Forum menu
He wins on PMQs most weeks
People keep going on about this, I think it might have mattered 20 years ago...
The electorate have shown quite clearly they don't want a bloodless barrister pedantically picking apart government policy, they want someone to tell them what they want to hear.
as well as funding from the membership (even £1 for each project from every member would be a huge amount to work with, probably around £400k.)
What you're proposing is illegal I think. It's pretty much why Johnson is in trouble with the electoral commission.
Brexit was always going to result in more immigration from non-EU countries
Of course, plenty of people were saying that on the Brexit Thread five years ago and frequently since, including me.
If increased non-EU immigration is a problem then it's an opportunity for Labour, if it's not a problem then what's the problem?
The electorate have shown quite clearly they don’t want a bloodless barrister pedantically picking apart government policy, they want someone to tell them what they want to hear.
And they don't want to hear what Labour have to tell them. If they did then Starmer would have an easy job. However, he has to get them to hear stuff they don't want to listen to and even more than that get them to actually vote. Outside of blatant lying I am not sure how he can get them.
If increased non-EU immigration is a problem then it’s an opportunity for Labour, if it’s not a problem then what’s the problem?
It would be considered a problem for most Brexiters if they lived in the world of reality, but they don't. I don't think Labour going down the road of saying 'hey Brexiters look there's actually going to be more differently-pigmented people here now, not less like you wanted' is really a good thing, do you?
However, he has to get them to hear stuff they don’t want to listen to and even more than that get them to actually vote.
It would be nice if he'd at least try.
Funding professional representation to oppose development would win you a marginal seat in some places – whatever.
For me the important thing isn't so much the funding but the having the membership take part enmasse to work on a project that helps that community.
What you’re proposing is illegal I think. It’s pretty much why Johnson is in trouble with the electoral commission.
If it is, then side step that by getting the membership to donate to charities or local groups who are working on some issue locally and then flood them with bodies on the ground to work on it.
For me something like this would ignite the party and really get people to see Labour in a different light. It would help with the "they are all the same" mindset people have of politicians but most importantly it would bring people together within communities and rebuild bonds that both left/right remain/leave whoever would benefit from.
Yep PMQs rarely cut through. Cameron being rude to Corbyn was one that did. I wonder if Keir/Labour could play a bit dirty eg
Could someone bring up Bojo's injunctions in PMQs? &Ask questions like: "Does the Conservative Party still believe in family values?". "Have you ever been sacked for lying" etc etc etc
What you’re proposing is illegal, I think.
Not my idea but yeah, I picked it up. On reflection even if it's legal it would be so transparent as to be counter productive. I was wrong.
It’s pretty much why Johnson is in trouble with the electoral commission.
Not sure I agree with this, Boris is in trouble for doing a Mandleson - effectively getting a bridging loan via the party. (Mandleson had to resign, sounds like Ben Elliot of "Quintessentially" will carry the can for Curtain-Gate.) Nothing to do with committing too much resource to a constituency campaign which I suspect is what you're saying would be illegal about the "projects for votes" scheme.
People keep going on about this, I think it might have mattered 20 years ago…
I confess I was struggling for ideas by the time I got to that one. 😁
He’s going to have landed us with crippling debt.
FFS no he’s not. Even the tories and the right wing economic think tanks have given up on the myth of the deficit and the debt yet the centrists are still banging on about it.
Even the tories and the right wing economic think tanks have given up on the myth of the deficit and the debt
No, they haven’t. Start another thread and we can post clips and quotes from government ministers preparing the public for restrictions on spending and increases in taxation using debt/deficit/affordability language. I wish I lived in your world. And that’s before we get to how the media and press cover these issues. You can just look at debates about continuing the small increase in universal credit, or NHS pay, or the financial help for self employed during the pandemic, or…
dazh
Full MemberEven the tories and the right wing economic think tanks have given up on the myth of the deficit and the debt
Well, no, they haven't. They don't believe it, but of course that doesn't really matter, they haven't believed in their own economic policies for years.
But they've certainly not given up on the myth. And since when was the reality ever actually important? The myth is what really counts.
the myth of the deficit and the debt yet the centrists are still banging on about it.
Come on then. Let's hear about Rishi's economic masterstroke.
I vaguely heard servicing this borrowing will cost us roughly an extra 1pc of National spending for the next 35 years. So what's the real number, with a source please.
Also, can you cite some other countries that have borrowed big style over covid and are opening saying it's nothing to worry about because MMT?
