|
|
Post by shevii on May 4, 2022 12:20:39 GMT
Thread
See new Tweets
Conversation
Ballot Box Scotland
@ballotboxscot
New Scottish Parliament poll, ComRes 26 Apr - 3 May (changes vs 10 - 16 Mar):
Regional List:
SNP ~ 31% (-3)
Lab ~ 23% (+1)
Con ~ 18% (-2)
Grn ~ 14% (+1)
LD ~ 10% (+2)
Alba ~ 3% (+1)
Constituency:
SNP ~ 46% (nc)
Lab ~ 25% (+1)
Con ~ 18% (-2)
LD ~ 7% (nc)
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on May 4, 2022 12:21:18 GMT
lens - " The evidence simply is not there outside of clinical etc use." Apart from a whole series of high quality scientific studies that find a small but significant effect from community mask wearing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2022 12:27:08 GMT
Corbyn didn’t split the party, they were already split. As Roger Mexico pointed out years ago on here, there was no way the right of the party would allow a left wing leader, whereas the left allowed a right wing leader. This is in part, as Riger pointed out, because they didn’t want the left to show how well their policies could work. Agree that with the MPs against him, his prospects were slim, especially after he showed the potential of a left wing prospectus in 2017. But some it would seem are reluctant to accept that the MP actions had a part to play in 2019. Though it was the media as well, as lululemon points out. Don't agree with Roger's assessment, some had that purist view but most of us just wanted Labour to win and Corbyn was never going to. I never really had a problem with him on idealogical grounds but I didn't think he was up to it. He was a good campaigning MP but was compromised and very easily caricatured because of his views on the EU, NATO, Palestinians, IRA, world peace, disarmament etc. For instance people were never going to vote for someone who wants to end NATO and couldn't bring himself to point the finger of blame for the Salisbury poisonings. The media are like the weather, its always there and if you are Labour, they would always be against you.....so why exacerbate the risks associated with that by electing someone like him? Sadly in 2015 Tony Blair wasn't one of those who "just wanted Labour to win"...
“Let me make my position clear: I wouldn’t want to win on an old-fashioned leftist platform. Even if I thought it was the route to victory, I wouldn’t take it.”
“Even if you did [win] it wouldn’t be right because it wouldn’t take the country forward, it would take it backwards. That’s why it’s not the right thing to do.”
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,760
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 4, 2022 12:27:53 GMT
Corbyn didn’t split the party, they were already split. As Roger Mexico pointed out years ago on here, there was no way the right of the party would allow a left wing leader, whereas the left allowed a right wing leader. This is in part, as Riger pointed out, because they didn’t want the left to show how well their policies could work. Agree that with the MPs against him, his prospects were slim, especially after he showed the potential of a left wing prospectus in 2017. But some it would seem are reluctant to accept that the MP actions had a part to play in 2019. Though it was the media as well, as lululemon points out. Don't agree with Roger's assessment, some had that purist view but most of us just wanted Labour to win and Corbyn was never going to. I never really had a problem with him on idealogical grounds but I didn't think he was up to it. He was a good campaigning MP but was compromised and very easily caricatured because of his views on the EU, NATO, Palestinians, IRA, world peace, disarmament etc. For instance people were never going to vote for someone who wants to end NATO and couldn't bring himself to point the finger of blame for the Salisbury poisonings. The media are like the weather, its always there and if you are Labour, they would always be against you.....so why exacerbate the risks associated with that by electing someone like him? Sure, I can see some having genuine reservations about Corbyn. (I had reservations too, but then I usually have reservations about our politicians). But this doesn’t mean Roger is wrong. That parties have wings that will sabotage the party is not unusual in politics, and there have been many examples people have discussed in the past, whether it’s militant, Major’s B’stards, the Orange Bookers betraying Lib Dems etc. in fact you can expect such things. Minority politics seeking to capture mainstream parties, esp. under FPTP. The attempt to capture the Tory party gets more exposure, Selsdon set etc. To see it more clearly, recognise that many of the policies of the right in Labour are the opposite of the left. The right portray it as less extreme versions of the left, but they are actually opposed to the left, so it’s no surprise that they sabotage the left. Related to this, is why you hardly ever see the right wingers in Labour discuss left wing economic policies. They are opposed to them. They go for character assassination of Corbyn in preference. So while it may be true some voters had genuine reservations about Corbyn, that doesn’t mean the right in his own party didn’t pile on the agony. |
