The Politics Thread
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
-
- Promising
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:55 pm
Re: The Politics Thread
No danger? The danger is Osborne or May for 5 years after this. Then big Boris after that. Then who knows...that is the danger.
You said the 'danger is in thinking the mood is more widely represented than it is'. I was responding that that is not a danger. It is not fixed. It is in a state of growth. People are being introduced to ideas. New policies, new options. Writing something off before it has started is wrongheaded. Speaking for the electorate with certainty is also wrongheaded. The time for a wider vote will come, but that time is not now.
Just to remind you once more. Labour just got annihilated
Einstein said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Time for a change.
Open your eyes. Labour are about to elect Corbyn; that is a shift. Fact. Where are your contrary pieces of factual evidence disputing a shift?But instead of thinking how can we stop or challenge that, it's better to pretend there is a great political mindshare shift taking place whilst ignoring every single piece of factual evidence to the contrary.
There was no left voice, so how can you know otherwise. The groundswell of support for the first left voice available says you are wrong. The only votes that count right now are in the leadership election, in the most democratic vote in it's history. We will see what the people think.To suggest that Labour losing votes from 2010 to 2015 to the Tories is because there wasn't a coherent left of left wing voice is absolutely barmy. And those ultimately are the votes that count.
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 19597
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:49 am
- Location: N Wales, but close enough to Chester I can pretend I'm in England
- Contact:
Re: The Politics Thread
Yes. Stella Creasey is seriously tidy, Caroline Flint has maybe just stepped the other side of her best, but still OK.Bruce Rioja wrote:I've just been having a look. I see that there are are couple of half-decent sorts running for Deputy Leader.bobo the clown wrote:Burnham stands for whatever Burnham needs to say or do to get elected.Bruce Rioja wrote:I've heard of and recognise Andy Burnham but don't know what he stands for. I couldn't even tell you the sex of the other two, and didn't know that this was a four way thing.thebish wrote: ask anyone who is not a labour voter who any of the other three actually even ARE or to pick them out from a lineup - and they wouldn't have a clue... ask them what the feck any of the other three stand for - would you expect anyone to have any idea whatsoever??
The other two, Bruce, are Totty. Well, I say Totty. No-Tails ... as one is Ed Balls missus and pixie impressionist, while the other is reasonably attractive ex Greg Davies girlfriend. So she likes 'em big. She's the one being accused of being Tony Blair in a frock and has no chance whatsoever ... and is probably more hated by the new-left alliance than Cameron, right now.
There ... telling it like it is.
However we all know it's Angela Eagles who turns your head.
Not advocating mass-murder as an entirely positive experience, of course, but it had its moments.
"I understand you are a very good footballer" ... "I try".
"I understand you are a very good footballer" ... "I try".
-
- Promising
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:55 pm
Re: The Politics Thread
As William pointed out - the heart of the debate on here is really around Psephology. Which is really a dead topic as it's people trying to cleverly predict the future based on historical patterns. Just because Bwfc have not beaten a team in 10 attempts does not mean they won't in the next game.
The really interesting discussion is about actual policies. Once we get past the hysteria in the media and their massively self-interested positions; we see that the general public agree with Corbyns polices. His actual ideas aren't so Looney after all.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 07148.html
Which one's don't you agree with?
There is plenty of accumulated money out there. The problem is its in the bank accounts of a very small number of people. Why the resistance to policies that try to redistribute some of that money for the good of us all?
The really interesting discussion is about actual policies. Once we get past the hysteria in the media and their massively self-interested positions; we see that the general public agree with Corbyns polices. His actual ideas aren't so Looney after all.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 07148.html
Which one's don't you agree with?
There is plenty of accumulated money out there. The problem is its in the bank accounts of a very small number of people. Why the resistance to policies that try to redistribute some of that money for the good of us all?
Re: The Politics Thread
I can hear you all wondering what famous looney-lefty activist (and Tory Grandee) Ken Clarke thinks of all this...
Jeremy Corbyn could become prime minister in 2020 if he wins next month's Labour leadership race, the Conservative grandee Ken Clarke has warned fellow Tories.