Frankly if the Torys have promptly vaccinated everyone *and* borrowing for Covid is going to be self financing, then it's doesn't really matter what Keir does over the next two years, he's gonna lose by a landslide.
Come on then. Let’s hear about Rishi’s economic masterstroke.
It’s got bollocks all to do with Sunak, he’s not doing anything different to anyone before him, but it is nonsense to say he’s accumulating ‘crippling’ debts. The point is that when we need to spend money, we can, at very little long term cost. The tories and their dark money thinktanks have accepted that, and so should labour. Labour could do far more by embracing debt and the resultant investment than the tories ever will, so they should stop being shy about it.
The tories may have accepted it but they won't ever tell the public that (and Labour don't ever seem to either)
They will still punish the least able to afford it over the next 10 years for no other reason that hatred of them and greed for themselves.
'Paying back the debt' is used to justify deregulating the labour market and cutting pay to restore or boost profits. The full impact has not yet hit the labour market and the housing market will be walloped by the coming evictions and homelessness. I've only heard Armrest make pronouncements on behalf of the landlords and the banks, it'd help if he had some policy ideas to challenge the tsunami of ordure cascading down. Once you do deals with your rich sponsors, the bosses, you expel the socialists from the party, you get gonged but you've got very little room for manoeuvre. Hence not supporting the nurses' pay claim, giving out charity and always looking a bit hunted. Greed, capitalism and the pub landlord have not got us out of this crisis and the LP need to present an alternative perspective but that won't come from focus groups of first-time Tory voters. I'm sure there are good people wanting to see an egalitarian change in society but smashing standards of living are much more likely and the LP will abstain or make revolutionary demands like 'get a grip'.
Again, who has been expelled from the party? Your last example was a councillor who was campaigning for the NIP candidate against the Labour one, and before that a list of people expelled while Corbyn was leader, before Starmer was elected.
Walker, Williamson, Corbyn, Greenstein, Machover are just a few
Walker - expelled while Corbyn was leader, suspended back in, what 2017?
Williamson - suspended in 2019?
Greenstein - was it 2018?
Machover - 2017?*
And this is down to Starmer, how? That all predates his election.
Or is this all about Corbyn losing the whip?
EDIT: *after googling, it looks like Machover has been in and out of the party a few times since then, including being suspended last year, for working with the other names on your list, and refusing to answer questions as part of Labour’s disciplinary process about... well.. you know more than me about this than me no doubt... what was he refusing to answer questions about?
And since when was the reality ever actually important? The myth is what really counts.
This to me is absolutely the biggest problem facing Starmer - a sizeable percentage of the electorate support a party of amoral fantasists who refuse any responsibility for the shitshow they're in charge of. How do you convince working class Tory voters that they're in a politically abusive relationship that they need to get out of?
Not often I say this these days but there's been a couple of reasonably decent (or at least interesting) articles in the guardian about Labour's issues.
@kelvin here's a couple of examples
How do you convince working class Tory voters that they’re in a politically abusive relationship that they need to get out of?
How do you convince folks that that mirage that telly offers them of empty roads in your brand new car, jetting off to a empty beach while a smiling supermodel hands you a coke...is just a fantasy, and that really, want you want is a council owned house, an electric car, a bit of free broadband and a slightly less-crappy pension...(maybe, terms and conditions apply)
Tongue in cheek, but really, it's not hard to see why the Tories are so popular.
@grum, I read those as well, pretty spot on, this:
It doesn’t help that Labour is also battling a perception in its former heartlands that the party has been captured by snooty metropolitans, far-left fanatics or both.
Particularly
want you want is a council owned house, an electric car, a bit of free broadband and a slightly less-crappy pension
That's not really an accurate view of Socialism though.
But you may have at least hit the nail on the head with bob-eyed perception of what it might be.
What we currently have is a model built on house prices out of whack and cheap private debt, and low wages. It won't last forever. And when it goes boom we will need the Government to make it right again.
What we currently have is a model built on house prices out of whack and cheap private debt, and low wages. It won’t last forever. And when it goes boom we will need the Government to make it right again.
And that will be the tory party as the voters who vote tory will still think they are the best party to deal with it. The abusive relationship comparison is a good one.
It doesn’t help that Labour is also battling a perception in its former heartlands that the party has been captured by snooty metropolitans, far-left fanatics or both.