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on May 4, 2022 12:32:06 GMT
If I could give you two likes for that comment I would do! Beyond the "learning of lessons" though I am beginning to take this a step further into extremist view territory by saying it's not to them about getting elected but actually what they want. The left get criticised for the well worn cliche that they want purity over power. The same could be said to be true of the Blairite wing (for want of a better word) in that they are so focused on their vision that they'd rather be out of power than compromising on that vision. I think we give far too much tolerance for the idea that moving right is about "pragmatism" when it might simply be something core to their beliefs. This doesn't apply universally and there are plenty of centrist Labour MPs without that core ideology and willing to compromise but it does apply among the movers and shakers. Were Starmer to get in, I think it's highly possible that those people defending Starmer on here will be hugely disappointed with what he does. This one has been doing the rounds but surely gives an indication of what he might be like when even Theresa May blocks an extradition demand from him for an Aspergers flying saucer hacker to be tried in the US: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2218872/Gary-McKinnon-extradition-US-outrage-hacker-wont-American-authorities.html
I suspect what you write is true of some on the right of the party - but I would say they are very much in the minority, but possibly influential none the less. Most on the right of the party I know still turned out to vote/campaign under Corbyn and would much rather have had him than Johnson as PM (although most never thought he would win). There was probably more of the 'the electorate will never buy this, let the left fail then we can make ourselves more electable by moving back the centre' pov.
My own challenge is more that the perceived centre, and the notion that the electorate is dominated by voters who hold moderate middle of the road views on all topics, is a mirage. Personably I think people either don't particularly care about an issue or if they do their view's tend towards one of the poles. So I don't think it is particularly 'pragmatic' to move to the right on the economy when polls continually show that the electorate on the whole is more to the left than many assume, particularly in relation to re-disruptive policy and govt intervention. Getting back to your point, I do think there are some in the Labour party who still ideologically buy into the neo-lib economic position and this is the basis for their opposition to the left's platform. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,397
|
Post by Danny on May 4, 2022 12:34:43 GMT
Hi @ crossbat11 That's fine, but it's silly to think that this criticism is coming from what I'd describe as within the real Labour PartyWell the real Labour party stood by Corbyn even when many knew it was a lost cause in '19. When he was first elected leader many thought (me included at the time) the party was signing its own electoral suicide note, but he seemed to prove that wrong in '17, and up to the point Johnson became leader was at parity in the polls with May Thats all very well, but this whole period was dominated by Brexit. brexit brexit brexit. In 17 labour was seen as the hope for Remain, by 19 it had lost most of its gloss and that why labour lost that election. Not corbyn specifically, but failing to unite the remain vote. isnt that now par for the course for labour leaders? Even including from their own nominal side? Exactly. because it was always unsustainable and a mistake to try if that meant alienating hard remainers. It did labour no good losing more remainers than it retained leavers. Us remainers remain out in the cold, and most labour supporters were (and probably still are) remainers. Labour might be trying to brush this under the carpet, but it is how they lost in 19 and may be again despite everything con have done wrong. Cons only hope might be to unite leave again while lab breakagain divide remain. |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on May 4, 2022 12:36:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on May 4, 2022 12:47:00 GMT
How about Greens? Would expect them to be up overall.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,397
|
Post by Danny on May 4, 2022 12:48:37 GMT
