Where are you planning on setting up your first re-education camps Daz?
Where are you planning on setting up your first re-education camps Daz?
If you actually properly read even half of the stuff I go on about on here you'd know that I don't think people need re-educating. They know what's wrong and know what the solutions are, they just don't have anyone in the political class who are prepared to put their careers on the line and start talking about real solutions.
Once again mate, I think you're massively overestimating what people know and don't know and their desire for your 'real solutions'
The majority of the electorate just voted for the greatest act of financial stupidity that the world has ever seen so that they can have different coloured passports.
Even the politicians who delivered this couldn't quite believe that a majority of voters in this country really were that thick. They were banking on being saved from themselves by the electorate.
After all.. surely theres no way the majority were that dense, right?
Well, we all know how that went...
So good luck with getting the labour party into power by Starmer standing up and explaining universal basic income and how we can just print money
Just printing money is exactly what all governments do, particularly this one. Don't get distracted by that household budget analogy, it's nonsense.
Austerity is not about 'paying back the debt' it's about restoring or increasing profits.
I think you’re massively overestimating what people know
The only thing they know is that the current system doesn't work, which is why they voted to change it. It speaks volumes that it didn't matter what that change was, they were so desperate for something different they were willing to try anything. So I'm pretty sure the bland recipe of more of the same failed policies you seem to support are not what people want. They do however need someone to lead them towards the future, and there's no sign that Starmer and his band of don't-rock-the-boat 90s clones are going to do that.
Brexit was a vote against change... a retraction from the ever quicker developing of a modern interconnected world that people fear. It was a call to stop the world, we want to get off. It is HIGHLY optimistic to translate that desire into a willingness to accept the kind of policies that you and I would love to see a UK government adopt.
It is HIGHLY optimistic to translate that desire into a willingness to accept the kind of policies that you and I would love to see a UK government adopt.
I didn't say there was a willingness for specific policies, only an openness for something different to the failed status quo. Whether you like it or not, brexit was a massive leap of faith, and a nihilistic 'none of the above' f*** you to the establishment. If labour can't or are not willing to recognise and exploit that then they need to step aside for those who are.
How?
That's just word salad. "Something different"... "change"... "anti-establishment"... what's the policies?
The tories made theirs clear... remove rights and opportunities from foreigners (at all costs)... be anti European integration and cooperation (at all costs)... stand against this new fashionable wokeness and political correctness...
What does Starmer go for policy wise that would be a marked change from the past? And why does he do it now, not closer to an election?
Daz - seriously, you're absolutely off your head if you think that Brexit was anything other than a desire to return to the 1950's where the were less... you know... of 'them'
Its not fuelled by a desire for radical economic alternatives, its fuelled purely by racism and sepia-tinted nostalgia for the days where being gay was still illegal, you could hang murderers (guilty or not) and the police could beat people to death with impunity if they were the wrong colour or had the wrong accent (that last bit might still apply, actually)
How?
Well they could start by following through on the promises Starmer made in his leadership campaign which got people like me to vote for him. That's just the bare minimum though, ultimately we need solutions fit for the 21st century not the 1990s. As Rachel Reeves shows in her pointless NS piece, they're still looking backwards, not forwards.
its fuelled purely by racism and sepia-tinted nostalgia
And that's how populism works. When the established parties and sytems fail to serve the people, the people look to snake oil salesmen who offer easy solutions. The stuff we all hate about brexit was made possible by politiicans, and in particular those on the labour side, who stopped working for the people. It's the lesson of every fascist state that has ever existed, and yet we never learn.
seriously, you’re absolutely off your head if you think that Brexit was anything other than a desire to return to the 1950’s where the were less… you know… of ‘them’
Aside from its pretty clear that is complete rubbish. Whilst there were a subset who clearly did think that way to try claiming that was the same for all is clearly rubbish.
As a casual example just look at the Bangladesh Caterers Association position on the matter.
You can look at all those people saying how things hadnt improved and how they were voting for a change as another example.
stopped working for the people
Which means?
What new policy do you want Starmer to adopt that will signal he would "work for the people"? One that they would believe? One that they would change their vote for?
the same for all
There is no one reason. That's still true. So, those that did vote for Brexit as a retreat... what new policy does Starmer adopt to appeal to them? What's the change that people who voted Brexit (not because of lies about curry chefs) and then voted for Johnson to get Brexit done would move their vote to Labour to get?