Indeed. The first is due to Labour's catastrophic second referendum policy and the persistent attempts by the party between 2017 and 2019 to frustrate the brexit decision despite the fact that northern MPs were screaming that they were losing it's working class base. The second is a direct result of the weaponisation of anti-semitism to portray anyone who was against Israeli policy as a dangerous anti-semitic extremist. Now someone remind me which wing of the party were responsible for those two things?
a sizeable percentage of the electorate support a party of amoral fantasists who refuse any responsibility for the shitshow they’re in charge of.
Yeah but that's not the problem. The problem is the Labour Party, not the Tory Party.
There is no evidence to show that the Tories are particularly popular. The last 3 opinion polls all put support for the Tories at 40%.
Which is less than the 42% the Tories got in the 2017 general election when Theresa May lost the election and failed to get a majority.
What the polls do show however is that the Labour Party is extremely unpopular, relatively speaking.
It is a mistake, and not at all useful, to mistake Labour's unpopularity for Tory popularity.
As I've said before, the Tories will be blamed for Labour doing badly when the responsibility actually lies with the Labour Party
As I’ve said before, the Tories will be blamed for Labour doing badly when the responsibility actually lies with the Labour Party
The fundamental issue is that everyone knows what the purpose of the Labour party is, which is to represent and fight for the interests of working people in parliament. The trouble is that for most of the past 25 years, the Labour party haven't done this. When they did for a brief period in 2015-2017 they saw their vote share recover and their membership increase massively. Since then they've gone back to doing what they were pre-2015 and their vote share and support has gone back to what it was before. It's not rocket science is it?
When they did for a brief period in 2015-2017 they saw their vote share recover and their membership increase massively
the lowest increases in Labour’s 2017 support came from the working class, with a 9-point increase among the skilled workers outweighed by the 11-point increase enjoyed by the Conservatives. The facts don't support your assertions. More working class voters voted for conservatives in both 2017 and 2019. Labour's increase in votes in 2017 came from Students (see Canterbury) and professionals (AB social class).
The facts don’t support your assertions.
That's not what I said though. I didn't say their gains came from the working class, only that once they returned to doing what voters understood to be their traditional purpose, their vote share recovered accordingly.
The fundamental issue is that everyone knows what the purpose of the Labour party is, which is to represent and fight for the interests of working people in parliament.
Actually to be more precise the Labour Party was founded by working people to represent themselves in parliament.
The Liberal Party, a party dominated by well-meaning affluent professionals, who without doubt provided important social reforms, ultimately proved to be an unsatisfactory vehicle for that.
Today we are actually in a very similar situation - history repeats itself first as a tragedy, second as a farce.
Up until Tony Blair become leader out of the 15 previous Labour leaders 10 could be said to have a working class background. Since then the chance of that are close to zero. Even on the back benches there is almost no working class representation. People like Dennis Skinner no longer exist in the parliamentary Labour Party.
For me the important thing isn’t so much the funding but the having the membership take part enmasse to work on a project that helps that community.
Do you mean 'activism'? Because that is already happening, as I described briefly earlier. There are/were countless groups affiliated with Labour, who actively get together to help out in the 'community', to achieve positive change. This is the kind of grassroots activism that saw a massive surge under Corbyn's leadership, yet under Starmer, has seen many groups no longer want to be associated with Labour. Losing these is disastrous for Starmer, as is losing union support, because it will leave him with even less support of the very people Labour is supposed to represent; the labour force.
The fundamental issue is that everyone knows what the purpose of the Labour party is, which is to represent and fight for the interests of working people in parliament. The trouble is that for most of the past 25 years, the Labour party haven’t done this. When they did for a brief period in 2015-2017 they saw their vote share recover and their membership increase massively.
This. Labour has become little more than a shell to represent corporate interests, under the guise of being 'for the people'. It clearly no longer is, and increasing numbers of people are realising this, and becoming disillusioned with politics altogether. Making things even easier for the ruling elites. That not a single Starmerite on here has given any meaningful answer as to how Starmer is going to reverse this, shows just how utterly useless he really is, for the people that need to be represented. He may well, however, be very useful for those ruling elites, if they decide they need a new puppet*, if and when Boris outlives his usefulness to them. But he's not going to actually change anything.
*Stand by to see accusations of Anti-Semitism from those who've been taken in by the right...
Sure, but the people that Labour are supposed to represent; "The workers" turned back to them in less numbers in 2017 than those people turned towards the Conservatives. In fact a bigger slice of their support came from greens, students and the middle classes.
