|
Post by robbiealive on Aug 31, 2022 21:53:32 GMT
, I note you are trying to caricature my posting, and by the customary flawed critique. 1. As pointed out, for things like energy you can just have a state player in the market which is not very expensive, or difficult, esp. when we bail failed companies out anyway. 2. I don’t tend to recommend what Starmer should do. I know I am unlikely to get too many of the policies I would like. I am interested in what is electorally feasible, so one can look at polling and note some nationalisations might be welcome, but then if you see press opposition you know it may not be that feasible in practice. That’s why I think it’s significant the Guardian have come out in favour, though whether that is enough is something else. Don’t really see how converting Bulb into a state player in the energy market would offend too many voters or indeed the press though. Similarly, I’m not keen on Starmer’s u-turns personally, but from the point of view of recommending what he should do, I don’t do that much. I am more interested in noting consequences of action, whether in terms of effects of policies on voters or on electoral prospects. Just posted how Starmer’s recent moves are working out electorally. So far it seems like he might be taking a bit of a hit for it, but it’s still ok. For now… I am not confusing what Tory voters want with what the new regime propose to do. I have treated them as two separate things. And my point was that the new regime MIGHT be saying one thing to the members but might do something different in practice. In fact, I have already posted the same conclusion as you: that they will likely only be able to outflank Starmer if they move more left than it currently seems. I didn't caricature yr posts. I quoted them in full & said I didn't agree with you. You also contradict yrself. Look at the italicised bits above. Now look at what you actually posted. Worse he clearly has a a chance to o move at least somewhat left, esp. since the press are now more ok with some of it,* and yet he’s moved right and risks being outflanked by Tories again. Johnson would I think have been likely to outflank Starmer’s energy plan, like he did the windfall tax, both nicked by Lab somewhat from LDs. [Telling him to move right & he is in grave danger of being outflanked.[ Not sure if Truss will… how much of what she is saying currently is just for the membership. She has the opportunity though [ to outflank him]. You go on to say? And my point was that the new regime MIGHT be saying one thing to the members but might do something different in practice.So how is Starmer supposed to adumbrate policies when he has no idea what the Truss etc are planning. Again electoral politics doesnt work like that. Leaders don;t just propound things without knowing what the government intends. Then they will bl--dy be outflanked! * Guardian pushing nationalisation again the other day in another editorial. “The Guardian view on broken markets: time to take back control” www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/29/the-guardian-view-on-broken-markets-time-to-take-back-control
|
|
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: 6,167
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Aug 31, 2022 22:01:17 GMT
, I note you are trying to caricature my posting, and by the customary flawed critique. 1. As pointed out, for things like energy you can just have a state player in the market which is not very expensive, or difficult, esp. when we bail failed companies out anyway. 2. I don’t tend to recommend what Starmer should do. I know I am unlikely to get too many of the policies I would like. I am interested in what is electorally feasible, so one can look at polling and note some nationalisations might be welcome, but then if you see press opposition you know it may not be that feasible in practice. That’s why I think it’s significant the Guardian have come out in favour, though whether that is enough is something else. Don’t really see how converting Bulb into a state player in the energy market would offend too many voters or indeed the press though. Similarly, I’m not keen on Starmer’s u-turns personally, but from the point of view of recommending what he should do, I don’t do that much. I am more interested in noting consequences of action, whether in terms of effects of policies on voters or on electoral prospects. Just posted how Starmer’s recent moves are working out electorally. So far it seems like he might be taking a bit of a hit for it, but it’s still ok. For now… I am not confusing what Tory voters want with what the new regime propose to do. I have treated them as two separate things. And my point was that the new regime MIGHT be saying one thing to the members but might do something different in practice. In fact, I have already posted the same conclusion as you: that they will likely only be able to outflank Starmer if they move more left than it currently seems. I didn't caricature yr posts. I quoted them in full & said I didn't agree with you. You also contradict yrself. Look at the italicised bits above. Now look at what you actually posted. Worse he clearly has a a chance to o move at least somewhat left, esp. since the press are now more ok with some of it,* and yet he’s moved right and risks being outflanked by Tories again. Johnson would I think have been likely to outflank Starmer’s energy plan, like he did the windfall tax, both nicked by Lab somewhat from LDs. [Telling him to move right & he is in grave danger of being outflanked.[ Not sure if Truss will… how much of what she is saying currently is just for the membership. She has the opportunity though [ to outflank him]. You go on to say? And my point was that the new regime MIGHT be saying one thing to the members but might do something different in practice.You might quote the whole post, but then reply as if I said something different. However, highlighting as you just did makes it clearer. I did not tell him to move right, I said he had the chance, I.e. the opportunity to do so. And if you take the other things I have said into account, about potential press opposition etc. then it should be clear I am not saying he should do a particular thing. I am wondering as to how much is feasible. I even went on to suggest that if Truss doesn’t move left, then there may be less pressure on Starmer to do so, which was my point regarding whether Truss is telling porkies to members or not. I.e. I am suggesting he may have left himself vulnerable, but there are more things to take into account.
