Not The Politics Thread.

[Greg2607]

I genuinely struggle to understand why Labour never seem to move the needle.  Admittedly, I'm more of a Centre Left leaning kind of person, but the Tory leadership in recent years has been abysmal. genuinely abysmal. 

 

I wasn't a massive fan of Cameron, but at least he came across as intelligent. I had confidence with him at the helm, even if I didn't like the Austerity policies, I trusted that they were doing what was best for the country. 

 

After Brexit, the governing classes have been useless and we end up with a prime minister that hid in a fridge during a general election rather than have an interview that wasn't 100% stage managed. 

 

The number of embarrassing scandals over the last 18 months, have, in my opinion been lost in the noise of Covid. 

 

How anyone can have confidence that Johnson can lead the country is baffling. the number of U-Turns and unclear policy decisions would bring any other government to it's knees. 

 

 

[SecretPro]

1 hour ago, Greg2607 said:

I genuinely struggle to understand why Labour never seem to move the needle.  Admittedly, I'm more of a Centre Left leaning kind of person, but the Tory leadership in recent years has been abysmal. genuinely abysmal. 

 

I wasn't a massive fan of Cameron, but at least he came across as intelligent. I had confidence with him at the helm, even if I didn't like the Austerity policies, I trusted that they were doing what was best for the country. 

 

After Brexit, the governing classes have been useless and we end up with a prime minister that hid in a fridge during a general election rather than have an interview that wasn't 100% stage managed. 

 

The number of embarrassing scandals over the last 18 months, have, in my opinion been lost in the noise of Covid. 

 

How anyone can have confidence that Johnson can lead the country is baffling. the number of U-Turns and unclear policy decisions would bring any other government to it's knees. 

 

 

Starmer is basically a Tory.

 

Need Burnham in as leader for any real chance of a revival in Labour.

[Greg2607]

3 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Starmer is basically a Tory.

 

Need Burnham in as leader for any real chance of a revival in Labour.

Blair was basically a tory, but i still preferred that version of Britain I think. 

[Voll Blau]

6 minutes ago, SecretPro said:

Starmer is basically a Tory.

 

Need Burnham in as leader for any real chance of a revival in Labour.

Do expand...

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, Dunge said:

If the original point was talking about Climate Change or Coronavirus then I’d have a lot more sympathy with this point.

Fair to say.

 

However the only reason that it's not talking about those things is because through a confluence of circumstances, luck being among them, those two issues have not become a political football in the UK, as they have elsewhere. Let's not kid ourselves that if they *were* more political, the media wouldn't be pushing misinformation for political purposes on those too, as, again, it does elsewhere.

 

That is exactly why regulation is necessary.

 

NB. Though those two very large scientific issues are not affected (at the present time), there are other issues that have had misinformation published about them that is potentially damaging. One example would be the Sun publishing an article saying that straight people couldn't contract HIV, which is not only encouraging of homophobia but also criminally erroneous.

 

It's fine to say the media can publish what they want to satisfy public need for what they want to read, up into the first person gets hurt as a result.

[Bellend Sebastian]

1.25% NI hike to raise £36 billion over the next 3 years to fund Social Care and the NHS.

 

Not quite the amount spaffed on Track and Trace. Perhaps they should have tried getting some of that back

[David Guiza]

Given how fickle people are, I wonder how the pension and NI news will be taken. It's all well and good saying that 'x' cut is necessary given the circumstances etc, but we all know that it hits differently when it's subjective and not objective.

56 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

1.25% NI hike to raise £36 billion over the next 3 years to fund Social Care and the NHS.

 

Not quite the amount spaffed on Track and Trace. Perhaps they should have tried getting some of that back

 And HS2. 

[Leicester_Loyal]

[Leicester_Loyal]

God knows how people my age can afford to live as well as own their own property, and pay into a pension. I earn a bloody decent amount for my age and even I'm not that well off, lads earning minimum wage or just above have absolutely no chance.

This won't make a difference to my vote because I'll never go Tory again, but it's largely irrelevant because they'll get in at a canter again in 4 years, mental.

