Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Guest MattP

The Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

You wonder how long Labour can go on failing miserably to connect with voters before the leadership realise they are screwed.  

 

Does the leadership care? I often get the impression that for Corbynistas winning control of the Labour Party is enough in itself. They're not that bothered if their policies never win support and are never implemented.

So long as they've triumphed over the filthy "Blairites", control the party and have a platform from which to make uncompromising, sanctimonious statements, they're happy.

 

I think it will be more a case of when the MEMBERSHIP realise they are screwed, rather than the leadership.

 

To be fair, poor results in places like Richmond and Sleaford don't matter much, as Labour will never win there. It'll be more interesting if a by-election occurs somewhere Labour should be in contention...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Does the leadership care? I often get the impression that for Corbynistas winning control of the Labour Party is enough in itself. They're not that bothered if their policies never win support and are never implemented.

So long as they've triumphed over the filthy "Blairites", control the party and have a platform from which to make uncompromising, sanctimonious statements, they're happy.

 

I think it will be more a case of when the MEMBERSHIP realise they are screwed, rather than the leadership.

 

To be fair, poor results in places like Richmond and Sleaford don't matter much, as Labour will never win there. It'll be more interesting if a by-election occurs somewhere Labour should be in contention...

 

#BernieforBritain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Does the leadership care? I often get the impression that for Corbynistas winning control of the Labour Party is enough in itself. They're not that bothered if their policies never win support and are never implemented.

So long as they've triumphed over the filthy "Blairites", control the party and have a platform from which to make uncompromising, sanctimonious statements, they're happy.

 

I think it will be more a case of when the MEMBERSHIP realise they are screwed, rather than the leadership.

 

To be fair, poor results in places like Richmond and Sleaford don't matter much, as Labour will never win there. It'll be more interesting if a by-election occurs somewhere Labour should be in contention...

Quite a few of them (the deluded ones, obviously) think that he will actually gain power though, don't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ajthefox said:

Quite a few of them (the deluded ones, obviously) think that he will actually gain power though, don't they?

 

There's a big disconnection from reality among the Corbynistas, I think.

 

If Brexit can win and Trump can win, then Corbyn could win...but only if he and his supporters achieve a connection with a lot of people outside their own ranks.

I'm no fan of Brexit or Trump, but they managed to make such a connection. OK, they achieved that partly through lying, fanning fears and deploying demagoguery, but it worked.

 

A lot of people are sufficiently frustrated and disillusioned with life that they're prepared to support ideas outside the mainstream. There's no reason why that shouldn't be Corbyn as well as Trump.

But Corbyn's crew don't seem to be making a similar connection. In theory, they have enough activists to achieve it - 500,000 or 600,000 members? They also understand the power of social media better than most political groups.

- Is that mass membership on doorsteps and phonelines making connections and winning people over? I've not heard of any mass activism reaching out to non-loyalists.

- Are they using social media to win people over to policies? I have a few Corbynista "friends" on Facebook who were very vocal during the leadership campaign, posting pro-Corbyn & anti-Blairite memes, but they've gone silent since he won.

 

A few young idealists probably do think he can gain power like this - and will be painfully disabused of their innocence when the election comes round. However, I think an awful lot of them - particularly those who are more mature in age - don't even go so far as to think about how to gain power. They're quite happy that their faction has control of the Labour Party and makes statements they agree with, so that they can feel good about themselves. Changing society doesn't matter to them, ironically. The only Labour people having any (very limited) political impact in the public domain is the moderates at Westminster...what big policy platforms is Corbyn promoting to the public?

 

I like some of Corbyn's ideas - and disagree with others. But if you're going to propose radical new policies well outside the mainstream, you have to somehow win over a lot of people to support them. You can't just take over a political party, issue a few policy statements and press releases, and hope to be successful. Not if your aim is to gain power and change society. That should be their aim, but I'm not sure it is for many of them. "There's no such thing as society, there's just my perfection and my mirror".

 

I really think this is the worst of all possible approaches: adopt ideas well outside the mainstream, but fail to promote them?!? Brexit & Trump were outside the mainstream - but promoted their ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corbyn could win a general election if he adopted the same practice of, shall we say 'rigorous embellishment' that trump/brexit used and focus in on a few key facts such as wage growth and inequality. He'll also have to hope the populist pendulum swings back in his direction quite swiftly and for that to happen he'll need to hammer home the message that right wing populism hasn't delivered much of what it promised (still lots of immigrants around, few improvements in services etc). Not sure he has it in him though. Sometimes you need to go to ground on purpose to win a penalty but I think he views himself as being too 'principled' to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well, this will put the cat among the pigeons: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/21/corbyn-critic-jamie-reed-quits-labour-mp-byelection-copeland

 

" One of Jeremy Corbyn’s most persistent critics is to quit as a Labour MP and take a job in the nuclear industry, triggering a three-way fight for his marginal northern seat with the Conservatives and Ukip".

