- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 3073 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
342 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 92282
Perhaps the problem with Labour wasn't actually Jeremy Corbyn?
|>>|| No. 93307
Sure it makes sense, but it's still absolutely stupid and short-sighted to ignore what the Tories have done as a party at large, and will continue to do, because you think someone else did something to you years ago so you're going to spite them forever. Also we really need to stop this American bollocks of "If you're not voting for one party you're voting for the other".
|>>|| No. 93314
Ralph Ward-Jackson definitely looks like he's done some unsavoury things in a lay-by.
The Green Party candidate is quite fit.
|>>|| No. 93315
The comments section of every single Keir Starmer post on Facebook is full of angry replies from Labour supporters. He's doing a fucking appalling job. He inspires nothing but disinterest in Tory voters and anger at him from his party. It's like he goes out of his way to seem aloof, patronising, disingenuous and deceptive.
I know there are Starmer supporters out there but I find it hard to believe Starmer has any positive qualities apart from not being Jeremy Corbyn. This blind focus on "electability" without having any qualities that make a person worth electing, of "getting in a few good jabs in" in the Commons as if it mattered one whit- it's depressing. He's one bacon sandwich away from the dole queue at this rate.
|>>|| No. 93317
From what I can tell, his biggest weakness is what the party faithful believe to be his biggest strength. People see him as a Blair type figure, the comparisons are constantly drawn, and while it's true that he's not Corbyn, he also needs to not be Blair.
Blair is the one who got Labour into its current mess after all. Even if it wasn't really directly his fault and a lot of media manipulation went into controlling the narrative, the political quagmire we find ourselves in today is an almost direct consequence of the Blair years and all that built up resentment from people who felt their concerns about mass migration were being ignored. People still associate Labour with that kind of disconnection from their voters.
He can't win on that front, they need someone new and different, an outsider who won't immediately be laughed off like Milliband's "tough on immigration" mug.
|>>|| No. 93318
>Blair is the one who got Labour into its current mess after all.
Labour was in a far worse state before Blair took over. The Labour left like to blame the party's malaise on Blair, but they don't put forward a credible alternative. We've tried "proper socialism" under Foot and Corbyn, resulting in the worst general election performances since the war.
The real problem IMO is that the Labour movement has been unable to construct a compelling counter-narrative to Thatcherism. Blair gets blamed for just offering Thatcherism-lite, but Labour's attempts to offer something else have all failed miserably. There's a void at the heart of the Labour movement that the left keep trying to fill with an offer that the electorate rejected in 79 and have repeatedly rejected since.
|>>|| No. 93319
Is it just me or are there a lot more SDP candidates this year? I could've sworn the party had been disbanded.
What is Keir Starmer actually supposed to do though. There doesn't seem to be any action he can take to come across as strong and stable that won't send people frothing at the mouth when he's always going to be the leader of the opposition trying to save the party from extinction.
Although, maybe if he even was a Blair he would still be the man who ends up turning the lights off on the Labour party if the SNP get their wish.
|>>|| No. 93320
>Labour was in a far worse state before Blair took over.
They were only... (oh ha ha, very funny lads) ~20 points ahead in the polls when Smith died.
The alternative was Bryan Gould, or at least John Smith. One quit and one died.
Smith would've been a steady pair of hands who would've easily become prime minister. It is difficult to imagine him doing anything to trash Labour's reputation the way Blair did. It is even difficult to imagine that he would've gone into Iraq, especially given he was always more inclined to Europe. But it is easy to say this about Smith: He died, and people tend to idealise lost leaders like him. (When they aren't egregiously writing them out of history to pretend the only thing before Blair came along and straightened things out was Neil Kinnock yelling "we're all right!")
But Gould is the more impressive figure - Labour really made the wrong choice with Smith. Smith's pro-European attitudes often lead him down dead ends like endorsing the catastrophe that was ERM membership. Gould on the other hand actually understood economics. As a result he could put together an ideal counter narrative to Thatcherism (he ironically lost in part because he cut a Blair like figure in the leadership election he stood in, wanting to get the party to change things up where Smith was the "One more heave" candidate), bringing together an acceptance of personal aspiration with macroeconomic Keynesianism and a genuine commitment to egalitarianism. He even had Euroskepticism, but I've written my Paean to him before and it didn't get much interest. ( >>93093 )
|>>|| No. 93321
It gets worse.
>Fewer than half of recent Labour voters in Hartlepool say they will back the party in Thursday’s crucial byelection, according to internal data based on the canvassing of more than 10,000 people, leading activists to fear a historic Conservative victory.
>Labour insiders said polling from its ground campaign in the town showed only about 40% of the party’s previous supporters had pledged to vote for its candidate, Paul Williams. Such an outcome would deal a significant blow to Keir Starmer’s leadership and a decisive Conservative win in a north-east England seat that has elected a Labour MP at every parliamentary election since 1964.