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

1.25% NI hike to raise £36 billion over the next 3 years to fund Social Care and the NHS.

 

Not quite the amount spaffed on Track and Trace. Perhaps they should have tried getting some of that back

Bit of a kick in the nuts for nhs staff init. Work their balls off during a 2 year pandemic, get a begrudgingly 3% pay rise, only to have 1.25% taken back off them. 

[ealingfox]

Why can't we use the 350m we're getting from not being in the EU and were going to use to fund the NHS instead? Should be able to cover the 10bn nearly twice a year with that.

[SecretPro]

Where have all the Boris boys gone? Can't be bothered to argue what a great deal this is? 

[Leicester_Loyal]

All the money provided through those dodgy multimillion pound contracts has to come from somewhere. Wouldn't actually mind if it was put to good use, it'll just be thrown away and we'll still have people saying the NHS is underfunded and we need to put even more in. It's a neverending circle sadly.

[Sampson]

6 hours ago, Greg2607 said:

Blair was basically a tory, but i still preferred that version of Britain I think. 

I think saying "New Labour were Tories." "Stamer is a Tory" "So offers no alternative" is the same old trap that the Tories actually like to put out themselves to keep them in power.

Blair and Brown certainly weren't Tories. They might have not believed in reversing Thatcher's privatisation and weren't big into public ownership and liked investment through the market and private investment. But they certainly weren't shy on a lot of public spending and funded the NHS, schools, police, defence etc. as well as any other Labour government. The percentage of GDP into the NHS were the highest in UK history, even higher than the Atlee government. They brought in schemes such as funding for disabled and dyslexic children and children of the poorest families earning money by attending schools. They also brought in huge things for workers like minimum wage and minimum 4 weeks holiday days a year.

Blair and Brown were also both very pro-European integration, pro-immigration, multiculturalism and progressive social policy. They repealed section 28, lowered the age of consent for gay men to the same as straight couples, allowed for same sex adoption and civil partnerships and I do feel like society under new Labour did become much more tolerant towards immigrants and LGBT people and that there definitely was a deliberate "steering" of society in that direction by Blair and Brown's government.

Then when the financial crisis hit, Brown also tried to counter it through the traditional left-policies of Keynesian spending and quantitative easing. In many ways, the 2010 election was a pretty traditional left vs right election when it came to how to get out of recession, with Brown advocating for public spending and Keynesian economics and Cameron advocating for public cuts, austerity and Austrian school economics.

I'd say in recent years, certainly since 2016, all I've seen is anti-immigration and nationalism rise in this country and a hell of a lot of scapegoating, no real improvements in any worker's laws, no real improvements in social progression laws, no real end to austerity and increase in public spending...

My understanding of Starmer is that he's always been in favour of higher tax rates for the wealthy, higher public spending, abolition of tuition fees, even re-nationalisation of the rai network. While he might not be in favour of the Social Democratic ideals we had as a country between 1945-79, that doesn't mean he's automatically a Tory. 

The problem is, the Tories are very good at splitting the other vote and so Labour are either "money printing machines who want a command economy" or "just Tories light who offer no alternative". Brown was to the left of Blair (and I'd say Starmer has always seemed closer to Brown than Blair to me) but still got lumped in as a "Tory light" and Ed Milliband tried to straddle the line between social democracy and new labour trying to pitch himself in between Corbyn and Brown, but he got written off even as "too left". 

Where is this line in between Gordon Brown and Ed Milliband that would make Labour "electable"? It doesn't exist - every Labour leader will either be labelled "too Left" or "Tory light" and that how the Tories are so good at splitting their opposition votes.

It's still a simple fact that if you add up Labour, SNP, LibDem and Greens votes, they would easily dwarf the Tories, but because of our broken FPtP system, splitting that vote is the ultimate political tactic.

Labour under Starmer certainly are an alternative and they are credible. And they certainly would be absolutely not "a light version" or "just as bad" as this current government. I've voted Tory in the past and I could even praise some things about the coalition government, even if Cameron's decision to call the referndum will ultimately overshadow everything else he did, but I really struggle to see why people still find Boris and this government more palatable than Starmer and Labour at all. 

