair did it and Thatcher did it. For years I worked in a decent school with a very weak head teacher. The upshot was a bunch of middle-order department heads and a couple of senior teachers running the bloody place like a Mafia. Discontent was rife, pulling together for the common good didn't exist and there were a dozen little kingdoms and a load of energy-sapping competition. Ruinous for the school ethos. A strong leader can rattle cages without the whole shebang splitting into pieces. That kind of shambles is what we've just had in Labour. A bunch of talented people being allowed to be constantly at each other's throats and undermining the leader with impunity, all of it giving succour to the gleeful gutter press. That can't happen again. It's very difficult to pick the potential strongest out of this four. We can rule Thornberry out in any case. Nandy scrubs up well for photoshoots but she is easily the most divisive one still standing, and her voting record on brexit makes her a Tory-lite. Starmer might cut it, but his vacillation on brexit and his fence-sitting makes him look worried and indecisive and will come back to bite him. That leaves me with, well, a true socialist at least...

...And a woman. There, I've said it. First job, kick Momentum into touch. Then she could just be a breath of fresh air. As I said, it's all very unpredictable. As long as she gets on the ballot I won't be changing my mind.

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Iains
Date: 22 Jan 20 - 01:53 AM

The major problem labour has is that has lost the trust of the electorate.
Labour called for the referedum, reneged and supported Remain.
In January 2017, Corbyn announced that Labour would impose a three-line whip to force Labour MPs in favour of triggering Article 50.
In the 2017 Election Labour said the result must be honoured, and is aiming for a "close new relationship with the EU" with workers' rights protected.
In December 2019 If it won the election, Labour wanted to renegotiate Mr Johnson's Brexit deal and put it to another public vote. It said it would achieve this within six months.

Labour said its referendum would be a choice between a "sensible" Leave option versus Remain.
Totally incoherent policy shifts purely to try to grab power. This is how the electorate saw the situation and refelects how they voted.
It does not matter who becomes leader, the party needs to regain trust.
That is going to be some mountain to climb. At least two parliamentary terms, probably far longer. It is clear that Labour has tried to deny the will of the people ever since the referendum. They paid the price at the polls, and deservedly so. In the US the Democrats are set firmly on the same path. Annihilation beckons!

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Jan 20 - 03:31 AM

Jess Phillips realises folly of speaking truth to out-of-power

Quite a good article, I think. It takes the same stance I and BWM are taking about the pointlessness of determinedly standing for things if you can't get elected. For example he suggest Jess's internal monologue might include:


She was too centrist. Too obsessed with trying to get Labour back into power rather than preserving its ideological purity. The very idea that Labour might have to change! Didn’t she know it was the voters who needed to change? How could she have been so stupid as to fail to understand that the best way to help the poorest members of society was to remain in permanent opposition?


So, for example, when Steve says "[Nandy's] voting record on brexit makes her a Tory-lite", he misses that her voting record could be one of the things in her favour with the 'Red wall' areas, since it matches theirs. Ditto the 'Tory-lite' to some extent. These people did vote Tory and the party needs to face up to that. Iains is right when he says the Labour party needs to regain the trust of the voters. Without that, the party will never get elected. I am not so convinced about how long it will take though: that depends on how the current Parliament plays out as much as anything.

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Jan 20 - 03:54 AM

A good article indeed, DMcG. Let’s hope the truth begins to dawn on the majority of LP members very soon - you can’t do anything in opposition, to bring about change and impose your policies you need to be elected, and to get elected you need to get a leader and a message that’s attractive to voters.

Trump understood that, and he’s now POTUS. Dom & Dumber understood it too, and the result is an 80-odd majority.

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Iains
Date: 22 Jan 20 - 04:11 AM

Corbyn placed ideology above pragmatism. For that arrogance he deserved to lose. As a committed marxist he no doubt feels the electorate are answerable to him, rather than the other way about. BIG MISTAKE !!

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Rob 'Mad Jock' Wright
Date: 22 Jan 20 - 04:32 AM

No matter who you vote for The Governnment always gets in.

In the battle for leadership of the Labour Party there is no clear choice of leader so whoever wins will be treading a narrow line as those who did not support the choice will be looking for an opportunity to oust them and replace with their preferred choice.

The SNP had Sturgeon waiting in the wings and she got full support of the party and the voters when she took over.

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jan 20 - 05:37 AM

Nicola Sturgeon is a wily and sure-footed politician who is a strong and charismatic leader. That's the way to do it.

Promising the electorate what you think the electorate wants ends up with massively stupid things such as a contest as to who can plant the most trees. It doesn't work. Hired "reality checkers" will soon pick the bones out of things like that. You don't have to do too much of stuff like that before your opponents have all the ammunition they need in order to make you look ridiculous. Here are some things you don't do: promise a four-day week. You'll never do it so don't say it. Score Corbyn out of ten. That's a really silly game and you could be nailing your flag to a mast that's falling down. Tell people that you'll nationalise everything that moves. You won't and can't anyway, it's not exactly popular, the enemy has lots of examples of why it often didn't work so why screw yourself by saying it? Forget to let people know that you've made your mind up. The most iconic moment for me in the campaign was Johnson driving a JCB through a wall, demolishing it at a stroke with "get brexit done" emblazoned on the front. The Tories know that the electorate are stupid and they make full use of the fact. If you actually read any manifesto you are a rare exception. The message has to be unsubtle and crude, not convoluted inside a hundred-page document that makes you hostage to fortune. It can still reflect your honest aspirations without sending people into a bored torpor. When I was a green-behind-the-ears young teacher, I applied for a head of science job at a school in Lytham. I "came second." After the interview the headmaster came up to me and told me he'd wanted me for the job but the governors had overruled him because they'd felt that I was trying to tell them what I thought they wanted to hear. The bloke who got the job had gone in and told them that the the department was in a shambles and needed a bloody good shake up. Which I suppose it did. He went in there and impressively cowed the governors. I know that because the head told me. That's how you win things. If Starmer gets the job he'd better grow a pair very quickly is all I can say.

I hear to my dismay that there may be ructions and splits behind the scenes in RLB's camp. She'd better get that sorted otherwise she's stuffed.

Subject: RE: BS: UK politics
From: Iains
Date: 22 Jan 20 - 06:57 AM

An interesting article from guido concerning a yougov poll.
It makes for frightening reading for "thinking" labour supporters:
New YouGov polling has found that one third of Rebecca Long-Bailey’s supporters are “completely unwilling to compromise any Labour values, even if this means the party is unelectable.” Only 5% of Keir Starmer’s supporters refuse to compromise with the voters and just 4% of Lisa Nandy’s supporters prefer purity in opposition. Emily Thornberry did not have enough supporters to be polled…

Conversely, just 1% of RLB’s supporters are “willing to see large compromises on some Labour values if this makes the party more electable.” This compares to 16% of Starmer’s supporters and 19% of Nandy’s.

I did see a comment from another site describing Labour as a "circular Firing Squad". Kinda hard to dispute!