Forum menu
More should call Johnson out on the parliamentary record, as he keeps lying to parliament and not facing any consequences to do so.
There could be a tactic for Starmer here, a bit sixth form politics but could get traction. Simply put a MP up every day to call out a lie. Bound to get on the news and the lie gets discussed.
Juvenile but maybe where he needs to go
An explanation would be good.
you are the one who keeps mentioning Rod Liddell and what he is wearing or eating and drinking, as for a slur I've no idea what gender you are and in the context of this place half of STW have a man crush on Cav which I'm sure doesn't involve anything sexual.
If it's not that, is it a secret code or 50 cent army thing?
If it’s not that, is it a secret code or 50 cent army thing?
You don't need to worry yourself about that.
as for a slur I’ve no idea what gender you are
Or sexuality, or indeed anything else. So why not refrain from ad hominems? You could just as easily have said 'are you a fan of Rod Liddle's? Instead, you used the term 'man crush'. Why?
What could have been really powerful, would have been if all the other Labour MPs present got up and walked out too, in solidarity with their colleague. Whilst chanting 'Liar!' at Boris. That would have been very powerful. But, alas, Butler is on the 'wrong' side....
No excuses though, he’s still doing even worse than I feared he would.
Yes, we can all see he is doing dreadfully. I thought it was worth a try when he became leader as a bit of a change, potential different approach but it became clear after a few months that he was not good and never will be. That is the issue here, everyone know he is not doing well at the job (probably including himself) but he continues anyway until when, another few years?
The lack of anyone obvious who would be great is not really relevant, they should at least be given a chance at doing a better job than him.
So why not refrain from ad hominems?
More ironing....
More ironing….
Ok Balders. XD
Have a nice weekend.
Dawn Butler could have said the same thing in different words and not been punished. She did it for the activists, I imagine they loved it. No representation in parliament for her constituency for a few days
Metaphor for labour in 2021
yet she managed to get more column inches in one act than Starmer has managed in 6 months.
The loony left are at it again with their crazy nationalisation schemes. Oh wait...
Anyone believe Starmer would have had the balls to do something like this? Me neither.
If they were any good with the spyware he could have argued for nationalisation before the deal went public. Alternatively, he could argue for the privatisation of the Royal Yacht. Nope, thought not.
The loony left are at it again with their crazy nationalisation schemes.
The Guardian article leaves out an important detail :
"The MOD has already started working closely with the company to implement best practice governance that will ensure appropriate financial oversight to secure the company’s future success, with the aim eventually to return the business to the private sector."
That paragraph is from the government's website:
So the British people will pay to buy the company, pump £400million investment into it, and then at some point, presumably when it is making a nice healthy profit, it will be privatised again.
A strategy which appears to be enthusiastically supported by Starmer's shadow business secretary Ed Miliband.
So the British people will pay to buy the company, pump £400million investment into it, and then at some point, presumably when it is making a nice healthy profit, it will be privatised again.
It is very odd isn't it that the public/labour party seem to have accepted the government's role as the debt relief vehicle of dysfunctional businesses, but can't make the next logical leap of faith to support the continued ownership of those companies by the state. There's an (old) idea for labour here, which should be that any company or business which accepts government rescue money must be legally bound to limit executive pay and suspend shareholder dividends and pay a living wage etc. They won't though, because they don't have the media skills to present such a policy without being branded as communist nationalisers.
It is very odd isn’t it that the public/labour party seem to have accepted the government’s role as the debt relief vehicle of dysfunctional businesses, but can’t make the next logical leap of faith to support the continued ownership of those companies by the state.
I'd arms length it into a sovereign wealth fund. Civil Servants don't have a good record running businesses.
Obviously we would need to create a sovereign wealth fund....
Usefully would stop the sale of other stuff to American PE funds
Open goal for Starmer based on the pharma pricing fines rolling through at the moment
Open goal for Starmer
Not his strong point, he seems to be facing the wrong way most of the time.
So the British people will pay to buy the company, pump £400million investment into it, and then at some point, presumably when it is making a nice healthy profit, it will be privatised again.