[Claridge]

Starmer credible😂

[Dunge]

26 minutes ago, Claridge said:

Starmer credible😂

He is though. He may not be exciting but he’s credible. Even from a centre-right perspective, what would be so bad about Starmer being PM?

[Claridge]

Just now, Dunge said:

He is though. He may not be exciting but he’s credible. Even from a centre-right perspective, what would be so bad about Starmer being PM?

Probably the least un-inspiring leader ever for a start. 
chancer who stuck with the racist Corbyn . Has zero policies and just whines about the Tories, almost Zero chance of winning an election. Another Kinnock whose role is to eat away at the massive Tory majority, which his Brexit views are partly responsible for.

[Dunge]

1 minute ago, Claridge said:

Probably the least un-inspiring leader ever for a start. 
chancer who stuck with the racist Corbyn . Has zero policies and just whines about the Tories, almost Zero chance of winning an election. Another Kinnock whose role is to eat away at the massive Tory majority, which his Brexit views are partly responsible for.

I think the zero policies bit is the hardest hitting there.

 

I don’t blame him for sticking with Corbyn. From a longer term point of view it needed someone is his position to haul the party back from the hard left, which he has done. I watched very carefully in his early days to see whether he’d do it, whether he’d risk upsetting that wing, and he did - quickly and quite ruthlessly at times. I disagreed with him over Brexit, but he shows no signs of re-fighting that battle; someone in his position has to be allowed to move on. As for the rest, that’s just opinion and not a reason to keep him from office.

 

Frankly I’m more worried about which way Labour might turn if they sought to replace him. I could live quite happily with Starmer as PM. Some of the alternatives fill me with dread.

[RobHawk]

I'd take anything over the current clowns. 

 

How people would still vote Tory after the shitshow of the last few years I don't know. 

 

Bojo the clown has been by far the worst PM of my lifetime. I don't understand people anymore because being a complete failure, lacking leadership and being corrupt don't seem to seen as negatives anymore. 

 

How do you get around that when the man can do no wrong?

[Sampson]

Starmer does have pretty clear policies?

Abolishing Universal Credit is his big one, he repeats that almost every week. And he repeats renationalisation of the rail network very often in PMs Qs too, as well as sometimes saying he's in favour of renationalisation of Royal Mail and the water industry.

He's also pretty consistent with increasing income tax for highest earners by 5% and that he's pro-abolition of student tuition fees and repealing the Trade Union Act and repeals laws which make it harder for workers to strike or enact collective bargaining.

[What the Fuchs?]

23 minutes ago, Claridge said:

Probably the least un-inspiring leader ever for a start. 
chancer who stuck with the racist Corbyn . Has zero policies and just whines about the Tories, almost Zero chance of winning an election. Another Kinnock whose role is to eat away at the massive Tory majority, which his Brexit views are partly responsible for.

Not that it really matters, but it seems obvious to me where you derive your opinions from (you should check out our discussion of media reform above). You shouldn’t make assertions that you cannot back up with undeniable evidence rather than Sun headlines. Or you should at least be aware of your own hypocrisy when the current prime minister has made more documented racist, sexist and homophobic statements and actions than any modern politician. Polls suggest all forms of racism tend to be more tolerated by right wing voters (not really surprising when you look at right wing parties throughout history), and racism including antisemitism and Islamophobia is and has historically been an endemic problem within the Conservative Party, but just one that the majority of the press has little political incentive to report. The Conservative Party are also not, and have never been, expected by anyone to have a squeaky clean moral compass and commitment to social and racial equality - that is expected of left wing parties - so no one is surprised or shocked when they don’t meet standards. No one batted an eyelid when the Tories aligned themselves with Orban’s awful far right racist regime in Hungary; when Thatcher backed Apartheid South Africa and Tories condemned Mandela as just a terrorist; when Johnson wrote about “picanninies with watermelon smiles”. Just question critically every news source you consume. How reliable is this news source? What purpose does the author have? What is the style of the article? What has the article omitted to mention? What evidence have they used to satisfactorily support their arguments? Questions like these will make you see the world in a more nuanced way and enrich you for it.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thelondoneconomic.com/opinion/the-conservative-party-anti-semitism-crisis-nobody-talks-about-169874/%3famp

