Jump to content
Stannis Eats No Peaches

UK Politics: The End of May

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Was it though?

Surely the story here is about those fabled Labour Leave voters. If they had been prepared to defect to nu-UKIP in the same numbers as the Tories did, Labour would have lost. But they were not. That's at least as valid a narrative as the one centring the Conservative voters who stuck with their party.

Labour certainly have bragging rights.  Their ground operation in this most marginal of seats must have been excellent.  The Tories are probably well organised on the ground here as well.  That said, they still lost 41% between them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mormont said:

Surely the story here is about those fabled Labour Leave voters. If they had been prepared to defect to nu-UKIP in the same numbers as the Tories did, Labour would have lost. But they were not. That's at least as valid a narrative as the one centring the Conservative voters who stuck with their party.

Are you sure that'S the story, or the story we should look at?

I think the more important story is not that NUKIP missed out on a seat (narrowly), or how Tory voters defected to them - I mean, of course they did. The story is, how will this result play out with Labour party policy. If Labours' lesson from that by election is, our current strategy works, let's stick with the dithereing of concrete fudging, or constructive ambivalence. If that's the takeaway for Corbyn and the current Labour leadership, then this was a costly seat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Are you sure that'S the story, or the story we should look at?

I think the more important story is not that NUKIP missed out on a seat (narrowly), or how Tory voters defected to them - I mean, of course they did. The story is, how will this result play out with Labour party policy. If Labours' lesson from that by election is, our current strategy works, let's stick with the dithereing of concrete fudging, or constructive ambivalence. If that's the takeaway for Corbyn and the current Labour leadership, then this was a costly seat.

Corbyn has bragging rights within Labour, over this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And of course he did it.

At this point I am not even blaming Corbyn. He is an idiot, that can't be helped. I am blaming the momentun morons, that fudge the issue at the last Labour conference in order to not upset the dear leader. And also the spinless Labour members that allowed it, hello Keir.

Part of me wonders in a battle of stupid, who would win. Esther McVey or Rebecca Long-Bailey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

And of course he did it.

At this point I am not even blaming Corbyn. He is an idiot, that can't be helped. I am blaming the momentun morons, that fudge the issue at the last Labour conference in order to not upset the dear leader. And also the spinless Labour members that allowed it, hello Keir.

Part of me wonders in a battle of stupid, who would win. Esther McVey or Rebecca Long-Bailey.

Why is he still the leader? Obviously this is coming from an outsider, but I swear I only hear negative things said about him, regardless of the speaker's political point of view. Is it much like the position May was in, having a job nobody wants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder to what extent people can be made to follow their leaders. I mean, many issues divides more cleanly in the right/left spectrum than you'd expect. Support for Israel vs Palestine is one of those questions. On its face it has jack all to do with capitalism vs socialism, but out of tradition and history, the right tends to support Israel while the left is more sympathetic to the Palestinians. Same goes for abortion rights, immigration, feminism, nuclear and so on. They shouldn't rightfully belong on an economical left/right scale but they are there anyway. 

To some extent political parties can gain an advantage from being on the winning side of such issues. For example, I think part of the reason the right has been so successful lately has been its resistance towards immigration in a time where this is a popular stance.

Brexit, I think, could be more clearly divided on the left/right axis than it is. Labour have so far been afraid to lose Brexit voters if they came out and supported Remain (or at least a new people's vote). And perhaps rightly so, because it seems like the Brexit issue crosses party lines. But wouldn't it be possible, by heavy campaigning, to change people's minds on this? To make leftist voters more pro-remain - and Remain voters more leftist? It's obvious that the Tories are getting more and more bogged down in the unwinnable mess that is Brexit, and I think this could be an excellent issue to be on the right side of.

