General British politics discussion thread

PommieBast

Sam Russell wrote: »

If Corbyn accepted the offer of Ken Clarke as interim PM in a cobbled together temporary Gov to stop Art 50, and go for another referendum, then the whole mess could be sorted properly.

Not so sure about that. Unless there was a huge swing towards Remain not much would have changed. And the same vested interests would use the same channels to push the same line to the same audience.

Sam Russell

PommieBast wrote: »

Not so sure about that. Unless there was a huge swing towards Remain not much would have changed. And the same vested interests would use the same channels to push the same line to the same audience.

There was only a few percent either way. Leave or remain never had a huge support base, and most voters did not understand much about the EU - either way.

The UK have been poisoned for decades by a press whose anti EU lies were never challenged by anyone, and the Gov of the day took every opportunity to claim the good EU policies and decisions for themselves, and blame the EU for all ills, even when the UK Gov had only themselves to blame.

Labour were never in favour of joining the EU, and only had a referendum to stay in under Harold Wilson. At the time, the UK, the sick man of Europe, were in dire trouble with huge balance of payments issues, industrial unrest, and an economy suffering from underinvestment. Add to the problems of the 'Empire' choosing to no longer be part of the Empire, but had to put a fight into it. The UK was sinking.

The UK only started to do well when the single market came into being. Then when everything was going well, they decided to leave.


How history repeats itself.

Capt'n Midnight

blackwhite wrote: »

Don't give that waste of oxygen any more credit than he is due. Farage didn't even found UKIP

UKIP failed to organise a piss-up in a gin distillery.

In a first past the post system in a constituency where non of the main parties stood Farage didn't beat Flipper the Dolphin.

breezy1985

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

UKIP failed to organise a piss-up in a gin distillery.

In a first past the post system in a constituency where non of the main parties stood Farage didn't beat Flipper the Dolphin.

His greatest coup was the facade of him being the average working man despite being a city of London worker with a foreign wife

Roanmore

breezy1985 wrote: »

His greatest coup was the facade of him being the average working man despite being a city of London worker with a foreign wife

2 Foreign wives. One Irish, one German.

blackwhite

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

UKIP failed to organise a piss-up in a gin distillery.

In a first past the post system in a constituency where non of the main parties stood Farage didn't beat Flipper the Dolphin.

Exactly - he keeps getting credited as some sort of mastermind behind it all - when the reality is that he wasn’t really THAT important in the overal scheme of things. A useful figurehead maybe - but not a whole lot beyond that

Harry Palmr

This is going to be a very short live footnote to 2020 UK politics but I'll put in here

https://twitter.com/LozzaFox/status/1309971932926836737

Presumably this will be about as big as about 25% his twitter following, as many will just have him as a hate read/laugh on their time line.

quokula

Harry Palmr wrote: »

This is going to be a very short live footnote to 2020 UK politics but I'll put in here

https://twitter.com/LozzaFox/status/1309971932926836737

Presumably this will be about as big as about 25% his twitter following, as many will just have him as a hate read/laugh on their time line.

He sums up a lot of what’s wrong with the UK. Third rate, nobody actor, who discovered he could dramatically raise his profile by posting hateful crap on Twitter and suddenly he’s getting invited on Question Time and the like by the BBC.

breezy1985

quokula wrote: »

He sums up a lot of what’s wrong with the UK. Third rate, nobody actor, who discovered he could dramatically raise his profile by posting hateful crap on Twitter and suddenly he’s getting invited on Question Time and the like by the BBC.

Question time really needs to cop on. Gave Farage a very unfair amount of time because they were chasing ratings

Sam Russell

Harry Palmr wrote: »

This is going to be a very short live footnote to 2020 UK politics but I'll put in here

https://twitter.com/LozzaFox/status/1309971932926836737

Presumably this will be about as big as about 25% his twitter following, as many will just have him as a hate read/laugh on their time line.

Support from the Telegraph and Kate Hoey.