 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/tories-exploiting-jewish-fears-antisemitism/

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_UK_Conservative_Party

[Dunge]

28 minutes ago, What the Fuchs? said:

Not that it really matters, but it seems obvious to me where you derive your opinions from (you should check out our discussion of media reform above). You shouldn’t make assertions that you cannot back up with undeniable evidence rather than Sun headlines. Or you should at least be aware of your own hypocrisy when the current prime minister has made more documented racist, sexist and homophobic statements and actions than any modern politician. Polls suggest all forms of racism tend to be more tolerated by right wing voters (not really surprising when you look at right wing parties throughout history), and racism including antisemitism and Islamophobia is and has historically been an endemic problem within the Conservative Party, but just one that the majority of the press has little political incentive to report. The Conservative Party are also not, and have never been, expected by anyone to have a squeaky clean moral compass and commitment to social and racial equality - that is expected of left wing parties - so no one is surprised or shocked when they don’t meet standards. No one batted an eyelid when the Tories aligned themselves with Orban’s awful far right racist regime in Hungary; when Thatcher backed Apartheid South Africa and Tories condemned Mandela as just a terrorist; when Johnson wrote about “picanninies with watermelon smiles”. Just question critically every news source you consume. How reliable is this news source? What purpose does the author have? What is the style of the article? What has the article omitted to mention? What evidence have they used to satisfactorily support their arguments? Questions like these will make you see the world in a more nuanced way and enrich you for it.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thelondoneconomic.com/opinion/the-conservative-party-anti-semitism-crisis-nobody-talks-about-169874/%3famp

 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/tories-exploiting-jewish-fears-antisemitism/

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_UK_Conservative_Party

I’m coming to the conclusion that we could spend a great evening debating over the many things we disagree upon. 

From Tories to Corbyn to media to monarchy. 

 

I’ve no energy to add another essay for debate though. One above was enough for now, and I know I’ll end up keeping on coming back to it and debating further if I do.

 

So I’ll just say the one thing about the above: From all that I’ve read and observed, checking the original words, statements, etc., I don’t class either Corbyn or Boris as racists. I do think the former ignored and facilitated them though, while the other was deliberately clumsy and unprofessional, again indirectly facilitating it. In an ideal world, neither would or should be prime minister.

[What the Fuchs?]

43 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I’m coming to the conclusion that we could spend a great evening debating over the many things we disagree upon. 

From Tories to Corbyn to media to monarchy. 

 

I’ve no energy to add another essay for debate though. One above was enough for now, and I know I’ll end up keeping on coming back to it and debating further if I do.

 

So I’ll just say the one thing about the above: From all that I’ve read and observed, checking the original words, statements, etc., I don’t class either Corbyn or Boris as racists. I do think the former ignored and facilitated them though, while the other was deliberately clumsy and unprofessional, again indirectly facilitating it. In an ideal world, neither would or should be prime minister.

I know for a fact we would agree on more things than not mate - it’s just unfortunate for you all that living in the south east ‘blue wall’ means I have to vent my frustrations on a football forum 😂

 

For what it’s worth I think both Corbyn and Johnson were/are incompetent in their own ways. I believe Corbyn’s heart was in the right place and he had a genuine desire to help people, but he was not cut out for frontline politics, not prepared to fight fire with fire, not media savvy enough to defend himself (though the attacks on him were pretty unprecedented). Johnson on the other hand, he uses his natural incompetence to his advantage, to play the lovable buffoon, an act he’s played for decades and one I pointed out to my family to some disbelief as being a dangerous one years ago while he was still mayor of London. The problem is his heart’s never been in the right place, always prepared to lie, cheat, ignore the rules, change his position on any issue wherever it benefits him throughout his life. Media savvy, yes. Principled and genuine, not in the slightest. Only ever concerned with what’s best for him. I disliked Cameron and May, but I respected them to a degree and didn’t feel the country was necessarily in bad or unfit hands, but I’ve never actually been scared for the future of the country as I am these days.