>Labour sources said they were in “huge trouble” in Hartlepool and also in danger of losing control of Sunderland and Durham councils for the first time in half a century. Voters across England, Scotland and Wales will go to the polls on what has been dubbed “Super Thursday”, in the biggest set of local and devolved parliament elections since 1973.
|>>|| No. 93322
I read your post and it was interesting, please post more thoughts if you have them. I just didn't have anything to add.
|>>|| No. 93323
>on what has been dubbed “Super Thursday”
The worst part is someone in the Guardian newsroom thought that up, folded their arms and felt proud of themselves.
|>>|| No. 93324
I read the post as well and pretty much had the same reaction as >>93322. It was a good post but I generally stay out of political threads on principle. I do often still read them though.
|>>|| No. 93325
>Labour was in a far worse state before Blair took over.
What does that have to do with it? Blair was the one in charge when all the immigrants flooded the country, and that's the reason nobody votes Labour any more. It's that simple.
The problem with people who actually like politics is that you overcomplicate things, and start looking at things normal people don't give a fuck about or even know about. You can prattle on about "constructing a compelling counter-narrative to Thatcherism" all you like, the fact is the voters Labour has lost simply remember it was them in charge when saying you're English was made illegal and you had to give your spare bedroom to an asylum seeker.
Those voters aren't coming back, because as far as they can tell, Labour hasn't changed its mind about renaming Birmingham to New Islamabad.
|>>|| No. 93326
>Blair was the one in charge when all the immigrants flooded the country, and that's the reason nobody votes Labour any more. It's that simple.
>saying you're English was made illegal
>you had to give your spare bedroom to an asylum seeker.
Neither of these things are or have ever been true. Nor has Labour ever wanted to rename Birmingham. Even ignoring the hyperbole.
Those are all nonsense coming from a certain sort of billionaire newspaper owner.
I don't particularly care to defend Labour, certainly not Blair. But fault, in this context? I'd rephrase that first sentence.
Blair was the one in charge when people were subjected to heavy propaganda claiming that immigrants were flooding the country, and that's the reason nobody votes Labour any more. It's that simple.
Having said that, I don't know if it makes any material difference. It's an obstacle that hasn't been avoided, dealt with.
How do you solve a problem like Murdoch et al?
|>>|| No. 93328
Can you explain how your chart proves that saying you're English was made illegal and that you had to give your spare bedroom to an asylum speaker?
|>>|| No. 93329
No. The graph showing that immigration rapidly accelerated during the Blair years, which apparently is just lies and propaganda, has fuck all to do with otherlads exaggerations about the English language being made illegal or having to house asylum seekers.
|>>|| No. 93330
Nobody said immigration rates going up were lies and propaganda, how fucking slow are you?
|>>|| No. 93331
What does it look like for the last 5 years? I feel like that might be a key detail to consider.
|>>|| No. 93332
>Nobody said immigration rates going up were lies and propaganda, how fucking slow are you?
">>93326 people were subjected to heavy propaganda claiming that immigrants were flooding the country"
we have always been at war with east asia.
|>>|| No. 93335
Thanks that screenshot of one of the newspapers I was accusing of propagandising immigration sure proves that they weren't doing it.
|>>|| No. 93336
Total immigration was c. 600,000 a year with the number of net British citizens falling by c. 100,000 a year during this timeframe.
The population of Britain in 2000 was just shy of 59 million, so in a decade you have around 6 million migrants and 1 million British migrants. I would call the demographics of over 10% of the population changing over a decade to be fairly substantial, particularly as these changes tend to be concentrated in particular parts of the country rather than spread out.
It's a bit of a moot point, really. Immigration may not have been high in your opinion but it may have been high in someone else's. That doesn't mean either of your opinions are wrong as you'll have different barometers and experiences, but it sure as shit means the person who thinks it was high will be wary of voting Labour. You can argue until you're blue in the face that you're right but it doesn't change anything.
|>>|| No. 93337
I don't disagree with that. Not even saying it wasn't high. Just saying that the Murdochian media's response to it was of a certain deliberate choice intended to make people view it in a certain light. Even this conversation is evidence of that, where I've said it's propaganda and the assumption is I'm saying it didn't happen, instead of realising it's to do with how it's spun.
It could have been a relief column, incoming reinforcements to help the NHS, more young people to bolster our rapidly ageing population. It could have been a war effort, plucky Brits providing shelter to people escaping from the atrocities that [our] parents faced in WWII. Could have been a cold, passionless statement of figures. Could have been all sorts of things that I personally haven't come up with off the top of my head. But no. It's swarms this, flooding that. It's here's a news article where the Telegraph is doing the thing you were saying they were doing as proof you're wrong while I accuse you of doublethink.
|>>|| No. 93338
Labour never really made a compelling case for immigration and even admitted they grossly underestimated how many would move from the likes of Poland. It didn't really help that when it was brought up the response was "shurrup, you racist" and they gladly buried their heads in the sand until the Brexit train couldn't be derailed.
|>>|| No. 93339
>It could have been a relief column, incoming reinforcements to help the NHS, more young people to bolster our rapidly ageing population. It could have been a war effort, plucky Brits providing shelter to people escaping from the atrocities that [our] parents faced in WWII.