"Don't underestimate Jeremy Corbyn," Clarke told the Huffington Post yesterday. "He's a nice guy. It's not certain he will lose an election… If you have another recession or if the Conservative Government becomes very unpopular, he could win.
Clarke, a former Home Secretary and Justice Secretary, said Corbyn was not as left-wing as Michael Foot, with whom he is often compared, and that his populist agenda could be hard to campaign against.
"Blair is very unpopular in this country, and Jeremy Corbyn fits the bill of being anti-political.
"He's regarded as a non-politician's answer to the Westminster establishment. Labour activists are very attracted to him because he sounds and looks like he believes what he says."
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36201
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: The Politics Thread
And EM was painted as 'red Ed' in the media to scare off the population from voting for him. The fact that worked should say something.thebish wrote:i don't know how anyone can be as SURE about the political landscape as you present yourself as being... milliband sold himself (along with burnham and cooper in prominent positions) as an inoffensive tory-lite alternative (of sorts)... - a LOOOOOOONG way from being anything thaty could be described as "left" - and they were absolutely TRUMPED...
what makes you think Cooper and Burnham will suddenly get it right? I have seen NOTHING in their campaigns so far to suggest anything different from what labour offered over the last 5 years.
maybe I've missed it, though - ARE they offering anything different to what milliband offered? anything at all?
if not - then why would burnham succeed where milliband failed so badly? are you thinking he would win by having more charisma than milliband? and if not him - Cooper?
But even if that is disregarded look at the voting patterns and the direction of votes. They aren't going left. They're shifting right to the Tories and UKIP.
That's the direction. Of course things change and shift. But not in 5 years do people lurch wildly from one extreme to another unless something goes incredibly wrong. And I'm talking 1930 Germany wrong here....
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Re: The Politics Thread
Indeed. I'd be there to hear a politician speak about what he passionately believes and not one who, as Daniel Hannan so expertly described Gordon Brown as being, like a Brezhnev-era apparatchik giving the party line.freeindeed wrote:
At the very least it is unusual for a political speaker outside of a general election to draw such big crowds.
As I say, I might not concur, but I'd hear him out; a man who may one day become our Prime Minister.
May the bridges I burn light your way
Re: The Politics Thread
seriously?? you actually think that people didn't vote labour because they were persuaded by the media that Milliband was Red Ed - they thought he was too left wing????BWFC_Insane wrote:
And EM was painted as 'red Ed' in the media to scare off the population from voting for him. The fact that worked should say something.
you're good at dishing out the "bonkers" tag - but I reckon you're perilously close to it yourself there!!
fact???? LOL!
-
- Promising
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:55 pm
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36201
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: The Politics Thread
Yes. Some people didn't vote Labour because they thought and were told Ed was some bonkers leftie. If you don't recognise that go and knock on doors in Bolton West. You will find many people who describe Milliband as a hand wringing leftie who wanted to destroy their small businesses and halt wealth creation.thebish wrote:seriously?? you actually think that people didn't vote labour because they were persuaded by the media that Milliband was Red Ed - they thought he was too left wing????BWFC_Insane wrote:
And EM was painted as 'red Ed' in the media to scare off the population from voting for him. The fact that worked should say something.
you're good at dishing out the "bonkers" tag - but I reckon you're perilously close to it yourself there!!
fact???? LOL!
-
- Icon
- Posts: 5043
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:58 am
- Location: 200 miles darn sarf
Re: The Politics Thread
Oh, I do hope that he wins!
God's country! God's county!
God's town! God's team!!
How can we fail?
COME ON YOU WHITES!!
God's town! God's team!!
How can we fail?
COME ON YOU WHITES!!
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Re: The Politics Thread
You don't seriously believe that floating voters didn't vote Labour because they considered EM to be too left wing by dint of the press coining the handy sobriquet and rhyming couplet of 'Red Ed' do you?BWFC_Insane wrote:
And EM was painted as 'red Ed' in the media to scare off the population from voting for him. The fact that worked should say something.
