The New Leader of the Labour Party

[Red Phoenix]

On 10/02/2020 at 01:58, Numero Veinticinco said:

I just had a look at his YouTube channel. Well, how the fighty have fallen. Barely gets any views. There are several videos with a few hundred views. 

 

I think it's mainly for his talk show which is now on a Russian network after he got shut down for some antisemitism issue last year (ah just checked it was that "no israel flags on the cup" thing after we beat them in the CL final.) So with the UK media shutting him out he's probably not going to do so well with that.

 

He's approaching 350k followers on twitter though and is regularly on there so he does have a decent following. I'm not sure if he'll ever get that party moving though. He also seems to be railing against Scots having independence which I think is odd.

[Red Phoenix]

24 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

ah just checked it was that "no israel flags on the cup" thing after we beat them in the CL final.

 

Sorry that was supposed to be Spurs, not them. Maybe in my tiredness I thought we'd beat Israel.

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

I think it's mainly for his talk show which is now on a Russian network after he got shut down for some antisemitism issue last year (ah just checked it was that "no israel flags on the cup" thing after we beat them in the CL final.) So with the UK media shutting him out he's probably not going to do so well with that.

 

He's approaching 350k followers on twitter though and is regularly on there so he does have a decent following. I'm not sure if he'll ever get that party moving though. He also seems to be railing against Scots having independence which I think is odd.

Not sure why that’s odd, mate. Not sure what the media has to do with YouTube really. He’s getting tragically low numbers. If his twitter numbers counted for anything, he’d be getting more than 5 retweets on his posts. 68k subs with 1k watches. 
 

Hmn. 

[Red Phoenix]

4 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Not sure why that’s odd, mate. Not sure what the media has to do with YouTube really. He’s getting tragically low numbers. If his twitter numbers counted for anything, he’d be getting more than 5 retweets on his posts. 68k subs with 1k watches. 
 

Hmn. 

 

I think the Scotland thing is odd becuase he's so in support of brexit. He should be able to respect that they might want to be free of control from london seeing as he's spent so much time wanting us freed from a government outside of our own country. Maybe it's an SNP thing, I know he doesn't like them.

[Numero Veinticinco]

4 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

I think the Scotland thing is odd becuase he's so in support of brexit. He should be able to respect that they might want to be free of control from london seeing as he's spent so much time wanting us freed from a government outside of our own country. Maybe it's an SNP thing, I know he doesn't like them.

He has never supported Scottish independence. 

[Red Phoenix]

13 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

He has never supported Scottish independence. 

 

Fair enough, I think he should just leave them to it if they're sick of being controlled by Tories in London but that's his own view and will just disagree on it.

[Red Phoenix]

Galloway is against Catalan independence too, because it's driven by "selfishness and greed".

[Numero Veinticinco]

I think he’s almost universally against splitting countries and nations. 

[Sugar Ape]

I don’t really see what relevance Galloway has to anything anymore beyond a small number of cranks, besides we do have a George Galloway thread so...

 

https://www.liverpoolway.co.uk/index.php?/forums/topic/44893-george-galloway/

 

 

I’d imagine a lot of people will want to dismiss this because of the source but Ashcroft is one of the only people using his money to commission such polling at the moment. It’s grim reading for Labour no matter who you support. 

 

 

 

 

[Red Phoenix]

5 minutes ago, Sugar Ape said:

I don’t really see what relevance Galloway has to anything anymore beyond a small number of cranks, besides we do have a George Galloway thread so...

 

https://www.liverpoolway.co.uk/index.php?/forums/topic/44893-george-galloway/

 

 

Thanks, will post there instead in future.

[Sugar Ape]

Obviously you can click on the link and see all the info but it’s easier to look at the highlights on some of the Twitter threads. 
 

This is the big one, for me. 
 

 

[Strontium]

2 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

Galloway is against Catalan independence too, because it's driven by "selfishness and greed".

 

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[Duff Man]

Few thoughts about that polling:

 

- it'd be useful if the "compromises" that Labour need to make were explored a little bit more, wouldn't it? Who and what are they compromising with? What does that actually look like in terms of policy? I mean, we probably have a good idea (think Hodgey on social housing, circa 2007), but it'd be helpful if that were actually spelled out in these discussions

- similarly, the complete absence of even an attempt to explain why bullshitty rightwing talking points such as the threat of "wokeness" are not only believed, but accepted as a valid reason for voting a certain way. Isn't that worth focusing on even a little bit, rather than just suggesting a party must immediately pander to those ideas to win votes? Obviously, it's not really in the media class's interests to discuss such things, but for people who are serious about actually getting progressive politics in this country, it's probably worth considering how and why such Shapiro-esque bullshit takes root