The evidence of mask efficacy is mountainous. It's an extremely ignorant or foolish thing to try to pretend that masks don't work. Yet there is still no comment about why Scotland has fared far worse than England, despite mandated mask use in the former for months? Still no comment about the (large) study I linked to finding mask mandates in schools made little difference? I say again - these are situations in the real world. If masks make a worthwhile difference, why did schools implementing such a policy not see a marked drop in case rates compared to the others? It's as good a real world control trial as you're ever likely to get. I have repeatedly explained how both these things can be true. Take 100 people with a 10% chance every day of catching something. Counting for twenty days, at the end of each day the number with covid after is 10,19, 27, 34, 40, 46, 51,56, 60, 64,68, 71, 74, 77, 79, 81,83,85,87,88. Now make each wear a mask which cuts their risk by 50%. After 20 days the number with covid is..5, 10, 15,19, 23,27,31, 34,37,40,43,46,49,52,55, 57,59, 61,63, 65. The problem is even a very effective mask such as this one only delays people catching covid. The disease always continues to spread so long as there is a body of uninfected people remaining - it takes longer but always reaches the same number in the end. What happens in Scotland smacks of exactly this in practice. The more you intervene, the longer you keep it going. But this was a LIE and betrayal of the people government pretended to be helping. Thats never good. Just look at what those in the know really did-they carried on having their parties. They knew they were pointless.
There is no question that masks do help prevent infection, and while there is some uncertainty about the real world effectiveness of mask wearing,.... Who cares how well they work in a lab if they dont in the real world? Its the real world where they have been deployed and where you defend their pointless use. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,131
|
Post by domjg on May 4, 2022 12:55:51 GMT
lens - facemasks: If I were you, I wouldn't be convinced on anything relating to covid if that means relying on substandard media reporting. The study on mask wearing in schools that the BBC reported actually found that covid absences infections fell 32% in unmasked schools and 43% in schools using masks, so a healthy benefit, but this was reported as inconclusive because the sample size was small, meaning wide error margins. I see. So when it doesn't suit you, the BBC becomes guilty of "substandard media reporting"!? OK...... In spite of the BBC having tended to adopt a response to Covid that has been on the cautious side. But OK - blame the messenger. To quote from that report: "Schools where face coverings were used in October 2021 saw a reduction two to three weeks later in Covid absences from 5.3% to 3% - a drop of 2.3 percentage points.
In schools which did not use face coverings absences fell from 5.3% to 3.6% - a fall of 1.7 percentage points.
It said this was not statistically significant and the greater reduction in schools where masks were worn could be down to chance.
The review also acknowledges the use of face coverings could harm learning.
But a full analysis of the costs versus benefits of the policy has not been done."Not mentioned there is the possibility that schools which enforced masks may have been more likely to implement improved ventilation policies and other measures. As for your point about it being inconclusive due to small samples, then it was based on 123 schools (!) which implemented a mask policy! A much more representative sample than in the studies you quoted, I'd say? And vastly more representative I would say, being closer to "real world" than medical based studies? Note also the comment about downsides - harming learning in schools, and I'd add tending to increase anxiety in the larger population. On your wider point about Scotland's recent case load and mask wearing, the timing of waves is clearly a significant influence, but for the last month Scotland has had consistently lower infection rates than England, on the ONS infection survey. Oh for heaven's sake!! Has it escaped you that several weeks ago Scotland DROPPED it's mask mandate! The ONS figures were showing a decline before that, true, but the decline has continued after mask wearing ceased to be compulsory. There simply is no correlation that mask wearing in the community at large has much effect. There is no question that masks do help prevent infection, and while there is some uncertainty about the real world effectiveness of mask wearing, the answer to that is to mandate high quality masks and educate people how to use them Once more. What there may be no question about is mask effectiveness in carefully controlled situations (eg clinical) with properly trained staff, and subject to proper protocols about removal etc. Regarding usage in the real world, there is little "uncertainty" - the evidence is that they do virtually nothing. Alec - if you want to carry on wearing a mask, that's fine. I'm not going to stop you. But please don't try to claim they are more effective than are. The evidence