May the bridges I burn light your way
Re: The Politics Thread
You can't dismiss the electoral system in this country, the one in which any Labour leader will have to win, as mere "psephology". It's not a dead topic. I wouldn't be surprised if Corbyn sticks another 5,000 on the majorities of all the Labour London seats, I wouldn't be surprised if he fights off UKIP in the North and even if he has a reasonable do at fighting back in Scotland. But it's still not enough. Even if we accept there's a general swell of opinion for Corbyn, general appeal spread out doesn't translate to seats. Ask UKIP how far their 4m votes got them, or the Greens with their 1m.freeindeed wrote:As William pointed out - the heart of the debate on here is really around Psephology. Which is really a dead topic as it's people trying to cleverly predict the future based on historical patterns. Just because Bwfc have not beaten a team in 10 attempts does not mean they won't in the next game.
The really interesting discussion is about actual policies. Once we get past the hysteria in the media and their massively self-interested positions; we see that the general public agree with Corbyns polices. His actual ideas aren't so Looney after all.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 07148.html
Which one's don't you agree with?
There is plenty of accumulated money out there. The problem is its in the bank accounts of a very small number of people. Why the resistance to policies that try to redistribute some of that money for the good of us all?
Let's also for a second ignore the fact that Corbyn was speaking in the heart of North London, down the road from his constituency. Let's assume that every single person in that 2,000 crowd was someone who didn't vote Labour last time. Let's assume that you can go out of the metropolis to somewhere like Corby or Warrington South and attract the same sort of 2,000+ new Labour supporters. It *still* wouldn't be enough to win those seats, which are only the 25th and 27th smallest Tory majorities. We need to win 94 seats. The Tories only have 32 with a majority of less than 3,000. That's not mere psephology, that's the rules of the game. Middle England is the be-all and end-all.
And, by the way, how do you think those floating voters who shift between Labour and the Conservatives but voted Tory last time are going to react to a leader whose campaign at its grass-roots has been throwing (to borrow your hyperbole) vitriolic abuse at the other candidates for being too "Tory" as if it's some sort of moral disease?
You keep talking about a shift, about doing something different, well last-time round we elected the most left-wing candidate on the leadership ballot. Voting in Corbyn isn't a shift, it's repeating the mistakes of 83 onwards in assuming that the sort of people who paid to join the Labour party are fairly representative of the general population with regards to how much they like Labour!
Last edited by Prufrock on Wed Aug 05, 2015 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
Re: The Politics Thread
That headline didn't obviously do it but it was the first step down the long road to Ed being portrayed (whether or not people accept he actually was) as being very left wing. Through focus on his energy policies, down to that gobby cow on QT in Leeds talking about how she was a small business owner and the thoughts of him as PM scared her because he'd cost jobs. It's that "left-wing job-killer" that always does for Labour leaders who can't sell their economic policies to middle-class people.Bruce Rioja wrote:You don't seriously believe that floating voters didn't vote Labour because they considered EM to be too left wing by dint of the press coining the handy sobriquet and rhyming couplet of 'Red Ed' do you?BWFC_Insane wrote:
And EM was painted as 'red Ed' in the media to scare off the population from voting for him. The fact that worked should say something.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
Re: The Politics Thread
Bruce Rioja wrote:You don't seriously believe that floating voters didn't vote Labour because they considered EM to be too left wing by dint of the press coining the handy sobriquet and rhyming couplet of 'Red Ed' do you?BWFC_Insane wrote:
And EM was painted as 'red Ed' in the media to scare off the population from voting for him. The fact that worked should say something.
it seems he does - especially the people of Bolton - in fact, he says it's a FACT!
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36201
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: The Politics Thread
Do you think that isn't a reason? Do you genuinely think that people weren't scared about Red Ed and his leftie pal Nicola Sturgeon destroying the economy with their "leftie" policies?thebish wrote:Bruce Rioja wrote:You don't seriously believe that floating voters didn't vote Labour because they considered EM to be too left wing by dint of the press coining the handy sobriquet and rhyming couplet of 'Red Ed' do you?BWFC_Insane wrote:
And EM was painted as 'red Ed' in the media to scare off the population from voting for him. The fact that worked should say something.
it seems he does - especially the people of Bolton - in fact, he says it's a FACT!
Not saying it is the only reason. But it certainly is a view that I've heard widely expressed.