Well, it's the Tories having to put right at greater expenses a restructure that was cancelled by Cameron as part of austerity. I genuinely doubt it makes "a healthy profit" but does have genuine strategic importance to country; it makes top secret bits for submarines, I'd imagine that probably reduces Forgemaster's ability to raise capital from foreign investors. This way 600 people get to keep their jobs (presumably you're happy about that) we still retain the capability to make the pressure vessel bits for subs (that's an arguable point admittedly) but it wants to grow into making large scale windfarms for the Dogger bank, so at least the investment made now will reap benefits in the longer term for out carbon emissions
Post-war nationalisations were not aimed at delivering some sort of socialised economy but rather to subsidise and support the regeneration of private businesses. Nothing new here. The labour theory of value applies in the same way to nationalised as in private businesses but I suppose it's preferable for surplus value to accrue to, ultimately, the taxpayer rather than the shareholder. The idea that nationalised industries are run by civil servants is straight out of the DM, as if private 'enterprise' provides the superior supply of pharmaceuticals or public transport, ludicrous and laughable.
Civil Servants don’t have a good record running businesses.
So you are assuming that since the private sector has failed to ran SFIL as a successful business nationalisation will be an even greater failure, and it will never again make a profit?
Why did the private sector buy a failing business from the government in the first place?
According to the government website :
The MOD also intends to invest up to £400 million for defence critical plant, equipment and infrastructure into SFIL over the next 10 years to support defence outputs. The acquisition has been assessed as the best value for money for the tax payer due to the unique capabilities and circumstances.
So it would appear that the present Tory government, of all people, has a reasonable degree of confidence in the business abilities of civil servants. Especially if they visualise SFIL eventually being profitably enough to be returned to the private sector.
Btw since Tory sympathisers have effectively been purged from stw political threads but some LibDem supporters remain, it's worth noting that when Vince Cable was the coalition government's business secretary he reversed the previous Labour government's decision to provide Sheffield Forgemasters with a £80m loan.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-11545188
What made the LibDem business secretary's decision particularly interesting of course was that the LibDem leader, Nick Clegg, represented Sheffield in parliament.
The LibDems did partially backtrack a year later when they decided to provide SFIL with less than half the original loan.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/31/sheffield-forgemasters-nick-clegg-jobs.
The LibDems contempt for the people who voted for them did have consequences however and in 2017 Nick Clegg lost his seat to a Corbyn led Labour Party.
The idea that nationalised industries are run by civil servants is straight out of the DM
That was one of the arguments used by the Tories against the creation of the NHS, ie doctors would become "civil servants".
since Tory sympathisers have effectively been purged from stw political threads
Who has the power to purge people? Or do you mean people ask awkward questions?
Yeah I mean there used to be Tory sympathisers on stw political threads but there isn't any more. I'll let you figure out how that came about.
Hasn't everyone to the right of Dennis Skinner given up on the political threads now?
Blairite/centrist/Tory bastards!
Now its just a Corbynite circle-jerk. The sense of pious, righteous, permanently-affronted sanctimony is now so large its developed its own gravitational pull
It'd be truly fascinating to hear from tory sympathisers explaining and justifying recent events. I Keep seeing this word 'sanctimonious', is the opposite of that understood as a virtue?
That was one of the arguments used by the Tories against the creation of the NHS, ie doctors would become “civil servants”.
And doctors at the time, GPs are private partnerships as are dentists. The NHS has had a mixed delivery model since it's inception
So you are assuming that since the private sector has failed to ran SFIL as a successful business nationalisation will be an even greater failure, and it will never again make a profit?
More an after feeling after being in a Morris Ital as a kid
My point is that we should have a sovereign wealth fund for stuff like this rather than having a divestment strategy
Now its just a Corbynite circle-jerk. The sense of pious, righteous, permanently-affronted sanctimony is now so large its developed its own gravitational pull
"The sense of pious, righteous, permanently-affronted sanctimony" sounds very much like the Ramsbottom Flouncer to me binners. Who do you think you are talking about?
And who are all these Corbyn supporters on stw political threads that you think are sufficient to form a circle?
More an after feeling after being in a Morris Ital as a kid
You mean the Morris Ital designed by the private sector and not UK government civil servants?
The clue is in "Ital". Yes it refers to Italy, not the UK government.
sufficient to form a circle?
More like a triangle. Maybe a quadrilateral.
Whereas the Blairites/'centrists'/tories on here form a sort of Human centipede...
the Ramsbottom Flouncer
😀 Lol!
You mean the Morris Ital designed by the private sector and not UK government civil servants?
Built by?