simply is not there outside of clinical etc use. And suggesting the answer is for everyone to wear high quality masks all the time when in public is simply ridiculous. Even medical staff find it adds significantly to stress etc to wear full PPE continuously for a shift, wearing such for an hour or so may be one thing - wearing such throughout an entire working day, every day, quite another. And for what? I've no truck with Covid deniers or anti-vaxxers, but at the same time Covid has never been like the Black Death or a zombie apocalypse, no matter how much some people tend to think it was/is. That is especially true post vaccinations. Common sense always suggests balancing risk/reward, and for most people (now) any rewards from masks are dwarfed by their disadvantages, inconvenience as well as restricting communication. "And for what? I've no truck with Covid deniers or anti-vaxxers, but at the same time Covid has never been like the Black Death or a zombie apocalypse, no matter how much some people tend to think it was/is:" - Hallo Danny mk2.. Tell that to the people who lost perfectly healthy loved ones unexpectedly or the many, many previously young, fit people suffering with long Covid, one of whom is my child's 40 odd year old teacher who is still not back working full time a year after the event.. Then there's an old neighbour of mine in her thirties forced to 'shield' due to diabetes. "rewards from masks are dwarfed by their disadvantages, inconvenience as well as restricting communication" - Utterly lame.. What you're saying is you're not willing to undergo the slightest sacrifice for greater societal good. In the early stages of the let up in restrictions I found going to the supermarket and noting who was still wearing a mask and who was not was a very handy guide at a glance as to who was thoughtful and considerate and who was selfish and egotistical. |
|
|
|
Post by hireton on May 4, 2022 12:56:29 GMT
Re "the LDs and SNP gave Johnson his election" line this is Corbyn speaking in the 2nd Reading debate on the Early Election Bill: "I have said consistently, when no deal is off the table we will back an election. Today, after much denial and bluster by the Prime Minister, no deal is officially off the table, so this country can vote for the Government it deserves. I shall be voting against an early election today and encourage as many of my colleagues as possible to defy the threats and blandishments, and to do so as well. The uncertainty about the outcome of a general election means that, in reality, no deal has certainly not been taken off the table." The quite neatly encapsulates both that Labour supported an election once a no deal Brexit was taken off the table and Corbyn's characteristic confusion about most things. He actually did vote for the Bill at 3rd Reading (there seems yo have been no division at 2nd Reading) as did 126 other Labour MPs voting with those heinous LD and SNP MPs. Source here: hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-10-29/debates/DDAEFDD2-1872-45C6-8553-8B5B3786F50B/EarlyParliamentaryGeneralElectionBill
The LD and SNP made their decision based on their own political calculations (and both anticipated gaining seats) which is what one would expect - most of Labour did not want the election at that time as they knew what was coming. As far as your Nicola is concerned, she is far to an astute politician not to have been aware that to have an election then would mean Brexit would go ahead, so cannot be absolved of some of the responsibility for what happened.Except Labour Party policy to agree to an election once no deal was off the table pre-dated the LD and SNP motion introduced in late October 2019. So Corbyn's 's statement reflected party policy before the LD and SNP motion. And he voted for an early election rather than abstaining or voting against. You seem to be arguing that Brexit could have been prevented entirely by that stage: on what basis do you believe that? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2022 13:00:08 GMT
Except Labour Party policy to agree to an election once no deal was off the table pre-dated the LD and SNP motion introduced in late October 2019. So Corbyn's 's statement reflected party policy before the LD and SNP motion. And he voted for an early election rather than abstaining or voting against. You seem to be arguing that Brexit could have been prevented entirely by that stage: on what basis do you believe that? I don't think you are seriously arguing the first point. The Leader of the Opposition can't be seen to block an election. Having said that I think I agree with you on the second point. Parliament was at an impasse and wasn't clear what would have happened next. Quite possibly an election was going to happen in 2020 sometime and the result might well have been the same. |
|
|
|
Post by hireton on May 4, 2022 13:02:55 GMT