Edited 7 September 2021 by What the Fuchs?

[What the Fuchs?]

7 hours ago, Sampson said:

I think saying "New Labour were Tories." "Stamer is a Tory" "So offers no alternative" is the same old trap that the Tories actually like to put out themselves to keep them in power.

Blair and Brown certainly weren't Tories. They might have not believed in reversing Thatcher's privatisation and weren't big into public ownership and liked investment through the market and private investment. But they certainly weren't shy on a lot of public spending and funded the NHS, schools, police, defence etc. as well as any other Labour government. The percentage of GDP into the NHS were the highest in UK history, even higher than the Atlee government. They brought in schemes such as funding for disabled and dyslexic children and children of the poorest families earning money by attending schools. They also brought in huge things for workers like minimum wage and minimum 4 weeks holiday days a year.

Blair and Brown were also both very pro-European integration, pro-immigration, multiculturalism and progressive social policy. They repealed section 28, lowered the age of consent for gay men to the same as straight couples, allowed for same sex adoption and civil partnerships and I do feel like society under new Labour did become much more tolerant towards immigrants and LGBT people and that there definitely was a deliberate "steering" of society in that direction by Blair and Brown's government.

Then when the financial crisis hit, Brown also tried to counter it through the traditional left-policies of Keynesian spending and quantitative easing. In many ways, the 2010 election was a pretty traditional left vs right election when it came to how to get out of recession, with Brown advocating for public spending and Keynesian economics and Cameron advocating for public cuts, austerity and Austrian school economics.

I'd say in recent years, certainly since 2016, all I've seen is anti-immigration and nationalism rise in this country and a hell of a lot of scapegoating, no real improvements in any worker's laws, no real improvements in social progression laws, no real end to austerity and increase in public spending...

My understanding of Starmer is that he's always been in favour of higher tax rates for the wealthy, higher public spending, abolition of tuition fees, even re-nationalisation of the rai network. While he might not be in favour of the Social Democratic ideals we had as a country between 1945-79, that doesn't mean he's automatically a Tory. 

The problem is, the Tories are very good at splitting the other vote and so Labour are either "money printing machines who want a command economy" or "just Tories light who offer no alternative". Brown was to the left of Blair (and I'd say Starmer has always seemed closer to Brown than Blair to me) but still got lumped in as a "Tory light" and Ed Milliband tried to straddle the line between social democracy and new labour trying to pitch himself in between Corbyn and Brown, but he got written off even as "too left". 

Where is this line in between Gordon Brown and Ed Milliband that would make Labour "electable"? It doesn't exist - every Labour leader will either be labelled "too Left" or "Tory light" and that how the Tories are so good at splitting their opposition votes.

It's still a simple fact that if you add up Labour, SNP, LibDem and Greens votes, they would easily dwarf the Tories, but because of our broken FPtP system, splitting that vote is the ultimate political tactic.

Labour under Starmer certainly are an alternative and they are credible. And they certainly would be absolutely not "a light version" or "just as bad" as this current government. I've voted Tory in the past and I could even praise some things about the coalition government, even if Cameron's decision to call the referndum will ultimately overshadow everything else he did, but I really struggle to see why people still find Boris and this government more palatable than Starmer and Labour at all. 

Loads of very perceptive points in this post, are you sure you’re not a political journalist? 👏 I think the bottom line is if you’re in control of the political narrative as the Tories currently are and are naturally better placed to do through media institutions, then you’re able to more easily manipulate explicitly or implicitly public consciousness about things to your advantage. Labour have to find a way to gain a more even playing field to stop the acceptable political spectrum - the Overton Window - shifting continuously to the right. One way like I suggested before was an Ofcom style regulator to prevent misleading media propagandising, at least in ‘newspapers’, but I suppose any stated intention by Labour to act on that would be demonised by the same hostile press as being an attack on press freedom. It’s sad that the only way to get anything done in this country is to suck up to the likes of Rupert Murdoch.

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, Claridge said:

Starmer credible😂

TBH I can see why that concept would be amusing to someone who thought that Donald Trump was a credible leader.