What more would you need?

ancapailldorcha

What's the point, exactly? All people know him for is his petty little outburst on Question Time. There is already a right wing culture war party, the conservatives. UKIP are still around surprisingly enough so all he'd do is split the right wing vote if he can attract funding for his party. If I were looking to earn off the culture war, I'd just run as a Conservative MP to be honest.

Sam Russell

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/26/labour-takes-poll-lead-as-parties-see-major-switch-in-fortunes

Labour takes poll lead as parties see major switch in fortunes

Labour take a three point lead over Tories, while Starmer while

Starmer now leads Johnson by four points on who would make the best prime minister. More than half of voters (55%) believe he is ready to be prime minister, and 40% believe Labour is ready to form the next government.

So the knives will be out for Johnson, as Covid failings take their toll.

On another point, BJ in his UN speech, he railed against the nations of the UN taking 92 different approaches to combatting Covid - why could they not agree a single strategy?

He did not mention the the UK itself are taking four distinct approaches to Covid - and all of them failing.

More exceptionalism.

astrofool

Sam Russell wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/26/labour-takes-poll-lead-as-parties-see-major-switch-in-fortunes

Labour takes poll lead as parties see major switch in fortunes

Labour take a three point lead over Tories, while Starmer while



So the knives will be out for Johnson, as Covid failings take their toll.

On another point, BJ in his UN speech, he railed against the nations of the UN taking 92 different approaches to combatting Covid - why could they not agree a single strategy?

He did not mention the the UK itself are taking four distinct approaches to Covid - and all of them failing.

More exceptionalism.

This just highlights the mistakes Labour made in moving to the left, initially by letting Corbyn run as a joke candidate (allowed by Ed Milliband changing the leader election rules to be more "with" it).

What a different world we could be in if Corbyn hadn't been put forward, or if David had won instead of Ed.

Parties that line the middle ground generally have a good chance of governing, as Labour moves more left, the Tories move right and suck up all Labours lost votes.

What's also good about this is it's without Labour's dependence on Scotland, which used to give them a bunch of seats.

PommieBast

breezy1985 wrote: »

Question time really needs to cop on. Gave Farage a very unfair amount of time because they were chasing ratings

QT has had an appalling reputation among political insiders for a long time. Always trying to engineer an argument and switch off panellists' microphones whenever a member of the audience chips in. No wonder they all seem to prefer Sky News and would not shed a tear if the BBC was disbanded.

breezy1985

astrofool wrote: »

This just highlights the mistakes Labour made in moving to the left, initially by letting Corbyn run as a joke candidate (allowed by Ed Milliband changing the leader election rules to be more "with" it).

What a different world we could be in if Corbyn hadn't been put forward, or if David had won instead of Ed.

Parties that line the middle ground generally have a good chance of governing, as Labour moves more left, the Tories move right and suck up all Labours lost votes.

What's also good about this is it's without Labour's dependence on Scotland, which used to give them a bunch of seats.

It was all inevitable looking back. Cameron would have beaten either Milli and and once Brexit got rolling there was no stopping it whether it was Corbyn or anyone else. You just couldn't beat the blitz and spitfire BS coming out of people at the time

Sam Russell

breezy1985 wrote: »

It was all inevitable looking back. Cameron would have beaten either Milli and and once Brexit got rolling there was no stopping it whether it was Corbyn or anyone else. You just couldn't beat the blitz and spitfire BS coming out of people at the time

Brexit was only lost by a few percent, so a bit more belief on the Remain side, and a little of calling out the lies may have been enough.

David Milliband would have been much better that Ed, and would have been more effective. Corbyn was born a protester, and unable to actually do much at all. Also, he was a Leaver and hated the EU, although it has done a lot for the working man.

O'Neill

Sam Russell wrote: »

Brexit was only lost by a few percent, so a bit more belief on the Remain side, and a little of calling out the lies may have been enough.

David Milliband would have been much better that Ed, and would have been more effective. Corbyn was born a protester, and unable to actually do much at all. Also, he was a Leaver and hated the EU, although it has done a lot for the working man.

Thought Ed did a great job a few weeks ago personally, much better than Starmer imo.

Sam Russell

O'Neill wrote: »

Thought Ed did a great job a few weeks ago personally, much better than Starmer imo.