Or Labour could've been tough on immigration. It could've been the party of social cohesion, asking why the natives can't afford to have children and why we need low-skill workers flooding into London. You 'know, the actual working class perspectives of old rather than gaslighting us that it's all the press and mean words changing our perception of reality.
I know for a fact that I'm never voting Labour again and it's sharing exactly the same fate as social democrats across Europe for good reason.
|>>|| No. 93340
It could but you're still basing your premise on the presupposition that you were given.
|>>|| No. 93341
>Or Labour could've been tough on immigration. It could've been the party of social cohesion, asking why the natives can't afford to have children and why we need low-skill workers flooding into London.
It could, but then that would kind of violate the labour movement's historic commitment to progressive anti-racism, because those positions are regressive and racist.
But you knew that already, because you're a racist. In before white fragility kicks in and someone gets offended for being called a racist.
|>>|| No. 93342
What will be the next election day Labour will lose horribly after this one, will that be the one where the SNP become the official UK opposition party?
|>>|| No. 93344
Surely if Rupert has never backed the wrong horse in any election ever, his newspapers will have been pro-Labour at the time that Labour were forcing white people to give their kids gay sex changes and burning down schools to make room for more mosques or whatever? Right?
|>>|| No. 93345
>Surely if Rupert has never backed the wrong horse in any election ever
Please point to the <s>place on the doll where the man touched you</s> post that says anything even remotely to that effect.
|>>|| No. 93347
I would like to repeat the irony that Labour were the ones who decided to bring "Australian style points based immigration system" into the national consciousness.
Also I have a burning memory of watching a question time episode from 2000 or so on YouTube (it was either in the buildup to Iraq, or the immediate aftermath of the Kosovo war) and seeing this very obviously vile Tory bastard going on about asylum seekers in a pretty nasty dog-whistling sort of way and thinking, "bloody hell, this is a bit on the nose" only to subsequently discover he was a Labour MP.
|>>|| No. 93348
>Neither of these things are or have ever been true.
Lad... I knew it would go right over your head, so let me say it slowly.
That's the point.
|>>|| No. 93350
Let me add to this.
It doesn't matter whether it's true or not that Labour wanted to make burkhas mandatory or build mosques on top of war memorials. The basis in reality for these things is absolutely immaterial and not even worth arguing about.
What matters is that that's the image Labour has to somehow shed. That's the popular conception of the party that destroyed it's support in its former heartlands. That's what it needs to somehow fix.
Frankly though I have my doubts if it even can until a new generation of voters replaces the existing over-40s base. Swinging to the right will never be taken seriously, swinging to the left leaves them too vulnerable to a double down of right wing media slander.
|>>|| No. 93354
It hasn't been posted here, but it is true.
>In 1979, the paper endorsed Margaret Thatcher in the year's general election at the end of a process which had been under way for some time, though The Sun had not initially been enthusiastic about Thatcher.
>During the general election of 1983, The Sun ran a front page featuring an unflattering photograph of Michael Foot, then aged almost 70, claiming he was unfit to be Prime Minister on grounds of his age, appearance and policies, alongside the headline "Do You Really Want This Old Fool To Run Britain?"
>During the 1987 general election, The Sun ran a mock-editorial entitled "Why I'm Backing Kinnock, by Stalin".
1992: It's The Sun Wot Won It (but there isn't a handy quote from the Wikipedia page for this one)
>The Sun switched support to the Labour party on 18 March 1997, six weeks before the General Election victory which saw the New Labour leader Tony Blair become Prime Minister with a large parliamentary majority, despite the paper having attacked Blair and New Labour up to a month earlier.
>Despite being a persistent critic of some of the government's policies, the paper supported Labour in both subsequent elections the party won. For the 2005 general election, The Sun backed Blair and Labour for a third consecutive election win
>on 30 September 2009, following Brown's speech at the Labour Party Conference, The Sun, under the banner "Labour's Lost It", announced that it no longer supported the Labour Party: "The Sun believes – and prays – that the Conservative leadership can put the great back into Great Britain".
After all my bastard research into this, I now see that there is another section on Wikipedia devoted specifically to this:
|>>|| No. 93356
Question is, are they influencing the public or just sensitive to shifts in its mood? People do not generally buy media whose viewpoints they disagree with. Thatcher was popular in '79 for reasons that had nothing to do with the Sun newspaper.
|>>|| No. 93357
Both, in a feedback loop. They're both very good at following the trends, better than official pollsters in some cases, and they move in line with the trends they notice, which contributes to continuing that trend. It's like an analogue print version of the online echo-chamber effect.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]