UK Politics: Not even a Penny for a new Prime Minister

[BigFatCoward]

So do we assume this is why she didn't look like herself in the video, or are we just supposed to stop asking wtf that was about as she's sick? 

[BigFatCoward]

Weirdly I feel sorry for uptight prick William. Losing his mam clearly messed him up, he's probably terrified about it happening to his kids. 

[polishgenius]

9 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

So do we assume this is why she didn't look like herself in the video, or are we just supposed to stop asking wtf that was about as she's sick? 

 

Chemotherapy is a fucking drag, man. I've known people who you'd barely recognise during and after a course. 

[BigFatCoward]

4 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

 

Chemotherapy is a fucking drag, man. I've known people who you'd barely recognise during and after a course. 

Probably shouldn't have dragged her on an unnecessary pr exercise if that was the case though right? 

[polishgenius]

I mean, it's possible she was just out shopping. 

[BigFatCoward]

Riiiiiiiiight. 

[DaveSumm]

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

So Kate has cancer.

Why the fuck didn't they just say so. Prats.

Apparently it was timed so that her kids could break up from school before the announcement. Which makes sense.

It seems obvious now in hindsight of course, she had an operation and then wasn’t paraded around so we can all gawp at her and decide for ourselves if she’s OK. There was no answer to ‘what’s going on’ that wouldn’t make all the conspiracies look insensitive. I feel bad for her, she can’t even get cancer without the whole fucking country getting involved.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

10 hours ago, Liffguard said:

And that's fundamentally what the argument is about. Labour under Starmer is looking extremely likely to win the next general election. It might even be one of the biggest landslides of all time. It's looking likely that this will be due to an utter collapse in Tory support rather than a growth in Labour support, but whatever, a win is a win. But what is winning political office for? People criticise Starmer because he gives every indication of pursuing policies that will continue the UK on its current path. Yes, Corbyn lost, and yes, Starmer will probably win. But winning only matters if you use it to improve people's lives. Starmers critics believe, rightly or wrongly, that the policies Starmer will pursue won't do that.

Yep, you can raise the argument with the electorate again and try to win that argument then. But for the moment you lost the argument. Whether it was because you failed to deliver your point convincingly (messaging) or because your point was not good is another discussion. But ultimately you failed to win the argument (at that point in time).

What really annoyed me to no small extent was this. Corbyn lost two GEs. The second one disastrously. The first one he ran against a horribly weak incumbent, poor campaigner, with a poor policy platform she then had to reverse. Yet, Corbyn failed to win. In some ways he won by not losing as big as he was thought to... Then he lost against Bozo, the Brexit Clown. And all the flaws of why Corbyn should not have been Leader culminated in an electoral disaster.

And then [for the Corbynista] it was the nasty media, Blairites and what not that were responsible. Not his flaws (his unfavorability ratings), platform (nonsensical, unclear Brexit position). And Jones was very firmly in the internal saboteurs (Blairite) are to blame camp.

As for Starmer. Yes, he is utterly uninspiring. But ultimately he will (presumably) have achieved more as a Labour leader than Corbyn. If you don't win elections, you can't enact policies. That's the very basic nature of politics. Which goes back to winning the argument. Starmer wants to win a broad coalition and peel off as many Tory voters as he can. He could and arguably push a more progressive/left message. Esp. with the shape the SNP is in right now, he could conceivably win quite a few seats up north.

Anyway, I am now shopping for a new thread title.

[karaddin]

4 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Weirdly I feel sorry for uptight prick William. Losing his mam clearly messed him up, he's probably terrified about it happening to his kids. 

Yeah regardless of what I feel about him as a royal, he's still a human and I'm going to feel sorry for almost anyone that finds out their Dad and wife both have cancer within a few months - potentially the same week. 