Re: The Politics Thread
to be fair to Freeindeed (and I appreciate that's not your game) - he is not simply dismissing psephology - a couple of pages ago he tackled this very point by arguing that it may very well be that we are close to entering the kind of democracy in the UK where single-party (outright) majorities are rarer - and that alliance-building will be the key to future UK politics (as it is across large parts of continental Europe.) The UK political landscape is changing, which is one of the reasons I am not as concretely "certain" about how the future will pan out as you appear to be.Prufrock wrote:
You can't dismiss the electoral system in this country, the one in which any Labour leader will have to win, as mere "psephology". It's not a dead topic. I wouldn't be surprised if Corbyn sticks another 5,000 on the majorities of all the Labour London seats, I wouldn't be surprised if he fights off UKIP in the North and even if he has a reasonable do at fighting back in Scotland. But it's still not enough.
Re: The Politics Thread
no - not a significant one, anyway.BWFC_Insane wrote:Do you think that isn't a reason? Do you genuinely think that people weren't scared about Red Ed and his leftie pal Nicola Sturgeon destroying the economy with their "leftie" policies?thebish wrote:Bruce Rioja wrote:You don't seriously believe that floating voters didn't vote Labour because they considered EM to be too left wing by dint of the press coining the handy sobriquet and rhyming couplet of 'Red Ed' do you?BWFC_Insane wrote:
And EM was painted as 'red Ed' in the media to scare off the population from voting for him. The fact that worked should say something.
it seems he does - especially the people of Bolton - in fact, he says it's a FACT!
Not saying it is the only reason. But it certainly is a view that I've heard widely expressed.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36201
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: The Politics Thread
People keep saying the political landscape is changing. How, and where is the evidence? The way Labour elect leaders HAS changed. That does not mean the politics of the electorate as a whole is changing in the same way. We've had one recent coalition government where the smaller element of that coalition was roundly and squarely and wholly rejected at the last election. We had a campaign where all the way through every poll suggested a hung parliament. Yet the electorate voted for a majority right wing government.thebish wrote:to be fair to Freeindeed (and I appreciate that's not your game) - he is not simply dismissing psephology - a couple of pages ago he tackled this very point by arguing that it may very well be that we are close to entering the kind of democracy in the UK where single-party (outright) majorities are rarer - and that alliance-building will be the key to future UK politics (as it is across large parts of continental Europe.) The UK political landscape is changing, which is one of the reasons I am not as concretely "certain" about how the future will pan out as you appear to be.Prufrock wrote:
You can't dismiss the electoral system in this country, the one in which any Labour leader will have to win, as mere "psephology". It's not a dead topic. I wouldn't be surprised if Corbyn sticks another 5,000 on the majorities of all the Labour London seats, I wouldn't be surprised if he fights off UKIP in the North and even if he has a reasonable do at fighting back in Scotland. But it's still not enough.
Re: The Politics Thread
I think the SNP holding the whole of scotland, 5 yrs of coalition government and the emergence of mass-appeal parties like UKIP is a fair bit of evidence that a change is under way from the old assumption that the options were either Labour or Conservative.BWFC_Insane wrote:
People keep saying the political landscape is changing. How, and where is the evidence?
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Re: The Politics Thread
OK, so let's say that David Cameron was named Lou rather than David, and the press decided to call him Blue Lou. Ohh, he must be Genghis Khan then! Absolutely fecking ridiculous!BWFC_Insane wrote:Do you think that isn't a reason? Do you genuinely think that people weren't scared about Red Ed and his leftie pal Nicola Sturgeon destroying the economy with their "leftie" policies?thebish wrote:Bruce Rioja wrote:You don't seriously believe that floating voters didn't vote Labour because they considered EM to be too left wing by dint of the press coining the handy sobriquet and rhyming couplet of 'Red Ed' do you?BWFC_Insane wrote:
And EM was painted as 'red Ed' in the media to scare off the population from voting for him. The fact that worked should say something.
it seems he does - especially the people of Bolton - in fact, he says it's a FACT!
Not saying it is the only reason. But it certainly is a view that I've heard widely expressed.
May the bridges I burn light your way
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 50 guests