Personally I don't think that's necessarily a problem. I think Labour could do worse than appeal to the same groups of people that made it's success in 2017 so astonishing. While everyone's fixated on Hartlepool, the fact that Labour will again overwhelming win in London goes almost un remarked upon. A quick look at the way London has voted in the past (as recently at the 70's London was totally controlled by the Tories.) shows was a remarkable domination it is. This is hurdle that Labour has to overcome. It's support now is in high density cities, and university towns, and not in socially conservative northern towns any longer. How you translate that to national support is for some-one with better ideas than me.
Stand by to see accusations of Anti-Semitism from those who’ve been taken in by the right…
As I understand it Starmer is married to a Semite and his children are being brought up in the Jewish religion.
So yes, I think it's reasonable to conclude that your obvious anti-Starmer prejudices have their roots in anti-Semitism.
I bet you hated Ed Miliband too.
Up until Tony Blair become leader out of the 15 previous Labour leaders 10 could be said to have a working class background. Since then the chance of that are close to zero. Even on the back benches there is almost no working class representation.
That's not the labour party, that's UK education. For years every single UK PM went to a state school. Then Grammar Schools got closed so there's no elite state education so PMs are privately educated these days.
Kier would have been state educated if his Grammar School hadn't been closed (while he was there).
Apologies for posting a Toynbee piece as her articles are invariably unreadable self-indulgent nonsense, but it highlights the currrent arrogance of the labour right. Now they've got rid of pantomime villain Corbyn and regained control of the party, the idiot proles should just fall in line and 'do their duty'. And they wonder why they lose?
"Voters have no excuse, with Keir Starmer and his frontbench a thoroughly electable, decent and honest alternative compared with the rogues’ gallery opposite."
invariably unreadable self-indulgent nonsense
It will seamlessly blend in... 😝
@Bridges, like last time, I'm not going to accuse you of anti-semitism, I'm just going to point out that you continue to use well known anti-Semitic tropes.
To be fair to Toynbee she concludes by saying "be patient". So there you have it, stick with Starmer, and the invisible course he has plotted, and everything will come out in the wash.
Faith is what is needed. Presumably blind faith. Which is the sort of thing that binners accuses anyone who doesn't support Starmer of.
Toynbee actually sums up the problem perfectly:
As Johnson arms himself with a hyped-up culture war of English nationalism and Brexit tribalism, he thrives on a more dangerously divided country.
It's a tactic thats worked. Farage and UKIP showed the way, by demonstrating that there was actually a large demographic (52%) that were very receptive indeed to this xenophobic anti-foreigner, anti-liberal flag-waving.
I don't know how a party that represents none of these things can possibly win an election in the present climate. Sadly, it's not looking like anyone in the labour party presently has a clue either. Is it even possible?
You could argue that this has been bubbling away for decades. By polarising everything into a for or against brexit argument, he's got a majority thinking he's 'on their side' against a 'liberal elite' or 'loony lefties'
I don’t know how a party that represents none of these things can possibly win an election in the present climate.
They nearly did in 2017. It came down to a few thousand votes in swing seats. It's funny that your apparent defeatism comes after the supposed near certainty of a revived centrist labour party with 'sensible' leaders and policies being 20 points ahead of a car crash tory government. Now that the chickens from 2010/2015 are coming home to roost your explanation is that it's simply impossible. It's not impossible, the tories can be beaten, and they can be beaten by a lot, but it needs someone with an alternative, inspiring, hopeful vision beyond 'the tories are evil, so do your duty'.
I think Labour could do worse than appeal to the same groups of people that made it’s success in 2017 so astonishing.
Completely agree. I've said many times on here that labour's future lies in the progressive younger generation who have moved on from 20th century capitalist vs socialism and are more interested in how we're going to prevent climate collapse and deal with accelerating automation. That's absolutely not the direction Starmer is heading though is it? Instead those same people are now dismissed by cynics in the centre as dreamers, utopians or sixth formers. A smart leader would be looking to combine the energy and anger of the younger generation with the more traditional soft-left who are still worrying about taxes, debt, nationalisation etc but that's the opposite of what is happening.
It’s not impossible, the tories can be beaten, and they can be beaten by a lot, but it needs someone with an alternative, inspiring, hopeful vision beyond ‘the tories are evil, so do your duty’.