It took its name from Giorgetto Giugiaro's Italdesign studio, which had been employed by BL to manage the re-engineering of the Morris Marina, which had been produced by the company since 1971. Although BL's advertising emphasised the car's connection with the Italian design house, Italdesign did not have a direct role in the styling of the new car, which had been handled in-house by Harris Mann. Italdesign had been involved in a consultancy role, to help design new tooling and assembly methods, and work out how to integrate the altered parts of the new car into the existing Marina production chain. That is why, despite bearing the studio's name, the Ital is absent from lists of styling jobs handled by the firm.
Harris Mann was not a civil servant. He was already working for BL when it was part-nationalised 4 years after Morris Marina production started. The level of involvement of Italdesign in the design of the Ital variant doesn't in any way provide evidence that it was a car designed by civil servants.
I'm sure there must be better examples of a badly run nationalised company than that of a company which was part- nationalised for about 11 years due the catastrophic private sector failure, and which most of its nationalised existence was under the control of a woman who despised nationalised industries, except bizarrely the NHS and the Royal Mail.
Came across the McLibel documentary this evening which amazingly I've not seen before despite being invoved in the anti-McDonalds campaign back in the 90s and it's striking to see the involvement of Starmer. It's the main reason I voted for him as leader thinking no one who was involved in that epic david vs goliath campaign could be pro-establishment but I guess I was very naive. It's tragic really.
Why is he terrible when he should be so good?
Hasn’t everyone to the right of Dennis Skinner given up on the political threads now?
I didn't have you down as a lefty.
I voted for him as leader thinking no one who was involved in that epic david vs goliath campaign could be pro-establishment but I guess I was very naive.
That's a bit unfair, of course he's pro-establishment, if he wasn't he would have to deal with a relentlessly hostile media, Tory Party, and parliamentary Labour Party.
Saying and doing nothing does appear to be producing some results though, the Tory lead has been reduced to single figures in the last 10 national polls.
Obviously midterm the Tories should be actually trailing in the polls, nearer to the general election the ruling party can usually expect a surge in support - there's a reason why it's called the midterm blues. But it's still a significant improvement over the double digit Tory lead of recent time.
Saying and doing nothing does appear to be producing some results though, the Tory lead has been reduced to single figures in the last 10 national polls.
Yep, his best chance of beating the tories is for the tories to beat themselves when enough people wake up to what a bad government this is. Guess a number of people are seeing through Johnson BS, all the 'little' issues bordering on corruption are building up their effect and so on.
Why is he terrible when he should be so good?
I think he is too straight, doesn't want to upset anything i.e a bit too establishment. Most MPs are but he just seems to look and act more so. And when up against Johnson that just doesn't win.
If Johnson wasn't there it may be better but people getting fed up with him, as per above comment, may do the trick.
I think he is too straight, doesn’t want to upset anything
That's not necessarily a bad thing though. I've recently read some research* that shows that fully 1/3 of the population are primed to have authoritarian pre-disposition, they value "oneness and sameness..." and amazingly, it's heritable. In normal times, these are the folks who run the library with ruthless efficiency, but when activated by "normative threats" - the feeling that times are changing too fast, authoritarians can support huge and threatening socail upheaval to restore their sense of order - see the MAGA rallies; the songs, chants and dance steps...all these things made them feel part of a whole again...
Part of Biden's success was to keep these folk reassured that things are going back to a normalcy...politics is boring again.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing though.
Agree and something I would want in a PM rather than a lying clown. However, doesn't seem to be as attractive to a lot of people as a lying clown though does he.
I'd be a bit wary of these essentialist accounts of 'the human condition', a third of the population have inherited authoritarianism? So two-thirds have inherited what? What if there's miscegenation, strictly enforced anarchy?
Agree and something I would want in a PM rather than a lying clown. However, doesn’t seem to be as attractive to a lot of people as a lying clown though does he.
He’s done nothing to move my opinion of him since 2019… would rather have him as PM than the clown we have, or most MPs of any party… but that’s irrelevant, because he absolutely does not have what it takes to win an election in modern times against someone like Johnson.
In a description by one Tariq Ali he calls for a leader who is, amongst other things, 'sober'. He'd be drinking with, not going to, the fat cat.
I’d be a bit wary of these essentialist accounts of ‘the human condition
i know right, bloody academics and their research, what do they know, eh?
Seriously..this is a shock.
Should've come here ages ago.
"still suffering damage from the Corbyn era, which ended with the 2019 defeat. Many of those who deserted, in what were previously solid Labour seats, have yet to “get to know” Starmer, say MPs. A senior frontbencher said: “The pandemic has not helped Keir. It is has been difficult to get himself known."
