UK Politics - hookers and blow edition

[Hans Gruber]

It's a bit of a non issue isn't it?, man enjoys coke and sex with women, so what?, can't say I blame him.

[The Marquis de Leech]

 

I think that Corbyn would be very appealing to left wing voters, but there aren't enough of them to the defeat the Conservatives.

 

I think the hope is less about appealing to self-identified left wing voters, and more about convincing young or apathetic voters that there is something to sincerely-held left-wing values. It's actually about trying to win an argument (i.e. trying to make more people left-wing), rather than simply presenting a viewpoint you think people will like and then expecting them to vote for you.

 

Whether this will be successful or not is another question. I don't think Michael Foot comparisons are particularly useful though - the Left/Right factions of 1980s Labour aren't the same as the Blairites vs Everyone Else situation today. 

[SeanF]

It's a bit of a non issue isn't it?, man enjoys coke and sex with women, so what?, can't say I blame him.

 

It becomes more problematic when he's Chairman of the Lords' Ethics Committee, and is recorded telling the prostitute that she's what he's spending his £200 a day allowance on.

[Northernmonkey]

One thing I'm wondering - do Labour actually need to pick a leader who is going to be valid candidate in a General Election at the moment? As a result of the Fixed Term Parliament act, there's not going to be another GE for 5 years - plenty of time to install a left-ish leader (a la Corbyn), pull the discussion further in that direction, and then switch to someone more conventionally electable (whatever that actually ends up meaning) nearer the time.

 

That's what I was thinking. I doubt Corbyn has any intention of leading the party into a general election he has no chance of winning. I suspect his main intentions would be to re-energise the left-wing of the party, make things more democratic and try and win back support in Scotland, all the while laying into the Tories at every possibility. Then he can leave the party in a decent shape and let someone else take over.

 

That sounds far preferable to making do with Andy Burnham. God knows how he got to be the favourite.

[Hereward]

I'm not sure how setting off a Labour Party civil war, quite possibly getting removed as leader in a parliamentary party coup, and if he survives probably not being able to put together a shadow government team, letting the Tories have a field day in positioning Labour as the middle class's worst fear and then resigning to start a new round of civil war over his successor counts as leaving them in a a "decent shape", but I strongly encourage them to try. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

letting the Tories have a field day in positioning Labour as the middle class's worst fear 

 

They do that anyway. It's what the Tories always do.

 

The question then becomes how to combat that. The Blair model was if in doubt, move to the Right (i.e. accept the playing field as defined by your opponent). The alternative is to try and actually convert people to the Left (i.e. move the playing field).

[Biglose]

 

They do that anyway. It's what the Tories always do.

 

The question then becomes how to combat that. The Blair model was if in doubt, move to the Right (i.e. accept the playing field as defined by your opponent). The alternative is to try and actually convert people to the Left (i.e. move the playing field).

This question has been asked and awsered, more or less several times.

Obama moved where the voters are and the rebublicans hanged themself with self radicalization.

The CDU in germany did the same and the torris in GB did the same.

And their opposition hanged themself with the robe they were handing them.

The point is, that the middle is easy to get to vote for you. They just demand of you do be moderate, to say some nice things and do not seem extreme in any way and you should make the impression of having some kind of plan. The extremes are tricky. The moderat enviromentalist probably is ok with refugees but the extreme guy wants a reduction of the population to preserve nature, so he might not be. Sure you can splinter up, put whats stopping the xenophobic environmentalist party to just team up with the conservative in the end?

The point is, it does not work, it can not work.

[The Marquis de Leech]

"Moderate" is relative. What was moderate in 1970 is very different from what is moderate in 2015 - indeed, what was moderate in 1970 would be unspeakably far-left in 2015. Tony Blair's economics was well to the right of Ted Heath.

 

The problem is that UK Labour tried to be moderate last time (at least moderate as defined by 2015 standards). Wedded to an overarching acceptance of austerity, but promising to be nicer and gentler.about it. All it did was see them caught between the Tories on one flank (why vote for an imitation when you can vote for the real thing?), the SNP on another (if you're opposed to austerity, let's actually vote that way), and UKIP on another (if you're grumpy, why vote for the Establishment?). In short, they tried to be all things to all people, and pleased nobody. 

[Slick Mongoose]

Clicks on a thread about hookers and blow, gets a discussion about Jeremy Corbyn. :frown5:

[Biglose]

"Moderate" is relative. What was moderate in 1970 is very different from what is moderate in 2015 - indeed, what was moderate in 1970 would be unspeakably far-left in 2015. Tony Blair's economics was well to the right of Ted Heath.

 

The problem is that UK Labour tried to be moderate last time (at least moderate as defined by 2015 standards). Wedded to an overarching acceptance of austerity, but promising to be nicer and gentler.about it. All it did was see them caught between the Tories on one flank (why vote for an imitation when you can vote for the real thing?), the SNP on another (if you're opposed to austerity, let's actually vote that way), and UKIP on another (if you're grumpy, why vote for the Establishment?). In short, they tried to be all things to all people, and pleased nobody. 

This is why the trick works so well, it makes it very hard for the other party to position, once you have taken the middle ground. They can promise the blue out of the sky, many won't believe them and vote for you or not (or some small party). They can take a radical new approach, many will be scared and not vote for them. The other party always ends up between a rock and a hard place.

The only thing the rebublicans in the US could do would be extremly pandering to latinos and use the black/Latino rift, which will be a problem for the democrats.

You can't be the light version of the other party, it will never work. The SPD found this out in germany, too. 