With Cameron's and May's Brexit mess and clowns like Boris posed to take over, trying to out-clown UKIP by demanding a hard Brexit, the Tories should rightfully be eradicated from parliament for a generation. The fact that Labour is still trailing them speaks some of Corbyn's lack of success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

I wonder to what extent people can be made to follow their leaders. I mean, many issues divides more cleanly in the right/left spectrum than you'd expect. Support for Israel vs Palestine is one of those questions. On its face it has jack all to do with capitalism vs socialism, but out of tradition and history, the right tends to support Israel while the left is more sympathetic to the Palestinians. Same goes for abortion rights, immigration, feminism, nuclear and so on. They shouldn't rightfully belong on an economical left/right scale but they are there anyway. 

To some extent political parties can gain an advantage from being on the winning side of such issues. For example, I think part of the reason the right has been so successful lately has been its resistance towards immigration in a time where this is a popular stance.

Brexit, I think, could be more clearly divided on the left/right axis than it is. Labour have so far been afraid to lose Brexit voters if they came out and supported Remain (or at least a new people's vote). And perhaps rightly so, because it seems like the Brexit issue crosses party lines. But wouldn't it be possible, by heavy campaigning, to change people's minds on this? To make leftist voters more pro-remain - and Remain voters more leftist? It's obvious that the Tories are getting more and more bogged down in the unwinnable mess that is Brexit, and I think this could be an excellent issue to be on the right side of.

With Cameron's and May's Brexit mess and clowns like Boris posed to take over, trying to out-clown UKIP by demanding a hard Brexit, the Tories should rightfully be eradicated from parliament for a generation. The fact that Labour is still trailing them speaks some of Corbyn's lack of success.

Most opposition to Brexit comes from the Left.  But, by no means all.  Wealthy parts of London, the Surrey Stockbroker Belt, and well-heeled constituencies along the M3 and M4 are strongly Remain.  Many of those voters may switch to the Lib Dems, but they won't be converted to socialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Most opposition to Brexit comes from the Left.  But, by no means all.  Wealthy parts of London, the Surrey Stockbroker Belt, and well-heeled constituencies along the M3 and M4 are strongly Remain.  Many of those voters may switch to the Lib Dems, but they won't be converted to socialism.

And the flip side is that Leftist opposition to the EU is Labour's ancestral tradition - not just in the stereotypical working class objection to immigration sense, but also in the Bennite objections to Brussels (which Corbyn shares).

Europhilia is in the Liberals' DNA, but not Labour's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

And the flip side is that Leftist opposition to the EU is Labour's ancestral tradition - not just in the stereotypical working class objection to immigration sense, but also in the Bennite objections to Brussels (which Corbyn shares).

Europhilia is in the Liberals' DNA, but not Labour's.

Not too long ago, there were quite a few eurosceptic radicals down in Devon & Cornwall (the political descendants of people who attended Chapel rather than Church) who typically voted for Liberal and Lib Dem MPs.  That element of Lib Dem support has now vanished, even as they've gained support among middle class voters in the Home Counties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Most opposition to Brexit comes from the Left.  But, by no means all.  Wealthy parts of London, the Surrey Stockbroker Belt, and well-heeled constituencies along the M3 and M4 are strongly Remain.  Many of those voters may switch to the Lib Dems, but they won't be converted to socialism.

This is a very valid observation, as an ex Londoner and now member of the Surrey stockbroker belt :P, I’d never consider voting for Labour, not in its current format anyway, I couldn’t bring myself to vote Tory in the last election although I did vote for them in 2015(I also don’t think I could vote for them now, Dominic Raab is my MP and can’t stand him)if I had to vote at the moment the Lib Dems would probably get it but the truth is I’m more likely to abstain altogether with things the way they are.

Edited by Bittersweet Distractor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Bittersweet Distractor said:

This is a very valid observation, as an ex Londoner and now member of the Surrey stockbroker belt :P, I’d never consider voting for Labour, not in its current format anyway, I couldn’t bring myself to vote Tory in the last election although I did vote for them in 2015(I also don’t think I could vote for them now, Dominic Raab is my MP and can’t stand him)if I had to vote at the moment the Lib Dems would probably get it but the truth is I’m more likely to abstain altogether with things the way they are.