 

At the general election, Labour had a 2500 majority over the Tories in Copeland, with a higher than average UKIP vote (15%+). Copeland is home to the Sellafield nuclear plant, where many constituents work....so this is a potential nightmare for Labour given divisions over nuclear policy. Copeland also voted 62% for Brexit, so UKIP will fancy this one. I'll be astonished if Labour hold this, but whether they lose to the Tories or UKIP is open to question. I'd guess at a Tory gain, possibly with UKIP coming second, unless there are other developments (e.g. bad economic news) in the meantime....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Barky said:

Going for a job in the nuclear industry - finally a labour MP finds a way of getting into power.

 

This byelection is more likely to cause fission than fusion within the Labour Party, which could go into meltdown.

I'm not expecting its mandate to be renewable, but will this be an isolated spill or will it cause wider contamination within the party? :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

This byelection is more likely to cause fission than fusion within the Labour Party, which could go into meltdown.

I'm not expecting its mandate to be renewable, but will this be an isolated spill or will it cause wider contamination within the party? :(

Please..these puns are becoming Bohring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Please..these puns are becoming Bohring.

 

I admit it. I had to Google that to get the joke. Your puns make mine look mainstream.

 

 

10 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I suppose it depends how many votes  UKIP take off Labour and/or the tories. Could be a 3 way marginal.

 

Various factors could come into play, I suppose (Brexit, nukes, economic news etc.). Lab policy on nukes is bound to be a major issue, though.

 

I struggle to see Labour remaining in contention here.

It's a marginal constituency, Lab poll ratings are much worse than in 2015, Corbyn is anti-nuclear (with Sellafield as the main local employer) & it's a pro-Brexit seat when Lab is identified as pro-Remain (even if Corbyn might not personally agree with that).

Labour might stand a chance if they select a candidate who is well-known locally and supportive of nuclear power....but will the Corbynistas allow that?

 

If UKIP hadn't got itself in such a mess a few months ago, it might well have been favourite to win, but the byelection might have come a bit too early for Nuttall.

Can see them campaigning hard and seeking to use a strong second place to relaunch themselves, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

I struggle to see Labour remaining in contention here.

It's a marginal constituency, Lab poll ratings are much worse than in 2015, Corbyn is anti-nuclear (with Sellafield as the main local employer) & it's a pro-Brexit seat when Lab is identified as pro-Remain (even if Corbyn might not personally agree with that).

Labour might stand a chance if they select a candidate who is well-known locally and supportive of nuclear power....but will the Corbynistas allow that?

 

If UKIP hadn't got itself in such a mess a few months ago, it might well have been favourite to win, but the byelection might have come a bit too early for Nuttall.

Can see them campaigning hard and seeking to use a strong second place to relaunch themselves, though.

How bad must it be in Labour when taking a job sitting a few yards from a nuclear reactor is a more attractive proposition than working for Corbyn?

 

You would expect the Tory vote to remain fairly solid given they still appear to be pushing for a so called hard Brexit, so it's about how much the Labour party loses to UKIP and the Lib Dems, will the latter run a high octane campaign here? Hard to think that they will but they could still grab a fair portion of that 38% that voted remain if the other three parties all have anti-EU candidates which is more than possible.

 

This by-election is certainly a nightmare for Labour, a seat they have never lost that they could lose and if they do any argument the party is heading for anything but disaster under the current leadership just isn't going to wash anymore, it's one they win by 10,000 if they are heading for government. Even if they do hold on that's the least expected of them.

 

I think it's too close to close, still expect the Tories and Labour to contest it though when it comes down to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know if this belongs on here but interesting piece of feminism from the BBC on the gender pay gap, the last paragraph in particular actively seeking out a justification for the way that women working part time are paid more than men working part time in a way that they never do when writing about men being paid more than women. 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38385259

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Barky said:

Don't know if this belongs on here but interesting piece of feminism from the BBC on the gender pay gap, the last paragraph in particular actively seeking out a justification for the way that women working part time are paid more than men working part time in a way that they never do when writing about men being paid more than women. 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38385259

Personally, I'll never understand this nonsense. Or why it's such a big deal. Everyone has the same opportunities in school, noone is being limited to what career path they can take these days. If women and men are getting paid differently for doing the exact same job with the same speed/precision then the companies they work for should be punished. 