Except Labour Party policy to agree to an election once no deal was off the table pre-dated the LD and SNP motion introduced in late October 2019. So Corbyn's 's statement reflected party policy before the LD and SNP motion. And he voted for an early election rather than abstaining or voting against. You seem to be arguing that Brexit could have been prevented entirely by that stage: on what basis do you believe that? I don't think you are seriously arguing the first point. The Leader of the Opposition can't be seen to block an election. Having said that I think I agree with you on the second point. Parliament was at an impasse and wasn't clear what would have happened next. Quite possibly an election was going to happen in 2020 sometime and the result might well have been the same. I am arguing the first point. That was Labour Party policy and Corbyn said so in the HoC and then said he wouldn't follow the policy and then did so. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,760
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 4, 2022 13:03:03 GMT
I don't actually know whether Labour did that well in 2017 or did May run the worst campaign in history...and yet still win? It is indeed difficult to gauge how much impact May had. But Corbyn did at least show that his more left wing stance wasn’t the inevitable disaster some might have thought. And in spooking the right with this potential, they ramped up their attacks rather than supporting him. |
|
|
|
Post by hireton on May 4, 2022 13:04:23 GMT
lens"Oh for heaven's sake!! Has it escaped you that several weeks ago Scotland DROPPED it's mask mandate! " Scotland dropped its mask mandate on 18 April which is about 15 days ago.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,397
|
Post by Danny on May 4, 2022 13:15:02 GMT
Meanwhile, it looks like we are perhaps 4 - 6 weeks away from the next covid wave, as BA4 and BA5, plus the BA2 subvariant progressing across the US become established in the UK. Anyone who caught BA1 (so pretty much all infected in Dec/Jan and a varying number if Feb/Mar infected individuals) won't have any protection against these variants, although booster vaccination still appears to offer protection against severe outcomes. What evidence is there boosters reduce severity? What we seem to have done is change an epidemic occurring in peaks and troughs into one with much higher steady case numbers. We really have flattened the peak. But the actual numbers dying arent so very much better than at the outset. fewer but for longer. all the vaccine produce a much narrower based immunity than does infection. In that sense we would expect protection post natural infection to work rather better against mutating strains. Obviously if you keep re-vaccinating with the same narrow vaccine, then you will be deliberately creating 'antigenic sin', because you are forcing a very narrow and repeated response. The process of multiple vaccination is causing this problem. [/quote] |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,397
|
Post by Danny on May 4, 2022 13:20:45 GMT
yeah I have heard something like this before. The problem is that Roe v Wade was itself a political interpretation of the constitution pushing it towards liberalisation because that was the feeling of the nation at that time, which arguaby wasnt really in it. Arguably the anomaly was the judges who passed Roe. |
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on May 4, 2022 13:21:35 GMT
Hireton ''Scotland dropped its mask mandate on 18 April which is about 15 days ago.''
I thought it was the 15th April for the FM :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by hireton on May 4, 2022 13:27:25 GMT
Hireton ''Scotland dropped its mask mandate on 18 April which is about 15 days ago.'' I thought it was the 15th April for the FM :-) As always, leading the way forward. |
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on May 4, 2022 13:32:12 GMT
hireton Except Labour Party policy to agree to an election once no deal was off the table pre-dated the LD and SNP motion introduced in late October 2019. So Corbyn's 's statement reflected party policy before the LD and SNP motion. And he voted for an early election rather than abstaining or voting against.
Oh Labour was all over the place at that time. From my memory, in Sept Corbyn was itching for an election as he thought he could pull off what he did in '17 and but his office was divided on the issue and it was decided it was better to block it. Most Labour MPs did not want an election which would be fought on Tory terms. The line they took 'when a no deal was off the table' was supposed to give them cover to continue to block if necessary, as your quote from Hansard illustrates, as Labour could argue if it needed that a GE could lead to no deal occurring. The latter became completely untenable once the SNP and LD did what they did.You seem to be arguing that Brexit could have been prevented entirely by that stage: on what basis do you believe that?
