General Politics Thread

If basically, what we're saying is there's no way to get elected without standing on a neolib/neocon platform the press will support, what's even the point of politics, or democracy? We might as well just go back to being ruled by an aristocracy, because given the wealth and power of the media and the corporate and financial interests they intersect with it's pretty much the same thing.
We live in a capitalist society, so any party wanting power has to work in that framework. We’re not a people given to revolution, and distrust drastic change. You have to prime the society for that. Kinnock got achingly close in 92, and by 97 the situation was so bad that Labour would have walked it. If only John Smith hadn’t died...

It would have been a small majority and a one term parliament, but that’s as close as we were to accepting some degree of socialism. But we got Blair who wanted to be a compassionate Conservative, and that’s what history wrote. But you’re right, you can’t win an election without courting the traditional media, even now with social media looking to supplant that.

There are plenty of things that I can complain about when it comes to Blair, but by 2010, the NHS worked, the social care system worked, the country’s infrastructure was ticking over pretty well. I don’t care if they’re neo-Lib or neo-con, that’s where the country needs to be.
 

Vincentdante

Thousand Master
Wut? This is great, people are actually talking about politics in the politics thread again. If this is toxic, what does a non-toxic political discussion to look like?
You're right that this thread isn't as bad as other places I visited today so perhaps my view is scewered from that and I apologise, but my idea of non-toxic debate is just politely disagreeing with the winning party without basically implying " THE UK IS DOOOOOOOOMED" :p

Maybe I'm old fashioned lol.
 

ayase

State Alchemist
We live in a capitalist society, so any party wanting power has to work in that framework. We’re not a people given to revolution, and distrust drastic change.
...
that’s as close as we were to accepting some degree of socialism
But surely Thatcher more or less created that perception of society (which she didn't believe in) via the drastic, cut-throat capitalist policies her government put in place in the '80s? I mean, between the end of WWII and Thatcher's election some degree of socialism was accepted even by Conservative governments (the nationalised industries, considerably higher taxation for the wealthy, council housing etc.) which have subsequently been decried as things the British people don't want or won't accept. But they did, even Tories, for the best part of 40 years!
 
The North East, is quite simple to explain how they elected Tory candidates, it didn't even mean that Labour voters voted Tory, It's even more docile then that, Ask yourself one question, why didn't the Brexit party stand in Tory seats? They would have split the right vote, meaning it being harder on the Tories, like what happened in 17, the whole reason for doing it in non tory seats, was a ruse, they knew full well dyed in the wool Labour voters would never vote Tory, so they appealed to them to vote for the Brexit party instead, seems enough were fooled into doing so, (not having figured put that Farage is a failed Tory) So they conned enough to win enough Labour seats to win a majority, it wasn't only the Brexit party, the press and media have been deplorable, you expect it from the papers, they are owned by Billionaires, so who do you think they will support, duh, the BBC have been the worst offenders, their bias has shone through like a floating log in a very small toilet, them and their "mistakes" but to lay the blame for all this on them is a fools errand, might as well shout at the sky, for all the difference it will make, the policies were good (labour) the problem was twofold, the leadership was too naive, trying to fight a clean election, albeit noble, doesn't win elections, and then we return to the turd in the room, Brexit, their policy was neutral, neither one thing or the other, the problem with this is the referendum has already been lost, rerunning it, to allow for a proper mandate, wasn't going to be understood by many of the "Brexit at any cost"crowd, so the result is the result,
If you compare the results in 17 to yesterdays, you'll find that Labours share of the vote actually went up, just not where it counted, good in some ways, disaster for others, Now Corbyn is resigning as leader, Labour have to learn the right lessons from this defeat, Going politically right is not the answer, they have to stay to the left, they've already tried the "Tory lite" way and they lost worse than yesterday, so not that. there is a bright spot, you just have to look but it isn't big but it will grow, With the Tories now finishing what they started, we already know they had no idea how to leave the EU, now we find out how badly they will f**k this up, thinking you're leaving in January....really? you've got years of this nonsense, but we don't have years, we have 11 months, good luck and I hope it proves to the dogs dinner it was always going to be, then they will pay a hefty price at the next GE, if it doesn't leave them worse off than Labour are now, I will be surprised.
 