|
|
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: 6,167
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Aug 31, 2022 22:07:25 GMT
, I note you are trying to caricature my posting, and by the customary flawed critique. 1. As pointed out, for things like energy you can just have a state player in the market which is not very expensive, or difficult, esp. when we bail failed companies out anyway. 2. I don’t tend to recommend what Starmer should do. I know I am unlikely to get too many of the policies I would like. I am interested in what is electorally feasible, so one can look at polling and note some nationalisations might be welcome, but then if you see press opposition you know it may not be that feasible in practice. That’s why I think it’s significant the Guardian have come out in favour, though whether that is enough is something else. Don’t really see how converting Bulb into a state player in the energy market would offend too many voters or indeed the press though. Similarly, I’m not keen on Starmer’s u-turns personally, but from the point of view of recommending what he should do, I don’t do that much. I am more interested in noting consequences of action, whether in terms of effects of policies on voters or on electoral prospects. Just posted how Starmer’s recent moves are working out electorally. So far it seems like he might be taking a bit of a hit for it, but it’s still ok. For now… I am not confusing what Tory voters want with what the new regime propose to do. I have treated them as two separate things. And my point was that the new regime MIGHT be saying one thing to the members but might do something different in practice. In fact, I have already posted the same conclusion as you: that they will likely only be able to outflank Starmer if they move more left than it currently seems. So how is Starmer supposed to adumbrate policies when he has no idea what the Truss etc are planning. Again electoral politics doesnt work like that. Leaders don;t just propound things without knowing what the government intends. Then they will bl--dy be outflanked! Well indeed Robbie, it is hard to pitch policy in those circumstances which is why I haven’t said what he should do. I haven’t even given my own opinion of what should be done in response to the energy crisis, never mind tell anyone else what it should be. A minute ago you were complaining I told Starmer what to do when I didn’t, now you are asking me what he is supposed to do.
|
|
alurqa
Member
Freiburg im Breisgau's flag
Posts: 781
|
Post by alurqa on Aug 31, 2022 22:07:39 GMT
She'll say anything to try to get a vote to get into No 10 - no matter how many deaths would result. Ha. Speed limit is one of my favourite German words to date: die Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung (there's also das Tempolimit, but that's not as much fun.) :-)
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Aug 31, 2022 22:21:23 GMT
3. Re post-1945. In the 20 years before the War GDP per capita increased by 40% & much of that at the end. In the 20 years after the War it nearly doubled. I was merely pointing out that the social gains from prosperity were widely diffused. I can't help it if the war generation voted Thatcher & that the boomers, i.e., those born after '45, feather-bedded in their later years by the Tories, have 3:1 stuck religiously to voting Tory & indeed supported Brexit. They were offered left-wing policies in 2019. They ran a mile. Things have not changed that much. You are always on about boomers & Blair, Now they vote Tory: nearly every one born in the decade after the war does so! Once again, I didn’t disagree with that Robbie, I agreed with you on how the prosperity gains were more widely spread in that era. Many of your criticisms are manufactured. Nor did I suggest it was your fault that generation voted Thatcher. Indeed one might argue that as a whole the electorate weren’t that keen but the left’s vote was split. (Look what happened to Labour’s polling lead after the Limehouse declaration). The observation that they “ran a mile” in 2019 is a key point at issue. Because it is far from clear that they ran a mile due to voter disapproval of left wing economic policies, as opposed to press and right wing internal opposition, and voter concerns about Brexit/Corbyn personality. In other words, being scientific, it’s useful to try and control the variables and look at indirect data etc. to determine what the real reasons are. I was referring as I thought I made clear to the way boomers or less emotively the post-war generation voted, not how the whole electorate voted, In '19 that generation voted massively for the Tories -- & less than 20% voted Labour. You can dress it up how you like in terms of the media & the Labour right etc. But if that isn't running a mile I don't know what is. Labour catastrophically failed with that generation.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Aug 31, 2022 22:28:16 GMT
Jones like many another socialist purist knows the real enemy when he sees it. An electable Labour party. Quick form a circular firing squad . I'm not sure that's accurate. 1. I think you give Jones way too much credit philosophically. Over the times I have read his articles he has taken a variety of positions on the issues of the day, and has changed his mind on a number of occasions. I wouldn't consider him a "socialist purist". 2. Most people on the left - even the Socialist left - want a Labour government. Corbyn was out campaigning for a Labour government- Blair's government in the general election after the Iraq war (2005) when quite a chunck of Labour voters defected to the LDs. In fact, he made a point of saying that he had always voted for Labour candidates even if he did not always agree with everything a Labour government did. 3. What is electable depends on the electorate at the election in question. If the GE were around Christmas time or in February/March/April 2023, support for massive state intervention would be extraordinarily popular. By Summer 2024 this may no longer be the case. In my view the best approach any Labour should take to dissent from the left or the right is to make clear that the Party is a large tent and that everyone's views will be taken into account when formulating policy, rather than taking pleasing in antagonising one side or the other.