You can look at all those people saying how things hadnt improved and how they were voting for a change as another example.
So.. what is the "change" that Starmer hangs his coat on? Does it need to be as nebulous and undefinable as Brexit was, to appeal to all those different hopes and intentions (I'd argue that yes, yes it does), or specific detailed new policies years out from a general election that can be examined and pulled apart?
When the established parties and sytems fail to serve the people, the people look to snake oil salesmen who offer easy solutions.
So your masterplan is to counteract populism offering simple solutions is by getting everyone to sit down and pay attention while you give them a lecture on what most people would regard as really, really complicated economics
Mate.. all everyone wants to know at the moment is when the pubs are going to be open again so they can go out and get leathered with their mates
The racism involved in Brexit is also to a large degree about economics. It's easy to convince lots of people in shitty forgotten places with no good jobs left, crap public services and a broken sense of community that 'foreigners' are the reason why.
And scare them that more foreigners are coming to make it even worse. Vote Leave literally claimed Turkey was about to join the EU and 'flood the country' with millions of Muslims.
So a vote to keep Iraqi and Syrians out who couldn't come here anyway... that's a vote for change? What does Starmer present the voters as reason to change the party of government that will resonate with people who voted based on that kind of stuff?
Meanwhile, a right-wing populist continues to hoover up votes from a supposedly centrist electorate.
No, they hoovered up a load of red wall votes who certainly wouldn't describe themselves as centrists. I hope folk aren't trying to steer away from the uncomfortable truth that some working class people who just happen to vote for labour, share views with those on the right.
The outcome of the next few elections will fall on a small number of tory voters who are unhappy with the direction of the tory party, yet can't bring themselves to vote labour particularly from 2015-2019, and won't vote libdem as they view that as a wasted vote.
Meanwhile the tories will concentrate on those former red wall seats, because those people are their kind of people.
The outcome of the next few elections will fall on a small number of tory voters who are unhappy with the direction of the tory party, yet can’t bring themselves to vote labour particularly from 2015-2019, and won’t vote libdem as they view that as a wasted vote.
Bingo. Many people will see Labour as "selling out" as they try to look "safe*" enough for those possible Tory defectors. But it is absolutely who they need to convince, in England. There is no Labour government without taking votes from the Tories in these seats.
[ *yes, I know, it's joke that "this lot" are safer than what Labour offered at the last election... well it is to me... but that's not how enough voters saw it... the next election (or as I suspect, the following one with two new leaders) can only be won by reversing that... a safe, secure, prosperous England needs to seem more likely with a swap to a Labour government... in the eyes of people who simply have not believed that for years, if ever ]
The outcome of the next few elections will fall on a small number of tory voters who are unhappy with the direction of the tory party, yet can’t bring themselves to vote labour particularly from 2015-2019, and won’t vote libdem as they view that as a wasted vote.
I would have thought that that was glaringly obvious. A few of us have been saying exactly this for a while. Labour should be courting the Tory voters - and there must be plenty of them - who are horrified at the Brexity, populists that are presently masquarading as the Tory Party
I'm sure serious business people would be very supportive of a more business friendly party, but apparently labour aren't allowed to talk to them as that would amount to fascism, or something
No, they hoovered up a load of red wall votes who certainly wouldn’t describe themselves as centrists.
Ah, so when you said:
The centre are where the votes required to become a Government are.
Did you mean something else?
But it is absolutely who they need to convince, in England.
Aside from they also need to keep convincing the existing labour voters to keep voting for them as well.
So your masterplan
I don't have a masterplan. I'm actually fairly ambivalent towards party politics and think it's largely a waste of time, especially with people like Starmer at the top of the labour party. I'm actually more interested in economics and other societal dynamics which really drive change. What puzzles me though is why you get so animated, as you appear to have almost no interest in any of it. It's very odd.
Which means?
You know what it means. I'm not indulging in any of your pedantic debating society nonsense. 🙂
but apparently labour aren’t allowed to talk to them as that would amount to fascism, or something
So exactly what is your plan here? Aside from anything else what do you mean by "business" since just using "business" is pretty meaningless as various business groups have massively different and often opposed interests.