Oh do **** off.
i know right, bloody academics and their research, what do they know, eh?
You shouldn't be so deferential. They don't all agree you know.
I think he is too straight, doesn’t want to upset anything i.e a bit too establishment.
Yes. Not the makings of the opposition then. Zero passion and conviction too.
Middle management not a leader.
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1421016965485842432?s=19
'kin ell. Just across the road from me.
Dismal.
Zero passion and conviction too.
More an inability to communicate his passion and conviction
Middle management not a leader.
More the wrong sort of leadership for the post JC labour party
Dismal
It's a local by-election, high votes for an independent candidate, clearly not a verdict on anything
I think he needs to get his wife pregnant - that seems to be an ideal way to get some Sunday headlines.
It’s a local by-election, high votes for an independent candidate, clearly not a verdict on anything
You're right it's a verdict on nothing at all.
That much of a non-event that an article headlines the Guardian website quoting their strategy chief the day after -that Labour are losing touch with their voters.
More an inability to communicate his passion and conviction
Because there is nothing to communicate.
high votes for an independent candidate
A little bit of investigation reveals that the "independent" candidate was actually the Labour councillor who forced the by-election after resigning over a dispute concerning planning.
She took most of the votes which would have normally gone to Labour and allowed the Tories to win the seat.
She took most of the votes which would have normally gone to Labour and allowed the Tories to win the seat.
way to go team Labour
More an inability to communicate his passion and conviction
Not really sure what his conviction is and when he tries to be passionate it just looks like he is acting and doesn't really mean it.
It is clear that he is not the person for the job. Don't know if he realises that/wants to admit it and guess he is surrounded by people who don't want to tell him he is not doing well.
“The message was that many people do not know what we represent. They think we have given them too much policy rather than telling them in simple terms how we’d improve their lives.”
Too much policy? Really?!
But it's ok, because we can still just blame Corbyn anyway.
Some in Starmer’s team believe the party is still suffering damage from the Corbyn era
...guess he is surrounded by people who don’t want to tell him he is not doing well.
And yet Jeremy Corbyn didn't seem to have that problem.
I'm surprised that Starmer needs to be told btw, I would have thought he could use his much talked about forensic skills to figure out that Labour isn't doing well under his leadership.
Former pollster Deborah Mattinson, who has been appointed director of strategy in a shake-up of the leader’s inner circle, briefed Starmer, shadow ministers and MPs on sobering internal polling and findings from focus groups days before the summer recess.
This what I don't understand, why do politicians in a major political party not know what to say, do, and believe in?
There was a time when politicians were driven by personal beliefs, not by a strategy layed before them by a hired expert.
It really is a damning indictment of just how disconnected from voters politicians and political parties have become.
This what I don’t understand
Pointing out the obvious… “voters” across the UK and across society are not one amorphous blob and no individual politician can be in “contact” with everyone. Strategy, especially communication strategy, can’t just come “from within” if it is to work. You can easily just end up speaking to those who think and feel as you do. Labour have got it completely wrong for a good while now, and of course it is always harder for them than the Tories, especially when in opposition… but to get it right will require a team of professionals, not just a leader who can speak from the heart on a soapbox in their constituency. This is the 21st century, and the vote leave team in government are so far ahead of Labour when it comes to modern communication and campaign strategy it’s embarrassing.
This what I don’t understand, why do politicians in a major political party not know what to say, do, and believe in?
There was a time when politicians were driven by personal beliefs, not by a strategy layed before them by a hired expert.
It really is a damning indictment of just how disconnected from voters politicians and political parties have become.
Especially since Boris has done so well to get elected just by governing guided only by his convictions & sincerely held beliefs.
This is the 21st century
So how the did politicians manage in the last century?
You make it sound as if it is cause for celebration that today politicians and political parties need strategists and pollsters to tell them what to say and do and what to believe in.
Voters have quite rightly developed a cynical attitude towards politicians and political parties in recent times. They see them as self-serving opportunists who say and do whatever they need to to get elected. They see them as liars who don't believe anything they say.
Last century someone once said "These are my principles. If you don’t like them I have others." It was clearly intended as a joke. Today some people seem to think that far from being a joke it should form the basis for an electoral strategy.
You make it sound as if it is cause for celebration
Absolutely not.
I find it very dispiriting.
So how the did politicians manage in the last century?