|
|
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: 6,167
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Aug 31, 2022 22:35:07 GMT
Once again, I didn’t disagree with that Robbie, I agreed with you on how the prosperity gains were more widely spread in that era. Many of your criticisms are manufactured. Nor did I suggest it was your fault that generation voted Thatcher. Indeed one might argue that as a whole the electorate weren’t that keen but the left’s vote was split. (Look what happened to Labour’s polling lead after the Limehouse declaration). The observation that they “ran a mile” in 2019 is a key point at issue. Because it is far from clear that they ran a mile due to voter disapproval of left wing economic policies, as opposed to press and right wing internal opposition, and voter concerns about Brexit/Corbyn personality. In other words, being scientific, it’s useful to try and control the variables and look at indirect data etc. to determine what the real reasons are. I was referring as I thought I made clear to the way boomers or less emotively the post-war generation voted, not how the whole electorate voted, In '19 that generation voted massively for the Tories -- & less than 20% voted Labour. You can dress it up how you like in terms of the media & the Labour right etc. But if that isn't running a mile I don't know what is. Labour catastrophically failed with that generation. Yes, once again there is no point at issue: I just added my own thoughts about the electorate as a whole (and it’s possible the boomer vote was likewise split, haven’t checked) And once again, I agreed Labour didn’t do well in 2019. You reiterate the point as if I disagreed. What I did instead was consider evidence as to the reasons for the electoral failure. I didn’t claim the failure never happened and they didn’t “run a mile”. You don’t reply much to what I actually post, you reply to something else a lot of the time. Despite the failure, what polling does suggest however, is that the electorate moved leftwards a fair bit on various policies during Corbyn’s stint. This is quite significant as he only was in charge a couple of years and didn’t get to put policies in practice. To take water privatisation for example, Tories in 2017 in favour of renationalisation were three percent fewer than those in favour of private. Two years later it had flipped, seven percent more Tories in favour of nationalisation than against.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,252
|
Post by steve on Aug 31, 2022 22:36:13 GMT
RAF Given that Mr Corbyn voted against the Labour government 428 times , but continued to accept re-election in his ultra safe seat as a Labour MP while doing so , is perhaps not the best example of integrity!
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Aug 31, 2022 22:38:15 GMT
Well just for the hell of it we’ve got two Waitrose’s in very safe Labour Oxford and more of them in LibDem Oxford West and Abingdon. I like ‘em. Don’t do our main shopping there but pleasant to hang in and get a few nice (if increasingly expensive) bits and bobs. Definitely too many elderly DM readers in attendance but I enjoy occasionally calmly pointing out to them that they should read something else for the sake of their health and sanity! Generally just get a befuddled look in return.. pahh who needs a Waitrose ... here in Tim Farron country we have BoothsI believe you also have the country's only privately owned motorway services as well at Tebay on the M6. Always make a point of using it when driving to Scotland.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Aug 31, 2022 22:41:04 GMT
RAF Given that Mr Corbyn voted against the Labour government 428 times , but continued to accept re-election in his ultra safe seat as a Labour MP while doing so , is perhaps not the best example of integrity! I was talking about elections. He always wanted to see the Labour party (and as many Labour MPs as possible) elected to office. After the election he would often vote against policies with which he disagreed.
|
|
|
Post by ladyvalerie on Aug 31, 2022 22:42:19 GMT
To be honest, whenever I see your profile pic I have to remind myself that it's young Sir Keir as I always glance at it thinking it's Morten Harket from A-ha so I may have to concede on your final point! Reminds me of Dr Robert What’s not to like 😎
|
|
|
Post by ptarmigan on Aug 31, 2022 22:43:55 GMT
Re Owen Jones - yes, he was a bit ranty in that clip but, to be honest, I always rather enjoy his passion.