 

It seems so ridiculously simple to me, so obviously I must be missing something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/10/2016 at 09:01, Spudulike said:

Populist: "a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people."

 

Why is that seen as such a bad thing ??

 

Sad isnt it.  Im all for the will and interests of the people being understood and reflected in Parliament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/10/2016 at 09:01, Spudulike said:

Populist: "a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people."

 

Why is that seen as such a bad thing ??

 

 

Wikipedia gives a more complex definition, and suggests why some see it as a bad thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#Academic_definitions

 

"Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell define populism as an ideology that "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice"

 

"Scholars have argued that populist elements have sometimes appeared in authoritarian or fascist movements. Conspiracist scapegoating employed by various populist movements can create "a seedbed for fascism." National Socialist populism interacted with and facilitated fascism in interwar Germany. In this case, distressed middle–class populists during the pre-Nazi Weimar period mobilized their anger at government and big business. The Nazis "parasitized the forms and themes of the populists and moved their constituencies far to the right through ideological appeals involving demagoguery, scapegoating, and conspiracism."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Wikipedia gives a more complex definition, and suggests why some see it as a bad thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#Academic_definitions

 

"Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell define populism as an ideology that "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice"

 

 

Doesn't every party do that? Certainly the Labour party claim the country, under the tories, is run for the benefit of a rich elite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Doesn't every party do that? Certainly the Labour party claim the country, under the tories, is run for the benefit of a rich elite.

 

Yep, populism affects every part of the political spectrum, as Wiki says. There's a populist element to Corbynism (with Blairites, as much as Tories, portrayed as the "dangerous other"), just as there is with Trump, UKIP, Le Pen etc.

 

In the mainstream, Labour & Tories both deploy populism - not least in constantly suggesting that they'll provide low taxes and better public services. As always, it can be convenient to tell people what they want to hear, even if it's bullshit. 

 

One difference is that Labour depicts itself as standing up for "the people" (or "hard-working families", awful phrase) against "dangerous others" who are genuinely powerful - fat cat businessmen, wealthy tax avoiders etc. Whereas the Right depict themselves as standing up for "the people" against "dangerous others" who are often pretty powerless - "benefits scroungers", "bogus asylum seekers/migrants" etc. Not universally, as there are also attacks on "London" or "the metropolitan liberal elite", groups with more power to defend themselves.

 

One thing that I do find a bit scary is the growing prevalence of groups (UKIP / mass media, more than Tories) telling those who support Soft Brexit to shut the fvck up. While it's fair enough for Brexit supporters to get annoyed at anybody seeking to overturn the referendum result, when did dissent become unacceptable? More to the point, while the Govt absolutely does have a mandate for Brexit (and I'm opposed to it being obstructed), it has no mandate whatsoever for any particular form of Brexit - still less do Hard Brexiteers have any mandate to silence those who support Soft Brexit (e.g. prioritising the single market over free movement). Can you imagine if you'd been told to shut up for disagreeing with policies introduced by Blair or Brown? You wouldn't have been entitled to overthrow the democratically-elected New Labour Govt, but you were perfectly entitled to publicly disagree with its policies, even those for which it had a mandate, never mind those for which it didn't: e.g. can you imagine being told to "shut the fvck up", "stop moaning" and "stop being unpatriotic" if you had disagreed with the invasion of Iraq?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Doesn't every party do that? Certainly the Labour party claim the country, under the tories, is run for the benefit of a rich elite.

All parties use it on a minor scale but would have other larger directives as their main pulling point. Populist movements like Trump and, arguably, UKIP are more reactionary; we saw how Trump would move from point to point, 'The Wall', 'Muslims', 'Law & Order Candidate', fairly liberally without directly offering much explanation as to his own plan other than a rudimentary '1. Build Wall/Ban Muslims/Force Companies to stay in US 2.??? 3. Profit'. UKIP were predominantly immigration and the EU Referendum without much in the way of economic or social pledges other than 'bring back smoking in pubs' ( I know that's rudimentary but you get the point). and how much the boat has rocked since the Referendum that seems to re-enforce my point.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...