You make it sound as if it is cause for celebration that today politicians and political parties need strategists and pollsters to tell them what to say and do and what to believe in.
Well given that the Tory's won a massive majority on the back of a manifesto that essentially consisted of 3 words, what would you suggest the labour party does to counter that.
Chucking out a policy every 30 seconds didn't go so well last time, did it?
What you refer to as 'the last century' may as well be the last ice age as far as communications are concerned
Say what you like about Dominic Cummings and those around him, they were ruthlessly effective at distilling things down into punchy emotive phrases and slogans which impact with voters and using whatever means possible to dissemble those messages.
In response, Labour has consistently been absolutely woeful at it. The last person in the party who was any good at it was Alastair Campbell (boooooooo hiss... IRAQ!!!). They just don't seem to get it at all. This is the new world of social media, which the Tory's have been extremely good at exploiting, utilising the every lax regulation and oversight to the full, in some extremely dubious (and in some cases illegal) manners.
Labour still appears to be stuck in a world where people buy a newspaper every morning and start their day listening to the Today programme on Radio 4
It doesn't matter who the leader is, or what their policies and principles are if the messaging is so consistently poor.
The last person in the party who was any good at it was Alastair Campbell (boooooooo hiss… IRAQ!!!). They just don’t seem to get it at all. This is the new world of social media.....
Alastair Campbell isn't noted for his use of social media. 1997 was in the last century, which according to you is comparable to "the last ice age" when it comes to communications.
The Tories aren't particularly good at utilising social media as you seem to be suggesting. And it is widely accepted that despite a hostile media environment Labour did unexpectedly well among young voters in 2017 due to their skilful use of social media.
Having said all that none of it has anything whatsoever to do with my comment which you quoted :
So how the did politicians manage in the last century?
You make it sound as if it is cause for celebration that today politicians and political parties need strategists and pollsters to tell them what to say and do and what to believe in.
Why quote that and then talk about something completely unrelated?
It doesn't matter how you get your message across, use smoke signals for all I ****ing care. Just make certain it is something which you actually believe in, not something that some hired expert has told you to say and believe.
Voters have the right to expect that. And if you don't know what you believe in then you should really be thinking of changing your career, not finding new ways to fool people.
Alastair Campbell isn’t noted for his use of social media. 1997 was in the last century, which according to you is comparable to “the last ice age” when it comes to communications.
Th medium used is neither here nor there. He understood the importance of effective communications and was bloody good at getting the message across using the tools available to him at the time. Just as Dom and co are today, and the Labour party isn't.
The Tories aren’t particularly good at utilising social media as you seem to be suggesting.
Wha? The Vote leave lot are the absolute masters at it! Watch the Cambridge Analytica documentary to see how they micro-targeted specific messaging to specific audiences utilising data-mining
And it is widely accepted that despite a hostile media environment Labour did unexpectedly well among young voters in 2017 due to their skilful use of social media.
Widely accepted? Rubbish! Accepted by who? The Canary? That was labours problem. They convinced themselves that they were good at social media, despite the fact that all they ever managed to do was energise an echo chamber just enough to still lose an election, just not as badly as everyone expected.
Just to reiterate, as its something the left is still struggling to accept - no arguments were won by Jeremy Corbyn. Quite the opposite. And the labour party managing to communicate with some sixth formers via Twitter does not represent the 'skilful use of social media', so it needs to get rid of that myth pretty sharpish too
Bearing in mind that their opponent was equally as clueless as to the use of modern communications as they were, Labour was crap at anything except preaching to the converted and still is. The Tory's under May were just as crap, thats all.
That changed completely when the Vote Leave comms team were all taken on, en masse, to transform the parties messaging. Labour still just don't seem to get it at all. I think a lot of them think they are 'above' all this type of thing, which is why the Tories are pummelling Labour on the messaging front. They don't consider themselves 'above' anything. They'll use all means available to win elections, without bothering themselves with the ethical niceties, or stopping to tell each other how good at this they are
And if you don’t know what you believe in then you should really be thinking of changing your career, not finding new ways to fool people.
Best not tell this guy then...
Leaving aside all the "honest amateurs should be able to beat analytical professionals" fun... however good the team employed by Labour is, they still need a front person who can excite people and make them feel engaged. Starmer is not that person. That's not a left/right issue, he is just lacking that essential competence, and without it Labour can not win an election... he will never be PM.
Best not tell this guy then…
You are so so predictable binners!