I guess Starmer played it quite well in the sense that he did what he always does - presented himself as a measured Mr Sensible in contrast to a ranty lefty, but I do have some thoughts on this...
I remember a while ago, after the last General Election and at around the time that Starmer was elected leader, I was having a drink with a friend. He felt that Starmer's lack of charisma would be a hindrance vs Johnson. I was less sure on this, reckoning that the electorate isn't always consistent in the qualities it wants from a leader. I suspected that Johnson's Tories would face choppy waters and that his boosterism may, by the time of the next election, seem a whole lot less attractive and that sober and sensible might seem increasingly appealing. I feel I was right on the first point, Johnson having lost his lustre to the extent he's exiting Downing Street, but I'm not entirely sure on the latter point.
I think we're encouraged to think of anger as a very negative emotion and of course it can be extremely destructive but it's also an important human emotion, and if we channel it in the right way it can be a powerful tool politically to draw attention to injustice etc. I'm a very mild-mannered person generally but I do feel anger politically at this moment in time. A lot of people on this site profess to feeling great anger at how the country is being run.
One of my issues with Starmer is his tendency to give quite robotic and cliched responses that make him seem inauthentic and insincere. I don't necessarily think Labour always have to be a campaigning vehicle, but the country feels like it's in a terrible place with a lot of people set to suffer greatly, whilst others continue to enrich themselves. Could Labour not benefit by giving more of a voice to this righteous anger? The appearance of bland competence might have been fine in a different timeline, but in this one it might not be sufficiently appealing.
Anyway, in the context of the above, Owen Jones is, I think, quite right to express anger and frustration at they way Starmer deviated from his leadership pledges. I see he's been on Twitter tonight addressing the clip, signing off with:
Basically, though, Starmer’s supporters know that his leadership campaign was a pack of lies.
They don’t like it being pointed out because they can’t refute it, and it also makes them feel morally compromised because they are cheerleading rampant dishonesty. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Anyway, these delicious plump Waitrose blueberries won’t eat themselves!
Night! X
Hehe, quite.
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Aug 31, 2022 22:44:06 GMT
So how is Starmer supposed to adumbrate policies when he has no idea what the Truss etc are planning. Again electoral politics doesnt work like that. Leaders don;t just propound things without knowing what the government intends. Then they will bl--dy be outflanked! Well indeed Robbie, it is hard to pitch policy in those circumstances which is why I haven’t said what he should do. I haven’t even given my own opinion of what should be done in response to the energy crisis, never mind tell anyone else what it should be. A minute ago you were complaining I told Starmer what to do when I didn’t, now you are asking me what he is supposed to do. You tell us the voters are ready for more left-wing policies, that Corbyn's policies were more popular than people think, it was just he was unpopular; that there is more support for nationalisation, state interference in other ways, less austerity, the state being a key player in the energy markets, radical policies on housing, all more so than in 2017; but oh you are not telling Starmer, the only candidate who can possibly adopt these policies, what he should do, god forbid no. And everything couched in a context of numerous hostile comments toward him; oh why has he gone right, when he should have tacked left [not that you are telling him what to do]; my what a crafty laywer he is, never answers questions, not that Jones asked any; & really one can hardly approve of his U-turns. You have staked out a map for Starmer to follow & expressed disappointment he hasn't and your disapproval in other ways. To deny that is sophistry. Ps. I don't guve a damn what Tories say about nationalising water: it's not a feasible policy that Labour should follow in the current round of politics. & believe me the war and post-war generations voted Tory in '19 as solidly as they voted Brexit in '16. Radicals & lefties they are not. Face it.