[Werthead]

2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

What really annoyed me to no small extent was this. Corbyn lost two GEs. The second one disastrously. The first one he ran against a horribly weak incumbent, poor campaigner, with a poor policy platform she then had to reverse. Yet, Corbyn failed to win. In some ways he won by not losing as big as he was thought to... Then he lost against Bozo, the Brexit Clown. And all the flaws of why Corbyn should not have been Leader culminated in an electoral disaster.

And then [for the Corbynista] it was the nasty media, Blairites and what not that were responsible. Not his flaws (his unfavorability ratings), platform (nonsensical, unclear Brexit position). And Jones was very firmly in the internal saboteurs (Blairite) are to blame camp.

The first one did see the biggest shift to Labour in electoral history, exceeding the swing in 1997 that delivered Blair his landslide victory. As was noted at the time, getting an even bigger shift to win a majority outright was almost completely demographically impossible, so complaining about that feels a bit churlish. As it was, that success plunged the Tories into a full-on crisis lasting until the next election.

However, he did completely screw the pooch afterwards. Some of the complaints are valid - it was interesting seeing the absolutely titanic assault on social media of US-style advertising basically claiming that Corbyn was going to sell the country to communists, or something - but ultimately Corbyn lost because the Tories threw everything into the election on the basis of Brexit-delivery and Corbyn could not deliver what he clearly personally wanted, Labour supporting Brexit fully, but could not bring himself to whole-heartedly oppose it, so his messaging became incredibly weak, confused and incoherent on that issue. Everything else his policies seemed to resonate as well as they did in 2017, but the Tories very successfully pivoted the argument away from those policies. He fought the battle on ground of the enemy's choosing and did not show up with a viable strategy.

[karaddin]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

He fought the battle on ground of the enemy's choosing and did not show up with a viable strategy.

Progressive politicians win support with sincere conviction and the electorate could absolutely smell the lack of both on this issue.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

6 hours ago, Werthead said:

it was interesting seeing the absolutely titanic assault on social media of US-style advertising basically claiming that Corbyn was going to sell the country to communists, or something

And he did not really help his case by his reaction to the Salisbury poisonings, and being regular on RT.

I am not even talking about his public position on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as that happened after he was ousted as Labour leader.

5 hours ago, karaddin said:

Progressive politicians win support with sincere conviction and the electorate could absolutely smell the lack of both on this issue.

I could kinda riff on about politicians like Corbyn being called progressives/left, despite them apparently being stuck in some 1980s conviction, in which Russia = good, USA (by expansion NATO) = bad. This pro Russian stance is absolutely incompatible with being a progressive in my book.

Edited March 23 by A Horse Named Stranger

[karaddin]

You can disagree with his particular stripe of it, but I wasn't commenting on his actual policies - just that if you're trying to tap into idealistic sentiments in voters then insincerity and lack of conviction will turn off that voter base. He needed those voters regardless of whether you agree with him or not.

[Liffguard]

11 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Yep, you can raise the argument with the electorate again and try to win that argument then. But for the moment you lost the argument. Whether it was because you failed to deliver your point convincingly (messaging) or because your point was not good is another discussion. But ultimately you failed to win the argument (at that point in time).

What really annoyed me to no small extent was this. Corbyn lost two GEs. The second one disastrously. The first one he ran against a horribly weak incumbent, poor campaigner, with a poor policy platform she then had to reverse. Yet, Corbyn failed to win. In some ways he won by not losing as big as he was thought to... Then he lost against Bozo, the Brexit Clown. And all the flaws of why Corbyn should not have been Leader culminated in an electoral disaster.

And then [for the Corbynista] it was the nasty media, Blairites and what not that were responsible. Not his flaws (his unfavorability ratings), platform (nonsensical, unclear Brexit position). And Jones was very firmly in the internal saboteurs (Blairite) are to blame camp.