No, they hoovered up a load of red wall votes who certainly wouldn’t describe themselves as centrists.
Ah, so when you said:
The centre are where the votes required to become a Government are.
Did you mean something else?
Yes, and they said they meant something else. Johnson has swept working class right wing thinking people with him, away from Labour (many going via Farage and his parties on the way). Some can be won back, many can't. There are others who vote Conservative because they fear a Left Wing class war focused government that they think won't act in their interests... but aren't swept up in all the anti-immigrant strong bluffing leadership of Johnson and his Vote Leave team. They have to be given the confidence that Labour is ready to run the UK for them, for all.
Aside from they also need to keep convincing the existing labour voters to keep voting for them as well.
Absolutely. And that is the hardest part in all this. Labour are failing at that... there is currently a drift to the Greens... and people saying that they will not vote at all. And I don't think that's all down to the leadership. Far from it. Every social media post by a front bencher criticising the government is flooded with replies complaining that they are supporting the government too much... the feeling that Labour have left the Left behind is strong... but it's just a feeling... drummed up by constant complaining about Starmer's approach. There is a battle on to stop Labour becoming a wider party... and Starmer is the main target in that... has been ever since his decision as regards Corbyn and the party whip. That battle includes people splitting away from the Labour party in huge numbers... and we all know who that really benefits.
From a few pages back...
You’re right – just look at the success of Change UK and the lib Dems.
Are we not understanding how politics and the voting system works? Its not supposed to be, but in reality its a TWO PARTY SYSTEM. Believe it or not, People actually want their vote to count, so most liberals/centrists will vote for labour, not a party that will have little chance of winning, or split the vote.
But its not enough, hence the Labour party has to appeal to others as well.
Aside from they also need to keep convincing the existing labour voters to keep voting for them as well.
That's easy for any people that truly believe in Labour. I don't care who the leader is or the exact in and outs of every policy, Labour are the only party I will vote for given a choice between Labour and Conservative.
Anyone that swings from a lifetime of Labour voting to Conservative was never truly a Labour believer in the first place and trying to get them back is not going to be easy. Likewise getting long time Conservative voters to vote Labour is not easy as the Conservative party will always be closer to their "principles"
Aside from anything else what do you mean by “business” since just using “business” is pretty meaningless as various business groups have massively different and often opposed interests.
I thought our resident lefties had already established, beyond any doubt, that anyone who runs a business is basically a ruthless capitalist bastard who's sole motivation is the oppression and exploitation of the working man, and probably eats babies too
Are we not understanding how politics and the voting system works? Its not supposed to be, but in reality its a TWO PARTY SYSTEM. Believe it or not, People actually want their vote to count, so most liberals/centrists will vote for labour, not a party that will have little chance of winning, or split the vote.
But its not enough, hence the Labour party has to appeal to others as well.
The lib dems had 47 seats and a quarter of the vote, and now they have chuff all. Is it just possible that their politics has been rejected rather than support for a two-party system. Hmmm...
Shouty caps don't make your argument less weak.
Are we not understanding how politics and the voting system works?
I am sure you will enlighten us.
Believe it or not, People actually want their vote to count, so most liberals/centrists will vote for labour
An interesting claim and I will be fascinated to see your supporting evidence for it. Might I remind you that the Libdem vote increased in 2019 (despite the drop in seats) which doesnt really support your position.
I thought our resident lefties had already established
I dont suppose you would care to answer the question rather than giving us insights into how you fail to understand other people?
I thought our resident lefties had already established, beyond any doubt, that anyone who runs a business is basically a ruthless capitalist bastard
Binners man for once stop playing the reactionary gammon persona and be half serious for a second. No one on the left (certainly not here anyway) is anti-business. I work for one FFS and have done very well out of it. It's hysterical nonsense.
Johnson has swept working class right wing thinking people with him, away from Labour (many going via Farage and his parties on the way). Some can be won back, many can’t.
Quite. What isn't talked about is there will also be a number of people who have grown up in labour families/constituencies, who didn't experience the turmoil of the 80's for instance, so have no empathy or identity with it.
As said, they may not be coming back, Labour may have to find even more votes from elsewhere. 2019 was possibly a watershed moment, so its important to all those involved in that debacle to understand the possible consequences of their actions.