|
|
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: 6,167
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Aug 31, 2022 22:46:56 GMT
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Aug 31, 2022 22:54:03 GMT
Well I'll happily take that principled 'conman' over absolutely anything offered by any flavour of Tories, esp this pseudo-fascist lot or indeed anyone else in British politics at the moment. I imagine you're happy to live under years of execrable Tory rule just waiting like Vladimir and Estragon for the moment of the second coming of Corbyn and a socialist nirvana... Well I'm bloody not so **** to you! Strange response. I'm not sure why you imagine that. I've voted for an ABT candidate in every general election since I was eligible to vote precisely because I'm not happy to live under years of execrable Tory rule! Does that mean that I ought to refrain from criticism of the leader of the Labour party? If so there were plenty of avowed non-Tories who didn't get that particular memo when Corbyn was leader. For what it's worth, I think Starmer has actually done a little better of late - the intervention on energy was a bit of an open goal, but was at least welcome. Maybe an over-emotional response but I'm getting so sick of those notionally on the left (and even if you're not one of them there are many, including here) who it seems to me would rather an avowedly left wing Labour party in opposition than the Labour party needed to form a real government, preferably with a majority. It angers me as that shows that they are willing to tolerate a Tory govt of the extreme low standards we currently see as long as they can maintain ideological purity. I have literally no idea how their minds work (part of it is politics as religion and so is beyond logic I suspect) but possibly they entertain the very deluded notion that the longer voters are exposed to increasingly damaging Tory rule the more they are likely to 'see the light', or believe the number of voters who think like them to be far larger than it is (spoiler alert, it's very small). Who knows but f that for a plan. I want this govt out of power as soon as possible and if that requires an ideologically flexible Labour party, fine.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,252
|
Post by steve on Aug 31, 2022 22:54:16 GMT
Attachment DeletedBelieve it or not Spaffer after a summer of holiday high jinks is touring the country making full use of his dressing up box to ,according to the Tory client media , " secure his legacy". The worst prime minister in living memory( until the next one at least) should be securing his legacy by permanently hiding in a Smeg Freezer. .
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,252
|
Post by steve on Aug 31, 2022 22:56:58 GMT
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Aug 31, 2022 22:58:44 GMT
Re Owen Jones - yes, he was a bit ranty in that clip but, to be honest, I always rather enjoy his passion. I guess Starmer played it quite well in the sense that he did what he always does - presented himself as a measured Mr Sensible in contrast to a ranty lefty, but I do have some thoughts on this... I remember a while ago, after the last General Election and at around the time that Starmer was elected leader, I was having a drink with a friend. He felt that Starmer's lack of charisma would be a hindrance vs Johnson. I was less sure on this, reckoning that the electorate isn't always consistent in the qualities it wants from a leader. I suspected that Johnson's Tories would face choppy waters and that his boosterism may, by the time of the next election, seem a whole lot less attractive and that sober and sensible might seem increasingly appealing. I feel I was right on the first point, Johnson having lost his lustre to the extent he's exiting Downing Street, but I'm not entirely sure on the latter point. I think we're encouraged to think of anger as a very negative emotion and of course it can be extremely destructive but it's also an important human emotion, and if we channel it in the right way it can be a powerful tool politically to draw attention to injustice etc. I'm a very mild-mannered person generally but I do feel anger politically at this moment in time. A lot of people on this site profess to feeling great anger at how the country is being run. One of my issues with Starmer is his tendency to give quite robotic and cliched responses that make him seem inauthentic and insincere. I don't necessarily think Labour always have to be a campaigning vehicle, but the country feels like it's in a terrible place with a lot of people set to suffer greatly, whilst others continue to enrich themselves. Could Labour not benefit by giving more of a voice to this righteous anger? The appearance of bland competence might have been fine in a different timeline, but in this one it might not be sufficiently appealing. Anyway, in the context of the above, Owen Jones is, I think, quite right to express anger and frustration at they way Starmer deviated from his leadership pledges. I see he's been on Twitter tonight addressing the clip, signing off with: Basically, though, Starmer’s supporters know that his leadership campaign was a pack of lies. They don’t like it being pointed out because they can’t refute it, and it also makes them feel morally compromised because they are cheerleading rampant dishonesty.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Anyway, these delicious plump Waitrose blueberries won’t eat themselves! Night! XHehe, quite. Rampant dishonesty is I'm afraid often needed in politics, especially when battling the infinitely more extreme and damaging rampant dishonesty of this 'govt'. Re his Waitrose comments, what a w* Jones is.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Aug 31, 2022 23:07:15 GMT
I believe that Survation has had Labour on 27% with SNP circa 41%.. That would imply a swing to Labour there in excess of 6% and the prospect of the party returning to the 7 seats won in 2017. The only Survation Scottish poll this year (28 March) had SNP 45% SLab 27%. The other Scottish polls for W/M during the last 4 months have been - Panelbase : SNP 44% SLab 23% Ipsos MORI : SNP 44% SLab 23% YouGov : SNP 46% : SLab 22%
I have updated the 7 Scots crossbreak average in the Polling Archive thread with the state of play at end of August (changes from end July) YouGov : SNP 47% (+3) : SCon 18% (=) : SLab 21% (-1) : SLD 6% (-1) : SGP 5% (=) : REFUK 1% (-1) Opinium : SNP 39% (-1) : SCon 21% (+2) : SLab 25% (+1) : SLD 7% (=) : SGP 4% (-1) R&W : SNP 37% (=) : SCon 20% (-4) : SLab 27% (=) : SLD 10% (+3) : SGP 3% (=) : REFUK 2% (=)
Of course, graham is correct that if lots of folk vote SLab at the next GE instead of SNP, then there will be more Labour MPs and fewer SNP ones : the reverse would be hard to achieve!