He did an excellent job of burying the Prime Minister who was left squirming in his seat like he had the result of a bad curry laundry malfunction (I am sure there is such a thing!). He certainly looked sat upon.

Ed Milliband's problem was he suffered a huge deluge of anti-him publicity and fake stories that made it impossible for him to project any positive views and had him defensive at all times. The direct result of a Tory press.

I think we can now assume that the BBC is now part of the Tory media.

ancapailldorcha

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think we can now assume that the BBC is now part of the Tory media.

It's been that way for quite some time. They've been underplaying the risks of no deal Brexit since the referendum and there exists something of a revolving door between the BBC and the British right. Craig Oliver was in charge of global news for instance while Andrew Neil chairs the Spectator magazine. Then there's Laura Kuenssberg who was presenting gossip from Tories about postal voting as fact.

Tom Mann Centuria

The media, and media personalities (including supposed left of centre types) were more concerned about not getting an actual Socialist in power than absolutely anything else, aided by people like David Miliband and Blair, Mandelson and Campbell. FBPE zealots (including Starmer) pushing for a 2nd referendum that they were never going to win and losing chunks off the red wall as a result, then blaming Corbyn. Now they've all of a sudden waived the white flag and said bye bye to getting back into the EU, even the LibDems.

So they got exactly what they wanted and deserved and now they're realising it's too late, as Johnson (Cummings) does exactly as they want.

breezy1985

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's been that way for quite some time. They've been underplaying the risks of no deal Brexit since the referendum and there exists something of a revolving door between the BBC and the British right. Craig Oliver was in charge of global news for instance while Andrew Neil chairs the Spectator magazine. Then there's Laura Kuenssberg who was presenting gossip from Tories about postal voting as fact.

The BBC seem much like RTE to get kicked about by both sides for being in bed with the other.

Cameron was never gonna lose that election as the economy wasn't in bad enough shape to sway the middle ground and he had thrown enough socially liberal carrots around to convince moderate right leaning voters that this wasn't the old evil Tories.

Joe_ Public

Sam Russell wrote: »

He did an excellent job of burying the Prime Minister who was left squirming in his seat like he had the result of a bad curry laundry malfunction (I am sure there is such a thing!). He certainly looked sat upon.

Ed Milliband's problem was he suffered a huge deluge of anti-him publicity and fake stories that made it impossible for him to project any positive views and had him defensive at all times. The direct result of a Tory press.

I think we can now assume that the BBC is now part of the Tory media.

A couple of pages back you referred to Corbyn as a "joke" even though the latter actually replenished the party after 2015 and came within shouting distance of getting into government in 2017. Yes, the right wing press did a number on Miliband but they did an even worse job on Corbyn and not even that, Corbyn had sections of the liberal media against him too (cf guardian/observer group), on top of a significant rump of his party quite subtly antagonistic.

I'm not having a go, I just feel a narrative was created some time ago that Corbyn was terrible with no redeeming qualities and could be usefully blamed for everything. Starmer is doing it now, using every public appearance to put as much distance as he can between himself and his predecessor while the left of the party are expected to put their misgivings aside and row in behind, even though the centre/right did anything but when the shoe was on the other foot.

I understand this is politics and it's a dirty business. Starmer will do whatever it takes to get into power and if abandoning a few longstanding cherished labour principles is the price, then I imagine lots will deem it a price worth paying.

Personally I think it carries some risks, though. They may think they can afford to shed some of their cosmopolitan progressive vote in order to coax the red wall voters back (who, by the way, had been steadily abandoning the party since 1997) but I think there's a chance such a strategy ends up biting them in the ass, if indeed it is the way they intend to go.

First Up

breezy1985 wrote:

Cameron was never gonna lose that election as the economy wasn't in bad enough shape to sway the middle ground and he had thrown enough socially liberal carrots around to convince moderate right leaning voters that this wasn't the old evil Tories.

Plus don't forget (don't ever forget) that Labour had been torn apart by Blair's disastrous decision to invade Iraq, making them (deservedly) un-electable for a generation.