Labour may have to find even more votes from elsewhere.
Perhaps they should encourage more city dwelling hipsters to have more babies? By the time they have a chance again they'll be able to vote.
An interesting claim and I will be fascinated to see your supporting evidence for it. Might I remind you that the Libdem vote increased in 2019 (despite the drop in seats) which doesnt really support your position.
I hope you are not operating under the illusion that most people who voted labour were on the left?
I am sure you will enlighten us.
I already have. But since we are dealing with those on the left who shall remain inflexible to it, I suppose we would be doomed to at least another twenty years of tory rule if you once again get to run the other major party in the country.
Perhaps they should encourage more city dwelling hipsters to have more babies? By the time they have a chance again they’ll be able to vote.
Having more Children who grow up and stay in the cities will do little to change the vote under the current fptp system.
Maybe they could spread out and breed with the locals to widen the gene pool?
I already have.
No you havent you have simply made claims. So lets see the evidence for your claims which isnt the same thing.
I hope you arent operating under the illusion that you are part of the centrist silent majority?
rather than support for a two-party system
You confuse "support" with... "vote with an understanding of it"...
Might I remind you that the Libdem vote increased in 2019 (despite the drop in seats)...
Sorry... I thought you were trying to convince us that the voting system doesn't push people towards the two main parties?
I'd have voted Green at the last General Election if I had a way of that actually meaning something, rather than helping the seat stay blue. General Elections pull people back to the big two parties. It's why the LibDems persist with their "winning here" line... people will not vote for them if they are a distant third... even if they support their policies and the candidate... it's as good as eating your ballot paper as a protest.
No one on the left (certainly not here anyway) is anti-business.
Just against Labour saying they are pro-business. This thread is now littered with examples of people claiming that Labour saying they pro-business means that they are saying they won't support workers. A complete blindness to the fact that businesses come in all shapes and sizes, owned and run by all kinds of different people, with different motivations, and different effects on the society they touch. There was an example today in fact.... "Starmer has come out on the side of business"... ...as a negative thing... so no need to page back much.
Sorry… I thought you were trying to convince us that the voting system doesn’t push people towards the two main parties?
Was I? There I thought I though I was addressing El-bent's claims about centrists/liberals voting for labour. It demonstrates a belief that the liberal/centrist vote is rather large which I think does require some supporting evidence.
Since they then double down with an apparent belief that apparently Labour consists mostly of centrists/liberals which begs the question why they dont vote lib dem since it would rapidly make them the largest party.
I would suggest the reason is that the centrists/liberals are actually a minority group who mix up being swing voters with actual overall voting numbers.
Is a liberal and a centrist the same thing? Anyway, yes, there are people who the left would describe as "liberal" or "centrist" that vote for Labour in their millions, especially at General Elections. What was the last national election we can look at that wasn't FPTP... oh yes...
BBC.CO.UK I'll wager that a huge proportion of those LibDem and Green voters went on to vote Labour at the General Election. The FPTP system, and the idea that there is "more at stake" at a general election, pulls voters back to the two main parties. To argue otherwise is nonsense. Everyone is trying to avoid a "wasted vote" in these circumstances.
But since we are dealing with those on the left who shall remain inflexible to it
It's like talking to Binners' twin. Again, the size of Starmer's victory shows pretty convincingly that the left is prepared to be flexible and pragmatic. The very qualities so sorely lacking in the centrists who were more interested in ousting the previous leader.
And, what's happening with the current leader now? Flexible and pragmatic support for him? Or trying to oust him? Looks like much of the same, just with roles reversed. And then voters think... How could they lead a country, when they can't lead their party?... and the tories do a little dance.
To argue otherwise is nonsense.
sigh I am not arguing that. I am specifically addressing El-Bent and their claim that "the illusion that most people who voted labour were on the left?".
So do you agree with that claim of theirs. If so lets discuss it but if not lets not demand I defend something I am not saying.
And, what’s happening with the current leader now? Flexible and pragmatic support for him?
Support for what, exactly? Nearly a year in, and I still have no idea what he's for. Apart from more flags, obvs.
The very qualities so sorely lacking in the centrists who were more interested in ousting the previous leader.
I think pretty much everyone, regardless of political persuassion, was united in that.
Apart from the Tory's, obviously