While I hope that YG, using some Scottish factors in their weighting, are more accurate than R&W, who use only GB weighting factors, we won't know until an election. However, taking each of the pollsters on their merits, there isn't much evidence of a discernible trend.It may be that the 27% SLab vote share I recall comes from the crossbreak summaries which you very usefully provide. Worth mentioning that two pollsters - Opinium and R&W - have the SNP below 40%. Were that to be confirmed in a Westminster election with Labour polling circa 25% , a number of Labour gains could be expected.
|
|
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: 6,167
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Aug 31, 2022 23:11:50 GMT
Well indeed Robbie, it is hard to pitch policy in those circumstances which is why I haven’t said what he should do. I haven’t even given my own opinion of what should be done in response to the energy crisis, never mind tell anyone else what it should be. A minute ago you were complaining I told Starmer what to do when I didn’t, now you are asking me what he is supposed to do. You tell us the voters are ready for more left-wing policies, that Corbyn's policies were more popular than people think, it was just he was unpopular; that there is more support for nationalisation, state interference in other ways, less austerity, the state being a key player in the energy markets, radical policies on housing, all more so than in 2017; but oh you are not telling Starmer, the only candidate who can possibly adopt these policies, what he should do, god forbid no. And everything couched in a context of numerous hostile comments toward him; oh why has he gone right, when he should have tacked left [not that you are telling him what to do]; my what a crafty laywer he is, never answers questions, not that Jones asked any; & really one can hardly approve of his U-turns. You have staked out a map for Starmer to follow & expressed disappointment he hasn't and your disapproval in other ways. To deny that is sophistry. Ps. I don't guve a damn what Tories say about nationalising water: it's not a feasible policy that Labour should follow. No, I didn’t say it was just that Corbyn was unpopular, I pointed out there were other policy issues, big ones like Brexit. And no, just because I list favourable polling for some things, doesn’t mean I inevitably think Starmer should adopt them all. For example, another bit of polling from the Corbyn era IIRC is that while people liked those policies individually, they had doubts we might be able to afford them all. (Alongside things like potential press opposition etc). I posted the polling more to help establish where the centre really lies, not particularly as a critique of Starmer. And where things are trending, and indeed where Tories lie, because people have suggested that Labour might need to steal some Tory votes. You’re maybe being a bit oversensitive about Starmer. I post about cricket too sometimes - just so you know, that isn’t hostility to Starmer either. Robbie, you don’t seem that interested in constructive debate, but instead keep trying to shoehorn what I am saying - and indeed what I haven’t remotely said - into trying and question my motives. But my motives are irrelevant to the issue of what’s possible electorally. The shift leftward is independent of my views of Starmer. As might be any impact of the u-turns. Sure, I have noted electoral support for some policies he ditched, and that he has a certain way of dealing with challenges etc., it’s not unusual on this board to do that kind of thing. You can live in that cult-like world where you never examine your leader critically Robbie, or his policies, only others’ leaders maybe, but the rest of us don’t have to.