No, just stating what happened and why. In regards to potentially preventing Brexit at that stage, the stumbling block was that some remainers (eg LDs) refused to back a govt led by Corbyn making the only alternative minority govt unfeasible. When the LDs and SNP opted for a GE this pulled the rug from underneath Labour and a GE became inevitable as was the outcome. The basic fact is that the overwhelming majority of the PLP didn't want a GE then, and Corbyn's hand was forced. To argue that Labour wanted the GE election or could have stopped it from happening after the SNP and LD did what they is just not true. If an election in 2020 would have had a different result, given covid, is open to speculation, but what isn't is that it was the actions of the SNP and LD that precipitated the election that Johnson desperately wanted.
|
|
|
|
Post by hireton on May 4, 2022 13:34:43 GMT
Com Res independence poll:
And BBS' seat projection using the Holyrood VI poll quoted earlier:
Lots of caveats apply but that would see the Tories losing about one third of their seats, SGP doubling theirs, and the pro independence majority increasing to 21.
|
|
|
|
Post by hireton on May 4, 2022 13:49:57 GMT
hireton Except Labour Party policy to agree to an election once no deal was off the table pre-dated the LD and SNP motion introduced in late October 2019. So Corbyn's 's statement reflected party policy before the LD and SNP motion. And he voted for an early election rather than abstaining or voting against.
Oh Labour was all over the place at that time. From my memory, in Sept Corbyn was itching for an election as he thought he could pull off what he did in '17 and but his office was divided on the issue and it was decided it was better to block it. Most Labour MPs did not want an election which would be fought on Tory terms. The line they took 'when a no deal was off the table' was supposed to give them cover to continue to block if necessary, as your quote from Hansard illustrates, as Labour could argue if it needed that a GE could lead to no deal occurring. The latter became completely untenable once the SNP and LD did what they did.You seem to be arguing that Brexit could have been prevented entirely by that stage: on what basis do you believe that?
No, just stating what happened and why. In regards to potentially preventing Brexit at that stage, the stumbling block was that some remainers (eg LDs) refused to back a govt led by Corbyn making the only alternative minority govt unfeasible. When the LDs and SNP opted for a GE this pulled the rug from underneath Labour and a GE became inevitable as was the outcome. The basic fact is that the overwhelming majority of the PLP didn't want a GE then, and Corbyn's hand was forced. To argue that Labour wanted the GE election or could have stopped it from happening after the SNP and LD did what they is just not true. If an election in 2020 would have had a different result, given covid, is open to speculation, but what isn't is that it was the actions of the SNP and LD that precipitated the election that Johnson desperately wanted. Well, you can believe that but that's not what your party's policy or statements say. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on May 4, 2022 14:33:15 GMT
The esteemed and venerable psephologist, Peter Kellner, has opined on tomorrow's local council elections. He is taking a similar line to many of us here on UKPR; in terms of projecting general election implications, best to look at projected national vote share and party performance in key battleground regions. He too applies caveats about reading too much in to tallies of seats/councils gained or lost. It's an interesting article because he highlights what he thinks are seven key indicator battlegrounds tomorrow. Four are classic blue on red contests (Wandsworth, Wakefield, Worthing and Barnet) one is red on yellow (Sheffield) and another is blue on yellow (Portsmouth). His seventh is Scotland, far more complex to read because of the different voting system used and also the multiplicity of parties vying for ascendancy (battles within battles), but evidence of Labour edging ahead in the two bald men fighting over a comb contest with the Tories may have Westminster implications. Kellner is always worth a read. I tried to redact a few Corbyn critical references but I was unable to do so. I hereby apologise to his many fans. 😉😂 www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/04/glasgow-worthing-council-elections-uk-political |
|
|
|
Post by alec on May 4, 2022 14:33:55 GMT