Plenty of culprits for the sh*t show they have made for themselves but that's where it all started.

O'Neill

Joe_ Public wrote: »

A couple of pages back you referred to Corbyn as a "joke" even though the latter actually replenished the party after 2015 and came within shouting distance of getting into government in 2017. Yes, the right wing press did a number on Miliband but they did an even worse job on Corbyn and not even that, Corbyn had sections of the liberal media against him too (cf guardian/observer group), on top of a significant rump of his party quite subtly antagonistic.

I'm not having a go, I just feel a narrative was created some time ago that Corbyn was terrible with no redeeming qualities and could be usefully blamed for everything. Starmer is doing it now, using every public appearance to put as much distance as he can between himself and his predecessor while the left of the party are expected to put their misgivings aside and row in behind, even though the centre/right did anything but when the shoe was on the other foot.

I understand this is politics and it's a dirty business. Starmer will do whatever it takes to get into power and if abandoning a few longstanding cherished labour principles is the price, then I imagine lots will deem it a price worth paying.

Personally I think it carries some risks, though. They may think they can afford to shed some of their cosmopolitan progressive vote in order to coax the red wall voters back (who, by the way, had been steadily abandoning the party since 1997) but I think there's a chance such a strategy ends up biting them in the ass, if indeed it is the way they intend to go.

I remember reading somehwhere either here or somewhere that Labour need to dissolve into two seperare parties. Completely disagree tbh. Labour should be a proud aliance. Let's face it, perhaps i'm being naive but both sections are more in agreement with issues than disagreement if they're both not so stubborn.

The left of the party as far as i'm concerned have always been hung out to dry and have been ignored, if the party are smart, especially after Corbyn, they shouldn't ignore what attracted to him in the first place.

breezy1985

First Up wrote: »

Plus don't forget (don't ever forget) that Labour had been torn apart by Blair's disastrous decision to invade Iraq, making them (deservedly) un-electable for a generation.

Plenty of culprits for the sh*t show they have made for themselves but that's where it all started.

Ya you would forget with all the madness these days how alot of people of my generation thought that it couldn't possibly get worse than Blair/Bush and in alot of ways they were worse

Joe_ Public

O'Neill wrote: »

I remember reading somehwhere either here or somewhere that Labour need to dissolve into two seperare parties. Completely disagree tbh. Labour should be a proud aliance. Let's face it, perhaps i'm being naive but both sections are more in agreement with issues than disagreement if they're both not so stubborn.

The left of the party as far as i'm concerned have always been hung out to dry and have been ignored, if the party are smart, especially after Corbyn, they shouldn't ignore what attracted to him in the first place.

Agree, the broad church and all that. I think it's more difficult for labour than the Tories to find common ground because the latter will more readily abandon or modify principles in order to cling to power. And they're almost always agreed on one central thing, that the market is king, which is why all this socialist hand out stuff during the pandemic is stretching a number of their patience.

As for labour, starmer started out confirming the 10 pledges to placate the left, since then he's upset the blm side, sacked RLB, aimed subtle digs at Corbyn and is now lifting his hem to the rich to try and attract the big party donors again. I get all this is part of the process of making them "electable" again and making the press think they're serious and no threat to their or big business hegemony as was seen with Corbyn. I get it, but it wouldn't personally appeal to me if I was the target audience (which I'm not, of course, so it's all moot!).

Sam Russell

Joe_ Public wrote: »

A couple of pages back you referred to Corbyn as a "joke" even though the latter actually replenished the party after 2015 and came within shouting distance of getting into government in 2017. Yes, the right wing press did a number on Miliband but they did an even worse job on Corbyn and not even that, Corbyn had sections of the liberal media against him too (cf guardian/observer group), on top of a significant rump of his party quite subtly antagonistic.

I'm not having a go, I just feel a narrative was created some time ago that Corbyn was terrible with no redeeming qualities and could be usefully blamed for everything. Starmer is doing it now, using every public appearance to put as much distance as he can between himself and his predecessor while the left of the party are expected to put their misgivings aside and row in behind, even though the centre/right did anything but when the shoe was on the other foot.