|
|
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: 6,167
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Aug 31, 2022 23:31:26 GMT
Strange response. I'm not sure why you imagine that. I've voted for an ABT candidate in every general election since I was eligible to vote precisely because I'm not happy to live under years of execrable Tory rule! Does that mean that I ought to refrain from criticism of the leader of the Labour party? If so there were plenty of avowed non-Tories who didn't get that particular memo when Corbyn was leader. For what it's worth, I think Starmer has actually done a little better of late - the intervention on energy was a bit of an open goal, but was at least welcome. Maybe an over-emotional response but I'm getting so sick of those notionally on the left (and even if you're not one of them there are many, including here) who it seems to me would rather an avowedly left wing Labour party in opposition than the Labour party needed to form a real government, preferably with a majority. It angers me as that shows that they are willing to tolerate a Tory govt of the extreme low standards we currently see as long as they can maintain ideological purity. I have literally no idea how their minds work (part of it is politics as religion and so is beyond logic I suspect) but possibly they entertain the very deluded notion that the longer voters are exposed to increasingly damaging Tory rule the more they are likely to 'see the light', or believe the number of voters who think like them to be far larger than it is (spoiler alert, it's very small). Who knows but f that for a plan. I want this govt out of power as soon as possible and if that requires an ideologically flexible Labour party, fine. Well it’s been explained before but maybe not all pulled together. They don’t want a Tory government, but there are a number of concerns in voting for an alternative party that is not so left wing: 1) If the Tories keep pulling things substantially rightwards, and then the alternative doesn’t move back left substantially, then when the Tories get in again and move substantially rightwards, then over time things ratchet rightwards. 2) some of the time, those not-so-left-wing parties put in place things that the Tories can leverage later. Privatising NHS, Tuition fees, etc. 3) the alternatives might also try and lock in the right wingedness, e.g, by boosting house prices etc., or indeed via trade deals etc. 4) if you don’t fix the big drivers of upward mobility that ensured greater prosperity in the post-war period - full employment, affordable utilities, affordable housing etc., and curtail the increasing power of capital - then things are still heading downward even if it’s not quite as bad. Wages stagnating, rents rising, utility bills rising etc. even when Tories not in power. Is it really rational to accept just a slower descent? Or would you rather fight for a chance to reverse the decline? 5) Even if they don’t get elected the left can still influence things. E.g. the polling on various things changed under Corbyn, but also there was pressure on Tories to be far less austere than in the past. This in turn might make it easier for Starmer to move left Anyway, on the old board, at least while it was being modded, people didn’t tend to campaign as much, as it would rapidly get vaped. So it was more ok to critique all parties, which you kind of need to be able to do to discuss polling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2022 23:57:34 GMT
New balls please.
|
|
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: 6,167
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Sept 1, 2022 0:01:05 GMT
Well if yours don’t work I don’t think you can get new ones Paul.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2022 0:17:32 GMT
I’m practising for my new, part-time job as a tennis umpire.
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Sept 1, 2022 0:30:22 GMT
No, I didn’t say it was just that Corbyn was unpopular, I pointed out there were other policy issues like Brexit. Robbie, you don’t seem that interested in constructive debate, but instead keep trying to shoehorn what I am saying - and indeed what I haven’t remotely said - into trying and question my motives. But my motives are irrelevant to the issue of what’s possible electorally. The shift leftward is independent of my views of Starmer. As might be any impact of the u-turns. Sure, I have noted electoral support for some policies he ditched, and that he has a certain way of dealing with challenges etc., it’s not unusual on this board to do that kind of thing. You can live in that cult-like world where you never examine your leader critically Robbie, only others’ leaders maybe, but the rest of us don’t have to. 1. No-one would make a cult of Starmer: besides, as Conrad said in his preface to Lord Jim: I object to favouristism in public life .... I was appalled when the members voted for Corbyn, I didn't, but also did not criticise him until his hopeless EU REF campaign. Corbyn also gaffed and advertised his delicate scruples on issues where silence or decisive action was required. Starmer avoids that. It's harder than it looks. I don't much care what he said in his leadership campaign or whether he knocks the left about. The Corbynistas had 5 years in power & ended after 2 elections in failure. 2. I'm not in a hurry. Lately, all Starmer needed to do was pronounce on the energy crisis: he has done so thru windfalll taxes & a fix.. He has ruled out a second Scottish referendum, & the Nats get excited about that, but I am as bothered about their concerns as they are about mine. We'll see. 3. As Jim Jam & others have said we have been hit by a succession of crises; Brexit, Covid, War & Inflation, leadership instability, two self-inflicted by idiots, the two others by exogenous forces. The pattern of politics never settles. I don't want Starmer to commit to a string of leftist policies until the government has played its hand. Besides, Labour's room for manoeuvre, given the massive slump & huge relief programme that is about to hit us, is going to be v limited. For that reason, eg., I am opposed to a big nationalisation programme. Why raise expectations that cannot be fulfilled. 3. Sooner or later he will have to come clean on things that do cost money: education, NHS, housing, benefits, welfare, pensions local finance, environment. And for those that don't. The strikes that will engulf us. Modifying Bexit. As for Woke, the less said the better. The Tories see this as a vote-winner but this is not the USA. 4. When I hear what the policies are I will offer an opinion as I have done on water privatisation & the energy fix.