Good article here calling for the ONS infection survey to be retained - www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o496It's one of the oddities of this government, that they seem so determined to undo many of the things where the UK is genuinely world beating. The ONS infection is one such example, where this time penny pinching from Sunak imperils the health of the nation and will be entirely counter productive. As the article says, the infection survey has given us a great platform for observation of disease spread, and now that we can no longer trust confirmed case counts due to the dropping of free testing, this survey is the only way we have of keeping an eye on infection prevalence. For immunocompromised people, having this kind of data is (literally) a lifeline, as knowing the likely level of community transmission is an absolutely vital part of risk management. |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on May 4, 2022 14:55:08 GMT
Who said it's a shame the ROC posters have finished as all the LOCs simply agree with each other!  |
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on May 4, 2022 14:58:51 GMT
CB, John Curtis on Politics Live was saying the same thing in essence it is the flawed but still usefully indicative projected vote shares that matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on May 4, 2022 15:00:18 GMT
hireton Well, you can believe that but that's not what your party's policy or statements say.Well you can believe that the SNP played no role, or got no advantage from the election occurring when it did, on the premise that brexit was inevitable anyway, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and that your party and leader never gets anything wrong.
Well if Labour/Corbyn had actually wanted a GE at that time it would have happened much earlier - but just they didn't. Why would Labour/Corbyn go for an election then when they knew they would lose?
Swinson/Sturgeon made it a self-full filling prophecy that brexit was inevitable when they agreed to a GE - the latter more knowingly as the former was under the delusion that the LDs would win.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on May 4, 2022 15:05:36 GMT
lululemon
I think you tread an honourable and intellectually coherent line on the rather polarised Corbyn v Blairite debate that often mutates like a gargoyle from any discussion about where the natural centre of political gravity should be in the broad church of Labour politics. More crucially still perhaps, what stance leads to electoral success and a chance for the party to govern. That debate shouldn't be forever framed in personalised arguments about yesterday's men and where old bodies in the party may be buried. Lessons have to be learned obviously, but it's a dead end to resurrect ancient feuds.
On Milliband's treatment by the media, by the way, don't forget how his father was traduced by Dacre's Mail in their infamous "The Man who Hated Britain" front page headline and inside four page story. Corbyn was the recipient of similar treatment too, but Milliband was not exempted.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,665
|
Post by steve on May 4, 2022 15:29:07 GMT
@carfew
If you are going to post and comment on one of my previous posts kindly don't edit it first.
This is what I actually said on 19th April
"The Lib dems never held office individually, they were the junior partner in a coalition government with the Tories.
Their " treachery" ie failing to implement their manifesto commitments is clearly a moot point as they weren't in a position to enact them, a more valid point is they shouldn't have supported policies entirely contrary but by entering a coalition they did undertake to support that coalition's policies .If the electoral arithmetic had allowed them a coalition with Labour the same would have been true.
Entirely separate from the argument as to whether a party 60% of whose voters identified as left of centre should have propped up a Tory government via formal coalition.
Personally I think it was a terrible idea, but I was a Labour party member at the time.
Not remotely comparable to the shambles that is the Spaffer regime. "
|
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on May 4, 2022 15:31:32 GMT
Hi crossbat11 Well I was never a Corbynista and the historian in me bridles when I sense history is being re-written etc. I wasn't meaning to play down what ED Miliband was subjected to - and what I know of his character from friends who have worked for him he is one of the most decent people in politics and the attacks were truly undeserved, as were those against Brown.
Historically I tend to support who I view as the most electorate friendly candidate, I went for David over Ed, and for Lisa Nandy rather than KS. Over the last few years I have moved a bit more towards the 'Labour need to stand for something' rather than 'We just need Labour to be in power'. My own views/policy preferences are obviously left wing socialist, but Labour needs a broad church appeal to build the necessary coalition to win.
|
|