I knew instantly that your retort would be "but it's what the Tories do".
It is your answer to everything, both in strategy and policy. So ideally, according to your logic, the Labour Party needs to elect a leader who is a lying attention-seeking clown who will willingly shaft the British people.
Although obviously it would be easier to just vote Tory.
And btw there is nothing new about the importance of getting your message across, it was just as important for politicians in the last century, so I don't know why you keep banging on about it.
Voters aren't saying that they don't know what Labour stands for because of poor communication, they are saying it because the Labour Party doesn't know what it stands for. There is no message to communicate.
Keir Starmer seems to be saying .... "I have no idea what I believe in, but I can assure you that it's whatever you believe in. Please vote for my party. I want to be Prime Minister",
he will never be PM.
I don't disagree with that, but as you've pointed out in your previous posts, Labour needs to at least give itself a fighting chance by getting rid of whoever is responsible for their consistently woeful comms, and get people in who can engage with life as it actually lived in 2021, not 1997
Don't forget Labour should apparently use fraudulently collected data to micro target misleading adverts at specific groups on social media.
Well, Keir Starmer's Labour already tried the divisive ethnic politics thing in a recent election so I guess they're on the right track eh binners.
www.timesofindia.com/world/uk/labour-uses-anti-boris-modi-byelection-flyer-to-woo-ethnic-minority-votes-in-uk/amp_articleshow/83938099
So ideally, according to your logic, the Labour Party needs to elect a leader who is a lying attention-seeking clown who will willingly shaft the British people.
I think @binners' point is that even this lying shitsack of a human, with the help of an overwhelmingly successful election message, got elected. Understanding this should then make it child's play to get elected; a man with ethics and principles. No?
Can we stop with the repeated straw man line that "the government have/has/had a team with a better handle on modern day communication and campaigning" means anything like "Labour need to copy the government" ... no one has said the latter.
What ethics and principles does Keir Starmer have? Hiding his funding and pretending to be a unity candidate during the leadership campaign.
People like Boris because he's a 'good time' PM who says funny things and is patriotic and makes people feel ok about blaming foreigners and the loony left for everything. It really is a UK trump situation.
What is Keir Starmer offering other than saying 'I'm a bit more competent than him but super-boring and not really into the patriotism thing I apparently have to do, and it turns out I'm not really that principled'.
@kelvin I know your crush on binners is still overwhelming but that's exactly what he is saying.
Labour still just don’t seem to get it at all. I think a lot of them think they are ‘above’ all this type of thing, which is why the Tories are pummelling Labour on the messaging front. They don’t consider themselves ‘above’ anything. They’ll use all means available to win elections, without bothering themselves with the ethical niceties, or stopping to tell each other how good at this they are
What else could he mean by this ^^^^
And lol at you doing your own straw man while complaining about straw men 🤣
It has bugger all to do with poor communication. There is no message to communicate.
Edit : Well hopefully there will be soon, when someone tells Keir Starmer what to believe in.
The question is how convincing will the electorate find Starmer's newfound sincerity.
Edit 2 : I have no doubt that whatever is eventually decided the message will be that it won't be significantly different to the Tory's, Starmer will be advised that otherwise it will be too risky.
Which of course will render the whole exercise completely pointless. Unless you think a Labour government indistinguishable from a Tory government is a worthwhile exercise.
Voters aren’t saying that they don’t know what Labour stands for because of poor communication, they are saying it because the Labour Party doesn’t know what it stands for
This is the fundamental problem. A superbly delivered nothing is still nothing.
What else could he mean by this ^^^^
It describes how the Tories act, and what Labour is up against.
I know your crush on binners is still overwhelming but that’s exactly what he is saying.
I disagree with Binners often. I'm one of those lefties that only started voting Labour when Corbyn moved their policies "to the left"... and obviously that's not where he's coming from. I just don't want to join in with the circle jerk, or love triangle, or whatever you want to describe how these threads descend into a spiral of a few strident left wingers against the world (or more often against one or two individuals.... because guess what... the "world" has long since stopped listening).
It describes how the Tories act, and what Labour is up against.
Ok, so apart from praising the brilliant Tories what is binners suggesting then do we think? Be more good at stuff? Do better at things?
Why did no one think of that before!
Lol! Old RamFlo's on good form today...
Little bit of sick down his front...
Ok, so apart from praising the brilliant Tories what is binners suggesting then do we think?