|
|
|
Post by eor on Sept 1, 2022 1:35:33 GMT
Haven't had time to read here for a few days now, but just to drop this in from Alaska; www.reuters.com/world/us/palin-or-peltola-alaska-announce-results-us-house-special-election-2022-08-31/The unusual STV system (and combination of candidates) gave a kind of primary and general election in one go, and Sarah Palin did indeed manage to eliminate the more electable Republican candidate in the first count, and then narrowly lose to the Democrat in the second. Had she been eliminated herself in the first count, polling suggests the other Republican would have won the second count very comfortably. A narrative that may well be cited in a number of Senate races in November, given some of the candidates that have been selected in the primary process.
|
|
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: 6,167
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Sept 1, 2022 4:11:43 GMT
I’m practising for my new, part-time job as a tennis umpire. Oh, not full time then? 🙁 Oh well, good luck finding some balls anyways!
|
|
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: 6,167
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Sept 1, 2022 4:14:14 GMT
‘Boris Johnson pledges massive expansion of nuclear power in final act as Prime Minister
Plan to build eight reactors in the UK at a pace of one a year and buy stake in new nuclear power station”
…
“The Government also plans to go further and faster on renewables such as wind, solar and hydrogen, which could see 95 per cent of electricity being low carbon by 2030.
…
It comes as it emerged that Liz Truss, the Conservative leadership front-runner, is considering a cut to business rates to alleviate the pressure of spiralling energy prices on small and medium-sized firms.
She is weighing up a proposal to expand relief from the tax to far more companies than are currently eligible.”
…
Earlier this week, the world’s largest offshore wind farm, Hornsea Two, off the coast of Yorkshire, became operational – set to generate enough electricity to power 1.3 million homes.”
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,778
|
Post by Danny on Sept 1, 2022 5:14:58 GMT
Steve, seriously, cant. and nor can Alec, which is why he resorts to insults and nitpicking. 🐰🐰🐰🐰🐰🐰🐰🐰🐰🐰🐰 🥕🥕🥕🥕🥕🥕🥕🥕🥕 🐷✈️ You make my point again. if you have factual argument to counter those I have presented, then do that. Yet instead you put up some cartoon images? Like seriously? Attachment DeletedNo cases in hastings spring 2020. QED Hastings was over covid by that time, it was already immune. QED, lockdown was pointless and unnecessary, because in places it never happened and people did nothing special at all, outcomes were no worse. Biggest waste of money in British history.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,778
|
Post by Danny on Sept 1, 2022 5:26:25 GMT
Danny - there's this thing in epidemiology where infections hit different places at different levels at different times. It's why they're called 'waves'. If you stand on any beach, you might spot that often, waves hit different parts of the beach at different times, with some waves being bigger than others. What you are showing isn't evidence than anything other than the normal progression of a pandemic. You're lost in the thickets of statistics, displaying the most amateur ability at analysis. Give it up - it's a hopeless cause, disproven many, many times. I agree entirely that epidemics hit places at different times. What I dont agree is covid has ever missed anywhere. It gets there eventually. we have never been able to prevent it. If hastings has no recorded cases, it has to mean hastings had covid before recording began.
You have no way to disprove this, because there isnt one. Thats why you keep being insulting, which is a traditional politicians trick. i would report you to mods for unacceptable behaviour, but without your full time input to this website there wouldnt be much left. I also understand your behaviour isnt actually personal but political, because with your mandate to push labour policy, you cannot allow it to be understood how disastrous was the lockdown. Because labour supported it too. It discredits the whol political class and shows them as incompetent.
Interesting what you did above too. Another little debating trick. Introduce some true facts, but then draw a false conclusion.
|
|