As for Starmer. Yes, he is utterly uninspiring. But ultimately he will (presumably) have achieved more as a Labour leader than Corbyn. If you don't win elections, you can't enact policies. That's the very basic nature of politics. Which goes back to winning the argument. Starmer wants to win a broad coalition and peel off as many Tory voters as he can. He could and arguably push a more progressive/left message. Esp. with the shape the SNP is in right now, he could conceivably win quite a few seats up north.

Anyway, I am now shopping for a new thread title.

There are plenty of points to argue here, but they're all orthogonal to the point I'm making. I'm not here to relitigate the Corbyn years, and indeed the discussion I'm trying to have isn't about Corbyn. Starmer can stand on his own merits, and criticism of Starmer can be made on its own merits, without having to kneejerk respond "but Corbyn."

Re the first bolded, the problem isn't that he's uninspiring (he is, but it's irrelevent). The problem is that he's promoting bad policy and harmful ideology. Maybe it's all a ruse to get elected and he'll swing left in power? I guess that's not impossible, but I remain highly sceptical. I think this is who he actually is.

Re the second bolded, this is true, but again, the corollary is that the purpose of winning elections is to enact policy. It's no achievement to win, and then continue the very policies that have led to our current problems. And people who want different policies are well within their rights to criticise, and to leave the party if they feel it no longer represents them or serves as a vehicle for the change they want to see enacted.

 

[Heartofice]

Starmer has done a decent job of holding off any connection to the far left of the Labour Party, because that element is not going to connect with the majority of the country.
 

Yes there are policies like nationalisation of some industries that would be popular ( but probably impractical and not necessarily the right choice) but there are a ton of other policies and ideological positions that just turn off most voters. Starmer has to keep signaling to the electorate that he isn’t in thrall to the craziest leftist elements of his party. 

Another point is it’s very easy to make unrealistic promises when you are in opposition. But now it’s obvious Labour are going to win they are going to have to be held to those promises. So saying they will implement policies that they cannot afford and won’t create much benefit ( except in the heads of far left voters) isn’t going to help them. Suddenly they have to be realistic. 
 

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

6 hours ago, Liffguard said:

There are plenty of points to argue here, but they're all orthogonal to the point I'm making. I'm not here to relitigate the Corbyn years, and indeed the discussion I'm trying to have isn't about Corbyn. Starmer can stand on his own merits, and criticism of Starmer can be made on its own merits, without having to kneejerk respond "but Corbyn."

But Corbyn... was response to Jones. Who was one of the true believers. Starmer can and should be cirticized on his own. I am not disagreeing with it.  Comparing him with his direct predecessor and his legacy is however a legit point. Be it policy wise, and polling wise. And I admit to having very little patience with Jones. When the Tories are leaving, they will have the set the bar very low for any goverment. Fixing at least some of the damages they have done during their time in goverment will take time and money. The NHS is the most notable example of Tory malpractice. You have councils on the verge of bankruptcy, failing public services, the increase in foodbanks (which preceded the Russian invasion) etc.

 

[Spockydog]

If anyone thinks Wes Streeting and Keir fucking Starmer are suddenly going to come along and halt the systematic privatization of the NHS, I have a bridge you might be interested in.

 

[Heartofice]

10 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

If anyone thinks Wes Streeting and Keir fucking Starmer are suddenly going to come along and halt the systematic privatization of the NHS, I have a bridge you might be interested in.

 

Well someone has already sold you a bridge if you think the NHS is being privatised.

[Spockydog]

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Well someone has already sold you a bridge if you think the NHS is being privatised.

Clear fucking trolling. 

Anyway, https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/01/22/jsic-j22.html

 

[Heartofice]

16 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Clear fucking trolling. 

Anyway, https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/01/22/jsic-j22.html

 

Hahaha

 

1. Uses ‘world socialist network’ as a source and expects to be taken seriously.

2. Starmer doesnt say he’s going to privatise the NHS. ‘Reform’ is something that is widely recognised as being necessary for the NHS by basically everyone . 

Edited March 23 by Heartofice