Arguing against the idea that you just speak from the heart and win UK wide elections? That communication and campaign strategy is much more than that? That was what I was suggesting anyway, Binners I can’t speak for.
Why is he terrible when he should be so good?
Starmer was an exceptional lawyer. The McLibel case was a landmark in British legal history. Sadly, it seems the power he enjoyed as DPP and head of the CPS, went to his head a bit, and he seems to have lost his way, ideologically. Which is why he's so utterly useless when it comes to having a clear, concise agenda. He just doesn't know which side of the fence to sit on. The feeble 'support' of Dawn Butler being just one example; he should be out there denouncing BloJo as a liar, every single day, at every single opportunity. Just keep repeating the word 'liar', and show no fear of any possible consequences. Show some real strength. Grow a pair, basically. But he's too wrapped up in the lure of the Establishment, to want to rock the boat at all.
I disagree with Binners often
Sure you do.
You just feel the need to act like his advocate because he is a very busy man who doesn't have the time to always explain what exactly he means.
I'm sure he greatly appreciates you speaking on his behalf as he keeps to his busy schedule.
Hey btw binners, how's your colouring in going? Don't forget you are not supposed to eat the crayons.
I'd steer well clear of doctors, teachers, nurses, politicians, engineers, scientists, pythons, all been bloody sixth formers. Give me a half-witted philistine any day.
I wasn't even talking about Binners.... I was being dismissive about stuff like...
the Labour Party needs to elect a leader who is a lying attention-seeking clown who will willingly shaft the British people
Don’t forget Labour should apparently use fraudulently collected data to micro target misleading adverts at specific groups on social media
That isn't what Labour should be doing. But it is what they are up against. In contrast, Starmer is unable to engage the electorate, and Labour have overly relied on their supporters to spread the message on social media "organically". It's quaint. It does help some people feel a part of something special, and outside the system... but that isn't where most voters can be reached.
And the labour party managing to communicate with some sixth formers via Twitter
I do love how you sneer at people but display absolutely no understanding yourself. You really are the perfect dunning kruger example.
Watch the Cambridge Analytica documentary to see how they micro-targeted specific messaging to specific audiences utilising data-mining
Aside from the success of these really havent been demonstrated. We have lots of statements about how powerful it was, mainly by their sales staff, but no clear evidence it really worked well. Whilst vote leave provided multiple contrary messages to different group they really werent on the micro scale and most relied on having the multiple well funded campaigns able to sell different things and the unwillingness of anyone to push them on it.
About the only clever thing they did in 2019 was simply hide away from the press which worked since the press then felt obliged to simply report the claims minus any questions.
The Tory’s under May were just as crap, thats all.
And yet May delivered a massive increase in the tory vote well beyond what Johnson got. If you, and I accept this might be sixth form standard stuff so beyond you, look at the actual figures the difference in votes wasnt due to a massive increase in tory turn out but a labour collapse.
There is the constant claim that the newspapers and traditional media dont matter but whilst social media echo chambers definitely have an effect if you bother looking at them you will see they tend to pick on the traditional media soundbites and amplify them.
There is a good reason GB News has been created.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/conservative-party-social-media-facebook-general-election
https://www.economist.com/britain/2020/01/18/how-the-conservatives-won-the-social-media-campaign
Labour understand the importance of Social Media. They put a lot of effort into the content and put the money into helping distribute that message... but they were outplayed in 2019 when it comes to targeting the right people with a message that can make a difference, and are still being outplayed now (it doesn't help that Starmer looks like a hostage reading from a script in his video content).
I’ve recently read some research* that shows that fully 1/3 of the population are primed to have authoritarian pre-disposition, they value “oneness and sameness…” and amazingly, it’s heritable...
George Orwell was writing about such things over 70 years ago...
I’d be a bit wary of these essentialist accounts of ‘the human condition
i know right, bloody academics and their research, what do they know, eh?
The problem with relying solely on academic theory, is that it doesn't tell the whole story; a lot of it may be based on theoretical 'models' rather than actual data, and even stuff based on data, is subject to how that data is collected, collated and presented. Theory of such kind should always be backed up by empirical evidence and real world experience, if it's to be at all reliable as information. And this comes back to Labour's current woes; their whole strategy seems to be based on theory, rather than actually talking to real people. Corbyn had a policy of talking and listening to actual people. Finding out what voters actually wanted, rather than arrogantly assuming what is 'best' for them, as the current leadership seems to be doing.