As I keep saying, the appeal of the leader has as much to do with that as anything else. Go back over the last 40 years
- Thatcher was holding strong for a while and obvious to see her appeal
- Major had no appeal and got beaten by Blair who had much more appeal
- Blair was doing okay but when replaced by Brown who had no appeal Labour lost
- Even Corbyn had some appeal at the start and almost beat May, who had even less appeal than Major
- Then when up against Johnson, massive appeal, lost by a mile
I would put Starmer in the not much appeal camp so not hard to see how that would play out is it however outstanding his alternative, inspiring, hopeful vision is. The best I can hope for is for Johnson to get replaced with someone like Raab who has as much appeal as Starmer.
I bet you hated Ed Miliband too.
Oh God yes. Did you see the way he tried to eat a bacon sandwich? 😉
@Bridges, like last time, I’m not going to accuse you of anti-semitism, I’m just going to point out that you continue to use well known anti-Semitic tropes.
If you can prove this, please do so. If not, please apologise.
This is hurdle that Labour has to overcome. It’s support now is in high density cities, and university towns, and not in socially conservative northern towns any longer. How you translate that to national support is for some-one with better ideas than me.
Labour's modern support is much higher in towns and cities with universities/centres of education. There is a correlation between political sensibilities and voting patterns; higher education = more 'left wing' views. So; the answer really is in improving educational facilities and access to education, particularly for adults, in those places that have no universities etc. There has been a gradual degradation of educational facilities in such places, over the decades. There is now very little adult education (such as 'night schools' etc) in many towns and cities, and the overall level of educational ability and attainment has been steadily dropping in the UK, over that time. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist (or even a socio-economics professor) to work out that there is a link between low levels of education and right wing views. Cities like London are far more cosmopolitan, there is far greater discourse and sharing of ideas. To enable other areas to enjoy more of this, there needs to be investment across the board, from education and child support, to local jobs that are fulfilling and rewarding. It's no wonder that so many young people growing up in more deprived areas, flock to the big cities. Decentralisation of education would be a great move. But somehow, I can't see the tories and neoliberals going for that...
If you can prove this, please do so. If not, please apologise.
will you likewise apologise for continuing to use well worn anti Semitic tropes, after a number of posters have pointed this out to you now?
will you likewise apologise for continuing to use well worn anti Semitic tropes, after a number of posters have pointed this out to you now?
A 'number of posters'? So far, it's just you and Kelvin jumping on that bandwagon. As for apologising; if you can prove I'm guilty, I'll do so*. If not, I expect you to retract your accusation and apologise. What you're accusing me of is extremely serious, and I don't take such accusations lightly. So; over to you.
*AS I know I'm NOT guilty of anti-Semitism, I'm not going to ever apologise to you for my comments on here. Just so you know.
– Then when up against Johnson, massive appeal, lost by a mile
Apparently Mrs Brown's Boys is massively popular. Maybe Starmer could dress up as a woman and affect an Irish accent.
I'm only being half-flippant - we have sunk that low.
as his lack of balls means he’ll never stand up to his puppeteers
Anti-Semitic trope of the day award goes to….
This was my post a couple of pages back mentioning you using a well-worn anti Semitic trope. "Puppeteers" and "Global/ruling Elites" are both used by the far-right to cover their anti-Jewish speech . Again, to be clear I'm not going to accuse you of anti Semitism, but likewise I will point out every time you use anti-Semitic tropes when you talk about Starmer. You're either doing it Ignorantly (not using that word in a pejorative sense) or you're doing it deliberately to be provocative, or using it deliberately for other reasons, I don't know, but I won't ignore it.
They nearly did in 2017
No they didn't.
I think Labour could do worse than appeal to the same groups of people that made it’s success in 2017 so astonishing.
'Astonishing success? Eh? Define 'success'?
They were a million miles away from having an overall majority which would have taken them into government. Is that 'success', astonishing or otherwise?
'Not as catastrophic as we expected' is not success, by any benchmark
Let's base our policies on the manifesto that wasn't quite as shit as the one after it, doesn't sound like much of a basis for a route to government, does it?
Whatever Labour does to make itself relevant again, 'lets recreate 2017' isn't going to be it. This is a complete rebuild which will take years.
In the present jingoistic flag-waving climate, the UK (or the English, at least) electorate is presently less likely than ever to be receptive to the idea of socialism. They don't actually appear interested in much else other than jingoistic flag-waving if we're being honest.