I know the Lib Dems are damaged goods with everyone who felt strongly over their tuition fee flip flop (and by extension Clegg's failure to shape the coalition's policies more). Also their brand of Europhilia is not for all centrists. But I wonder why there isn't more enthusiasm for them in the absence of any centrist alternatives at the moment?

Pre-coalition you could have doubted their ability to run a garage sale, and some may think their performance in the coalition did nothing to dispel that notion, but I actually think most of their ministers did ok, and are certainly no worse than the dumpster fire that is the big two's crew at the moment.

I really think they deserve another shot, but the problem would be what the exact composition of a new coalition would look like in the event of a GE. If the big two could just hurry up and split.

Edited by Ser Hedge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boris Johnson admitted in a GQ interview in 2007 he had tried cocaine and cannabis while at university, saying it “achieved no pharmacological, psychotropic or any other effect on me whatsoever”.

:rofl:

He later changed his story, saying he was offered a “white substance” at university but none went up his nose because he sneezed. He said he had “no idea whether it was cocaine or not” and it could have been icing sugar.

:bs:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

Boris Johnson admitted in a GQ interview in 2007 he had tried cocaine and cannabis while at university, saying it “achieved no pharmacological, psychotropic or any other effect on me whatsoever”.

:rofl:

He later changed his story, saying he was offered a “white substance” at university but none went up his nose because he sneezed. He said he had “no idea whether it was cocaine or not” and it could have been icing sugar.

:bs:

Reminds me of Bill Clinton’s saying he didn’t inhale Weed.

Guys, you’re being more offensive, through the fact you think most people would buy these excuse weird defenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

Boris Johnson admitted in a GQ interview in 2007 he had tried cocaine and cannabis while at university, saying it “achieved no pharmacological, psychotropic or any other effect on me whatsoever”.

:rofl:

He later changed his story, saying he was offered a “white substance” at university but none went up his nose because he sneezed. He said he had “no idea whether it was cocaine or not” and it could have been icing sugar.

:bs:

So which of the Tory leadership candidates are yet to make their confession to taking class A drugs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2019 at 7:57 PM, Ser Hedge said:

I know the Lib Dems are damaged goods with everyone who felt strongly over their tuition fee flip flop (and by extension Clegg's failure to shape the coalition's policies more). Also their brand of Europhilia is not for all centrists. But I wonder why there isn't more enthusiasm for them in the absence of any centrist alternatives at the moment?

Pre-coalition you could have doubted their ability to run a garage sale, and some may think their performance in the coalition did nothing to dispel that notion, but I actually think most of their ministers did ok, and are certainly no worse than the dumpster fire that is the big two's crew at the moment.

I really think they deserve another shot, but the problem would be what the exact composition of a new coalition would look like in the event of a GE. If the big two could just hurry up and split.

The tuition fee u turn hurt them badly but they do seem to be having somewhat of a renaissance, I didn't think they did badly in the coalition either, in fact I thought Clegg did quite well.

I'd be interested to see the big two split too, a party of centrist ex Tory and Labour MPs would be good.

10 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

Boris Johnson admitted in a GQ interview in 2007 he had tried cocaine and cannabis while at university, saying it “achieved no pharmacological, psychotropic or any other effect on me whatsoever”.

:rofl:

He later changed his story, saying he was offered a “white substance” at university but none went up his nose because he sneezed. He said he had “no idea whether it was cocaine or not” and it could have been icing sugar.

:bs:

I've found all this faux shock from the media about Gove and Johnsons past drug use, and their hilarious rebuttals for it quite funny.

I couldn't care less that they did coke or smoked weed 20+ years ago, use of both drugs is absolutely rife across the whole country, it doesn't make them less qualified for the job, what does, is that they're smug,incompetent idiots who want to wreck the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×