- if we are just giving up on challenging anything anymore, and immediately pivoting to whatever the voters want, regardless how unpalatable, will it actually materialise into Labour success at the ballot box, anyway, and where exactly does it all lead? We tried to out-Tory the Tories in 2015 with immigration mugs etc, and still lost, so I'd be very dubious of going down that route again. The argument basically seems to be yes, as a country we're awfully hateful and rightwing, and the best way to counter that as a nominally progressive political party is by also being awfully hateful and rightwing, and at the same time never looking at why as a country we seem to be becoming more and more hatefully rightwing

- lastly, fuck Sam Coates

[SasaS]

9 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

Few thoughts about that polling:

 

- it'd be useful if the "compromises" that Labour need to make were explored a little bit more, wouldn't it? Who and what are they compromising with? What does that actually look like in terms of policy? I mean, we probably have a good idea (think Hodgey on social housing, circa 2007), but it'd be helpful if that were actually spelled out in these discussions

- similarly, the complete absence of even an attempt to explain why bullshitty rightwing talking points such as the threat of "wokeness" are not only believed, but accepted as a valid reason for voting a certain way. Isn't that worth focusing on even a little bit, rather than just suggesting a party must immediately pander to those ideas to win votes? Obviously, it's not really in the media class's interests to discuss such things, but for people who are serious about actually getting progressive politics in this country, it's probably worth considering how and why such Shapiro-esque bullshit takes root

- if we are just giving up on challenging anything any more, and immediately pivoting to whatever the voters want, regardless how unpalatable, will it actually materialise into Labour success at the ballot box, and where exactly does this all lead? We tried to out-Tory the Tories in 2015 with immigration mugs etc, and still lost, so I'd be very dubious of going down that route again. The argument basically seems to be yes, as a country we're awfully hateful and rightwing, and the best way to counter that as a nominally progressive political party is by also being awfully hateful and rightwing, and at the same time never looking at why as a country we seem to be becoming more and more hatefully rightwing

- lastly, fuck Sam Coates

 

Well, that's for Labour to discover. Wasn't this the purpose of the New Labour's focus groups in the key marginals in 1997?

[Duff Man]

7 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Well, that's for Labour to discover. Wasn't this the purpose of the New Labour's focus groups in the key marginals in 1997?

You're kind of missing the point. We know what the resultant policy offerings look like. I'm saying they shouldn't be dressed up in empty platitudes such as "compromise".

[SasaS]

1 minute ago, Duff Man said:

You're kind of missing the point. We know what the resultant policy offerings look like. I'm saying they shouldn't be dressed up in empty platitudes such as "compromise".

I didn't know you already knew, I thought that's normally a very valuable peace of information, to pinpoint where exactly the said "compromise" lies.

[Duff Man]

14 minutes ago, SasaS said:

I didn't know you already knew, I thought that's normally a very valuable peace of information, to pinpoint where exactly the said "compromise" lies.

I don't know exactly, but we have a pretty good idea given the current political climate, and also, you know, recent history. My point is that perhaps it's more helpful to look at why those ideas have taken hold, and why such "compromises" are even needed.

[Strontium]

Compromises are needed, because the Labour Party is, and always has been, a compromise in and of itself. It has always been a broad church of the left and centre-left. For all the hype about being a return to Old Labour values, Corbyn is the most left-wing leader the party has ever had. He's also the least successful, and these two facts may or may not be linked.

[Duff Man]

The point isn't that a party should never compromise, it's that there's a problem when people are saying it needs to do so on a massive scale because some voters believe very silly things, and that's all there is to it, end of story. Some exploration of how or why those things are believed, what the compromise with such beliefs would look like, and whether challenging them instead would be better, is probably worthwhile.

[A Red]

My issue with the last socialist version of the Labour party is its understanding of the meaning of working class.

 

There were a group of 5 of us who were mates through the school years and beyond who were all easily described as working class, living in rented or council housing with parents employed as lorry drivers, milkmen or in the building trade. None of us went to university, got great exam results or entered any of the professions but all ended up with our own businesses or self employed. None of us is by any means is rich. Each of us in our own way, without really meaning to, aspired to became middle class ,wanted low taxes and reward for risk and hard work and have control over lifes decisions.

 

I realise this is just a snapshot of a few working class people going through the 80's and 90's and not particularly representative of the working class. Each of us were lucky not to come from bad backgrounds (i was the only one from a single parent family) and we are all not entirely stupid. My point, is that the perception for me and others is that Labour dont talk about aspirations or reward to the working class, wanting them to do well and have their own homes but talk about things like diversity, racism, fascism and funding public services. All those things need to be done or addressed and no-one would argue against that but Labour is, I believe, missing the point. It should also be talking about peoples aspirations and how it can help people achieve them. Dare I say it, but taking a leaf out of Thatchers book.