And don't forget that was against May and you couldn't have been up against a worse PM. If it was Corbyn vs Johnson it would not have been as close.
Let’s base our policies on the manifesto that wasn’t quite as shit as the one after it, doesn’t sound like much of a basis for a route to government, does it?
That's exactly what I think they should be doing. I'd reword it though...
Let’s base our policies on the manifesto that was better received than the one after it...
...it's not enough, but it's a good starting point.
This was my post a couple of pages back mentioning you using a well-worn anti Semitic trope. “Puppeteers” and “Global/ruling Elites” are both used by the far-right to cover their anti-Jewish speech
What actually happened, is that Kelvin decided to interpret my comments about 'puppeteers' in a manner of his own choosing, no doubt in order to attack me by invoking accusations of anti-Semitism. And you jumped on that bandwagon. And in doing so, you have both inadvertently shown just how such accusations of anti-Semitism have been 'weaponised' by the right, to attack the left, in order to crush any dissent. Now; I have explained (not that I needed to anyway) that my comment of 'puppeteers' referred to corporate interests, and not, as you want to believe, in reference to some shadowy global Jewish cabal. There was absolutely nothing else in my comments, that could have led anyone to believe that I was in fact making anti-Semitic statements. At all. So any notion of me being 'anti-Semitic, is entirely in your own head. Ask yourself why? Why did you and Kelvin come to that conclusion, as a result of one single word?
You accusations are not only extremely offensive, they are also disgusting, as weaponising anti-Semitism in the way you, and many on the right have, in order to stifle debate and to slur those who don't agree with your world view, not only diminishes the abhorrence of real anti-Semitism, it also insults all those who do and have suffered from this terrible ideology. And to attempt to insult someone you do not know, whom you know nothing about in terms of their cultural, religious and social background, is just appalling. Shame on you.
You’re either doing it Ignorantly (not using that word in a pejorative sense) or you’re doing it deliberately to be provocative, or using it deliberately for other reasons, I don’t know, but I won’t ignore it.
The only ignorance here is your own. That you lack the self-awareness to even comprehend this, is evident here for all to see. You've exposed yourself as someone willing to use lies, untruths and slander, to shut down debate and 'win' an argument. And in doing so, exposed a major issue affecting the Labour party and further UK politics. Well done.
And don’t forget that was against May and you couldn’t have been up against a worse PM
Really? She was facing a pretty much impossible situation and lets not forget she only became the "worse" when she did rather poorly in the election. Prior to that she was riding high and was about to sweep all before her.
As for Johnson sweeping all before him. Remember they had to hide him away for the entire of the 2019 election and are repeating the same procedure now.
Really? She was facing a pretty much impossible situation and lets not forget she only became the “worse” when she did rather poorly in the election. Prior to that she was riding high and was about to sweep all before her.
As for Johnson sweeping all before him. Remember they had to hide him away for the entire of the 2019 election and are repeating the same procedure now.
The elections are what matter though aren't they. May did very poorly, Johnson did very well - against the same Labour leader
bridges doth protest too much
Fred comes back under many names, but the style is always inevitably the same.
Fred comes back under many names, but the style is always inevitably the same.
Innit.
What actually happened, is that Kelvin decided to interpret my comments about ‘puppeteers’ in a manner of his own choosing, no doubt in order to attack me by invoking accusations of anti-Semitism. And you jumped on that bandwagon.
I've no idea if you're anti-Semitic, but your language was the same as that used in an anti-Semitic trope. I speak as someone who believes that anti-Semitism has been wilfully misused as a means of attacking those on the left of the party.
The elections are what matter though aren’t they.
Your argument seems somewhat circular now. Also if you look at the underlying data Johnson doesnt really stand out against May.
You cant think of any other factors that changed between the two dates?
As I’ve explained; I used ONE word that has been deliberately misinterpreted:
If I'd said something that was also said by racists, I'd stop saying it.
If I’d said something that was also said by racists, I’d stop saying it.
So would I. But there's nothing at all 'racist' or 'anti-Semitic' about the word 'puppeteer'. Racists don't get exclusive use of language. To accuse me of 'anti-Semitism' without foundation, to deliberately take my comment out of context, and to continue to do so in spite of my reasonable explanation of what I meant, is just turning a mistake into offence. And to enquire as to the motives behind that offence, is perfectly reasonable.
Also if you look at the underlying data Johnson doesnt really stand out against May.