I understand this is politics and it's a dirty business. Starmer will do whatever it takes to get into power and if abandoning a few longstanding cherished labour principles is the price, then I imagine lots will deem it a price worth paying.

Personally I think it carries some risks, though. They may think they can afford to shed some of their cosmopolitan progressive vote in order to coax the red wall voters back (who, by the way, had been steadily abandoning the party since 1997) but I think there's a chance such a strategy ends up biting them in the ass, if indeed it is the way they intend to go.

Corbyn had been skulking at the back of the Labour backbenches for most of his career as a Labour MP, opposing everything, in particular anything to do with the EU with little to no effect. He may have a left wing heart but has not the ability to get things done. He supported groups and policies a more circumspect politician would have steered clear of to prevent giving hostages to fortune.

He was unable to put issues to bed quickly - like the unfounded charge of antisemitism. He allowed the muck to stick and was unable to shake it off. That is a leadership issue. He should have realised the issue was not good for him and put clear blue water between the Labour Party and the issue, and so insulate the Labour party from it. He did not do this and thus added fuel to the fire.

However, he did, and still does, have deeply held principles that he failed to sell out on - and for that I would praise him. With that, he is in deep contrast to the charlatans who currently control the Tory party and the current shambles of a government.

He was not the leader for his time, just like his predecessor, Michael Foot, who suffered a similar fate. Being left wing leaves a Labour leader to be a target for the right wing Tory press.

Joe_ Public

Sam Russell wrote: »

Corbyn had been skulking at the back of the Labour backbenches for most of his career as a Labour MP, opposing everything, in particular anything to do with the EU with little to no effect. He may have a left wing heart but has not the ability to get things done. He supported groups and policies a more circumspect politician would have steered clear of to prevent giving hostages to fortune.

He was unable to put issues to bed quickly - like the unfounded charge of antisemitism. He allowed the muck to stick and was unable to shake it off. That is a leadership issue. He should have realised the issue was not good for him and put clear blue water between the Labour Party and the issue, and so insulate the Labour party from it. He did not do this and thus added fuel to the fire.

However, he did, and still does, have deeply held principles that he failed to sell out on - and for that I would praise him. With that, he is in deep contrast to the charlatans who currently control the Tory party and the current shambles of a government.

He was not the leader for his time, just like his predecessor, Michael Foot, who suffered a similar fate. Being left wing leaves a Labour leader to be a target for the right wing Tory press.

I can agree with a lot of that. I'm not flying a banner for Jeremy Corbyn, but I think there is just a bit of unfairness when it comes to evaluation. To my mind the mistake made over AS was they initially underestimated how serious it would become a major issue. They attributed it to a rump of opponents weaponising it to undermine the leadership - not without some justification imo - but didn't see how quickly it would escalate. That was a big mistake. But a lot of this is subject to investigation, so I'd personally hold fire a little bit until that whole process concludes.

But maybe it just can't be that a left labour leader can win power and we have to accept it, I understand that. In hindsight I think McDonnell, a much more pragmatic and eloquent figure than Corbyn, might have been a better left choice in 2015, but he has his baggage too so hard to know. Only other thing I'd say is it's a bit moot to talk about the right wing Tory press with Corbyn when, as we're learning, so much of the most strident opposition came from within. Did Corbyn deserve better from some of his own side in 2017 and could it have made a difference to the final result? We'll never know, I guess.

breezy1985

Anti-Semitism being used to attack someone who is anti Israeli policy is nothing new. Corbyn has probably had years of it by now and maybe that's why he seemed not to care too much about it and I don't see any way it was gonna stop even if he had. Certain thinks didn't help him along the way though like Ken Livingstone still doing interviews

Sam Russell

breezy1985 wrote: »

Anti-Semitism being used to attack someone who is anti Israeli policy is nothing new. Corbyn has probably had years of it by now and maybe that's why he seemed not to care too much about it and I don't see any way it was gonna stop even if he had. Certain thinks didn't help him along the way though like Ken Livingstone still doing interviews

The only way you can get away with being anti-Israel and not be accused of antisemitism is by being a well known Jew like Noam Chomsky.