The most important thing is, that you need to seem to care about the country. Thats whats counts. And this means always have a lot of possitions in your party and make it in a way that people believe the best will win. As a matter of fact, thats kind of a good thing, because there is nothing as destructive for constructive solutions as ideological purity. There is one green Minister president in germany (Kretschman) who has probably pulled of the feat of taking one major district from the CDU for good. Yes, for doing that he needed to be more in opposition to his own party than everything else, but this sended the message to his constituents that he wants whats best. Thats a great idea about you to have out there.

 

Obama is trying the same sale pitch on his iran deal, and it will work. All are "buhuhu so unconstitutional buhuhu", and he is just like it is the best we got, show me a better one. And I would bet you, that he will emerge victorious out of that battle. Why? Because he is Batman/Captain America whatever who does what needs to be done for the USA, and the rest are some cowards who hide behind words and want something worse for their own shadowy motives. And thats the picture. Things which do/will hurt him are tragidies like the recruitmentcenter shooting, when he is not fling the flag at half-mast etc. For the exact same reason.

There is no honest exchange of ideas anymore (was there ever?) and thats the fault of all sides. It is often said, it is because of PC, but I think this runs quite deeper (ok it would be PC if you define it broadly enough). So the only currency you have and will have for the near futur will be trust.  And thats what people will vote by. Why? Because it is the only thing they are left with. And trust is build slowly and can be lost fast.

[Hans Gruber]

 

It becomes more problematic when he's Chairman of the Lords' Ethics Committee, and is recorded telling the prostitute that she's what he's spending his £200 a day allowance on.

 

I personally don't have an ethicial or moral issue with anything hes done, I'd rather hear a Lord/MP has been snorting coke off a consenting adults breasts than hear that a fair few of them, past and present are suspected of paedophilia and child abuse, which I do have an ethical and moral issue with.

[SeanF]

They do that anyway. It's what the Tories always do.
 
The question then becomes how to combat that. The Blair model was if in doubt, move to the Right (i.e. accept the playing field as defined by your opponent). The alternative is to try and actually convert people to the Left (i.e. move the playing field).

I don't think that's possible in the UK (outside Scotland). I can see why Labour loathed Blair, but a left-wing Labour Party can't win. I could see a Labour Party led by Jon Cruddas winning, but that would mean opposing mass immigration and ditching some London labour values.

[SeanF]

"Moderate" is relative. What was moderate in 1970 is very different from what is moderate in 2015 - indeed, what was moderate in 1970 would be unspeakably far-left in 2015. Tony Blair's economics was well to the right of Ted Heath.
 
The problem is that UK Labour tried to be moderate last time (at least moderate as defined by 2015 standards). Wedded to an overarching acceptance of austerity, but promising to be nicer and gentler.about it. All it did was see them caught between the Tories on one flank (why vote for an imitation when you can vote for the real thing?), the SNP on another (if you're opposed to austerity, let's actually vote that way), and UKIP on another (if you're grumpy, why vote for the Establishment?). In short, they tried to be all things to all people, and pleased nobody.

I don't know how Labour get themselves out of their predicament. But, I don't think Jeremy Corbyn is the answer.

[SeanF]

I personally don't have an ethicial or moral issue with anything hes done, I'd rather hear a Lord/MP has been snorting coke off a consenting adults breasts than hear that a fair few of them, past and present are suspected of paedophilia and child abuse, which I do have an ethical and moral issue with.

Oh, I'm sure child abuse revelations are on their way way in the H o L.

[Derfel Cadarn]

So it's been 10 months since Scotland voted against leaving the UK, and already Salmond's banging on about another referendum. Apparently "once in a lifetime opportunity" means "until we get the result we want".

[Talleyrand]

So it's been 10 months since Scotland voted against leaving the UK, and already Salmond's banging on about another referendum. Apparently "once in a lifetime opportunity" means "until we get the result we want".

Well in his defense he never said whose lifetime. Plenty of folk and pets have passed away since then.

 

And Cameron forgot to put a "no mulligan" clause in the referendum agreement

[Northernmonkey]

So it's been 10 months since Scotland voted against leaving the UK, and already Salmond's banging on about another referendum. Apparently "once in a lifetime opportunity" means "until we get the result we want".

 

Don't forget that Salmond is basically a loudmouth backbencher trying to cause trouble. Realistically there won't be another referendum anytime soon unless we vote to leave the EU. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

This is why the trick works so well, it makes it very hard for the other party to position, once you have taken the middle ground.

 

You are missing the point. The point is that the middle ground is moveable. The Right can get away with positions that were unthinkable forty years ago, because they have successfully moved the playing field. If the Left merely moves Right to combat that, the playing field shifts again, until you get the current situation where 1970 Tory positions (never mind 1970 Labour positions) are the domain of communist cloud-cuckoo-land.

 

And the current UK Tories are anything but centrist. They've simply staked out a right-wing position, and attacked Labour for incompetence. Labour's only answer these past twenty years has been to move to the Right (or in Miliband's case, try to fudge things). When you have the bloke who ran the Tory campaign saying "if in doubt, stand for something," and the voters are confronted with a consciously moderate Labour Party that will say anything to be elected, what do you think will happen? 

[Gneisenau]

Is Britain full of retired 007s ? How do they manage to capture such intimate shots ?

[The Marquis de Leech]

I don't think that's possible in the UK (outside Scotland). I can see why Labour loathed Blair, but a left-wing Labour Party can't win. I could see a Labour Party led by Jon Cruddas winning, but that would mean opposing mass immigration and ditching some London labour values.

 

I'm not really talking about winning elections (frankly, I don't think Labour has any real options there, short of another big economic crisis), but rather winning the argument - as the Tories have done since the Thatcher era. To do that, you actually need an argument to start with - the party needs to articulate its own ideas, without simply trying to be a more cuddly Tory Party.