Sorry @dissonance, it's probably me not understanding, but could you explain what you mean?
So would I.
Well no, because you haven't.
Well no, because you haven’t.
I've explained why I haven't actually said anything 'racist' or 'anti-Semitic'. Therefore I don't actually need to stop saying anything. Quite simple really. If anyone can't understand that, then that's their problem and not mine. Thanks.
And I’ve explained why.
Yes, you've made it clear that you will continue to use an anti-Semitic trope, after it's been pointed out to you.
(For clarity, I was replying to Fred's Bridge's original comment, before the ninja-edit)
Yes, you’ve made it clear that you will continue to use an anti-Semitic trope, after it’s been pointed out to you.
No, what I've done, is explain why you and others are wrong. That you cannot understand this, and wish to continue banging that same broken drum, is beyond me. Applying a modicum of thought would help here. I really wish you would, please.
In other news:
Haven't seen any such condemnation by Starmer yet. Strange, because he claimed to be taking anti-Semitism seriously...
it’s probably me not understanding, but could you explain what you mean?
The differences in votes cast for him vs May are a couple of hundred thousand with 1.2% increase in the overall vote. His massive majority was a mix of FPTP and the drop in Labours vote and I am not sure that can be claimed as due to him.
Another way to look at it is if you compare her disastrous election vs 2015 she actually increased the tories share of the vote by 5.5%.
FPTP is crazy, isn’t it.
But if you look at polling (sorry) as regards leaders, rather than just votes cast for MPs/party in the election, hasn’t Johnson stayed stunningly (bafflingly) popular in a way May simply did not?
EDIT: importantly (because of FPTP) Johnson seems to be popular with voters in seats where May (and her predecessors) were not.
No, what I’ve done, is explain why you and others are wrong.
I've read your explanation, which is based on a false premise. I realise that you prefer to double-down rather than accept you're in the wrong, but it's not very edifying.
hasn’t Johnson stayed stunningly (bafflingly) popular in a way May simply did not?
But surely that fits in with the Brexity nation we appear to have become? May was never considered a true believer, despite her apparent conversion. It seems like the 'B' word has skewed everything to such a degree, so that if you're a hardline Brexiteer, then you can pretty much do what you like.
I reckon Boris could give a press conference (surely that £2.6 million quid room has to be used for something?) where he just stands there grinning, throwing kittens into a wood-chipper and his popularity would still increase
rather than just votes cast for MPs/party in the election
Well Kerley was currently arguing thats all that counts.
hasn’t Johnson stayed stunningly (bafflingly) popular in a way May simply did not?
That goes back to how hard her job was. Despite her autocratic tendencies she was trying to achieve an impossible balance between the different parts of her party and was also getting slaughtered in the hard right press every time she looked like she would back away from a hard brexit.
Johnson has the advantage of being part of the media establishment and is mostly treated as such although some of them have started gearing up to replace him with Gove or Sunak (it was amusing to see them back off though when they realised it was overly successful just before the elections).
That goes back to how hard her job was.
What made her job even harder, was that she considered herself a public servant (don't attack me, I agreed with her about very little), and was trying to do right by the people of the UK (even if you think she was misguided about how to do that)... I don't think Johnson has the same problem. I do think Starmer would if he became PM (as highly unlikely as that might be).
Fred comes back under many names
Who's fred? I've seen mentions before but have no idea what people are on about. 🙂
I’ve read your explanation, which is based on a false premise. I realise that you prefer to double-down rather than accept you’re in the wrong, but it’s not very edifying.
Ok you're just being deliberately offensive/or very very stupid, so I'm going to ignore you from now on. Because this is like trying to nail jelly to a wall. Quite why you think I should answer to you, or apologise for a fiction in your head, is just incredible. Wow.
Ok you’re just being deliberately offensive/or very very stupid, so I’m going to ignore you from now on.
Much easier to create a fiction than to reflect on your own behaviour, I guess.
What made her job even harder, was that she considered herself a public servant (don’t attack me, I agreed with her about very little
I agree hence why I think the judgement of her is a tad unfair.
One of her primary disadvantages is since she was trying to dance down the middle when no one was willing to compromise and hence everyone hated her.
Whereas once Johnson got in all the unbelievers were purged and people dependant on him were parachuted in.
It would be a public service if those who accuse others of using "tropes" (whatever they are) could publish a thesaurus of approved substitutes for those common words that are now deemed off-limits.