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 minutes ago, A Red said:

My issue with the last socialist version of the Labour party is its understanding of the meaning of working class.

 

There were a group of 5 of us who were mates through the school years and beyond who were all easily described as working class, living in rented or council housing with parents employed as lorry drivers, milkmen or in the building trade. None of us went to university, got great exam results or entered any of the professions but all ended up with our own businesses or self employed. None of us is by any means is rich. Each of us in our own way, without really meaning to, aspired to became middle class ,wanted low taxes and reward for risk and hard work and have control over lifes decisions.

 

I realise this is just a snapshot of a few working class people going through the 80's and 90's and not particularly representative of the working class. Each of us were lucky not to come from bad backgrounds (i was the only one from a single parent family) and we are all not entirely stupid. My point, is that the perception for me and others is that Labour dont talk about aspirations or reward to the working class, wanting them to do well and have their own homes but talk about things like diversity, racism, fascism and funding public services. All those things need to be done or addressed and no-one would argue against that but Labour is, I believe, missing the point. It should also be talking about peoples aspirations and how it can help people achieve them. Dare I say it, but taking a leaf out of Thatchers book.

I was with you until the last sentence. Leaving that aside, I do think more needs to be done on the front. Being part of the working class used to be a source of pride and honour. Now, to some, it’s seen as something from which you escape if you can. There’s absolutely no shame in wanted to do well in life. I want people to do well in life, I also want them not to be able to pull the ladder up when they go up it. If you do well, you contribute more and you should be glad to do it. If you do well, then piss and moan that you - having benefited from the system paid for by others - have to pay into it, or do everything you can to avoid paying into it (taking a leaf out of the Thatcherite playbook), then... you know then that’s make you a twat. There’s a balance here, Labour need to find it. 

[Scooby Dudek]

17 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I was with you until the last sentence. Leaving that aside, I do think more needs to be done on the front. Being part of the working class used to be a source of pride and honour. Now, to some, it’s seen as something from which you escape if you can. There’s absolutely no shame in wanted to do well in life. I want people to do well in life, I also want them not to be able to pull the ladder up when they go up it. If you do well, you contribute more and you should be glad to do it. If you do well, then piss and moan that you - having benefited from the system paid for by others - have to pay into it, or do everything you can to avoid paying into it (taking a leaf out of the Thatcherite playbook), then... you know then that’s make you a twat. There’s a balance here, Labour need to find it. 

The bit in bold is the main issue for me. 

It seems to me that since Thatcher and her play book it has become totally about the individual and nothing else. 

As you say people who get on should be glad to put something back but this no longer seems the case. I have done well by working hard, anyone else not doing well, must be because they are lazy and in that case, fuck them, why should I have to help lazy people ?

 

The same point in relation to aspirations (and this is not a dig at A Red) but the media/Tory narrative is if you don't believe in massive inequality and very wealthy people should pay a bit more tax, then you don't want people to get on and are anti-aspiration. 

 

The same with owning a home, not everyone wants to own their own home, this was quite normal 40 years ago, but this does not make you lazy or have no ambition. Apparently wanting to build social housing, to help people, is again anti-aspiration. 

 

I am not disputing anything in the report but agree with Duff man in that Labour party rightly or wrongly can not just agree with everything that people propose because what the majority propose may be popular but may also go totally against what the Labour party believes in. 

 

A lot of what is acceptable is the media narrative and you can have a go at Labour for not getting their message across but Labour policies should never be dictated by what the media say is acceptable.

 

 

 

[A Red]

I thought I would get negged to fuck and guess I still might.

 

Just to clarify, I said a leaf out of Thatchers book, a little bit but by all means not all of it. Thatcher did, in my opinion, get some things right, playing to peoples aspirations to do better was one of them. The greed and the "fuck you" to those that couldnt move upwards were just a few of the reasons to hate her.

[sir roger]

On 08/02/2020 at 16:47, Strontium Dog™ said:

Corbyn's CLP has nominated Starmer. End of the road for Mabel?

• Round 1 Long-Bailey 125, Starmer 80, Nandy 44, Thornberry 30
• Round 2 Long-Bailey 135, Starmer 91, Nandy 54
• Round 3 Starmer 138, Long-Bailey 135

A few on the left were arguing earlier in the contest that having only one left winger( not a universally liked one ) on the ballot paper might prove a tactical mistake with the 2nd preference system. In the situation above RLB presumably got 10 of Thornberry's 2nd preference votes in round two , but the Starmer / Nandy axis was enough to edge Starmer the vote in the end.

[Numero Veinticinco]

I didn’t see anybody post it, but Starmer has pledged some stuff that should make the left happy and the centre surprised. 

 

https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/