But surely Thatcher more or less created that perception of society (which she didn't believe in) via the drastic, cut-throat capitalist policies her government put in place in the '80s? I mean, between the end of WWII and Thatcher's election some degree of socialism was accepted even by Conservative governments (the nationalised industries, considerably higher taxation for the wealthy, council housing etc.) which have subsequently been decried as things the British people don't want or won't accept. But they did, even Tories, for the best part of 40 years!
I feel duty bound at this point to play the “Winter of Discontent” card. Unions with too much power, bureaucracies in all things. Interminable strikes and endless waits. People in their mid forties and older will remember these things and balk, and they’re the ones most likely to vote. Sure there was a golden age, where nationalised industry gave us Concorde, but ten years later it gave us the APT.
 

ayase

State Alchemist
I feel duty bound at this point to play the “Winter of Discontent” card. Unions with too much power, bureaucracies in all things. Interminable strikes and endless waits. People in their mid forties and older will remember these things and balk, and they’re the ones most likely to vote. Sure there was a golden age, where nationalised industry gave us Concorde, but ten years later it gave us the APT.
The Winter of Discontent was caused by the 1970s oil shocks and the subsequent inflation, wasn't it? Seems a bit unfair to blame Jim Callaghan for the Iranian Revolution, or workers who'd seen their incomes fall in real terms due to the price of oil for wanting a pay rise. But I guess once again that's exactly what the voters did. The parallels are certainly there, I guess.

I'm not particularly concerned with what products a nationalised industry puts out (though I'd say in terms of usefulness, the APT was at least developed into the Class 91 (still before privatisation!) which is still used to transport thousands of people the length of the country every day, as opposed to Concorde, which was used to transport a handful of millionaires and then binned after one incident). I'm not as concerned about nationalisation at all in fact as I am employees being paid and treated fairly by their employers. If a business does well these days, who benefits? The shareholders and the bosses, not the minimum wage, zero hours workers who have to top up their pay with benefits, essentially getting other taxpayers to subsidise their employers not paying them a living wage. So I'm not particularly grateful to Maggie for crushing the unions who used to stand up for them. We've all surely seen the figures illustrating wealth inequality in the UK compared to other countries by now, and it's an abomination. "Be reasonable" say the Tories and the centrists - How anyone can look at those figures and believe they (the ones who allowed and encouraged this to happen) are the reasonable ones and Jeremy Corbyn is the unreasonable one, I don't know.
 
I can’t disagree with that last point. Maybe the cycle of successive governments is to keep fixing things until they break again. Thatch had to deal with the Unions and kept on reducing their power until they could no longer do what they were created for, and we live with the legacy of that now with in work poverty.

Blaming Callaghan for the WoD is the same as blaming Brown for sub prime mortgages in the US causing the last economic crash.
 

thedoctor2016

Symphogear
Also the Tories had the three day week in 1973 it’s not like the 70s were only bad for Labour. But it was not just Thatcher it was Reagan too both went fully Capitalist and hey it’s stuck and I feel this election showed people would rather “status quo” (bar that big potential no deal brexit by back door) than a revolution so I do feel will go back centre but only to say where Ed Miliband was especially as the leading leader candidates are all Ed Milibands intake of MPs so not really New Labour.
 

Mr L

Great Teacher
Looking at theinxividual vote is interesting.


  • No party had an overall majority of the vote, nothing new there..
  • The Lib Dems probably got the most screwed over by FPTP, again nothing new.
  • The Brexit Party got 600k+ votes, more than several other parties with seats (though all regional parties, mostly Northern Irish).
  • UKIP now have less support than the little know 'Yorkshire Party'.
  • In Scotland, the SNP got just over 45% of the vote, rather weakens their IndyRef2 'mandate'.
  • In Scotland, Labour got around double the vote of the Lib Dems nut thr latter got 4x the representation.
  • Northern Ireland's DUP still has the largest percentage of the individual vote there, despite their losses.
 

kuuderes_shadow

Thousand Master
But outside of the media and propaganda lies, can anyone actually explain what it was that made them feel this way about Corbyn and his policies? Because if it is only the media and propaganda, how exactly is Corbyn to blame for that? If a dozen people falsely accuse someone of something it's not their fault that other people presume they're guilty, it's the fault of those people for blindly believing what they're told without actually bothering to look into whether it's true or not.
Simple. They promised too much. Too many giveaways; too many obviously expensive policies. Even if they would support most of the policies in isolation, people will look at the sheer number of them and think "where's all the money going to come from?"
To which Labour's only answer seemed to be "the rich". But the very small number of super-rich were clearly never going to be able to pay for all this, so who were next in line? Themselves. Or their mate down the road. And hey, wouldn't that old school friend who had thrown his life into his career and was now am exec at some big corporation count as super rich? He was a decent bloke, and there's no doubt he's earned himself a bit of luxury from his efforts.
That and the fact that people who are comfortable with where they are financially generally don't want revolution. Which you can't blame on media bias, as Labour did and does do everything it can to portray its policies in this way.
Where the media bias does come in is that Boris's figures also don't add up. But Labour weren't exactly falling over themselves to point that out with their media airtime either...

I feel like that's already been a winning electoral strategy for some time. Certainly it has in the US, I can't think of a single President since Jimmy Carter who doesn't fit that mould. Also Blair and Cameron, obviously.
There's a world of difference between on the one hand spinning a policy to put it in a more favourable light, or ditching a policy in response to events, or answering a related question to the one asked rather than the actual one, and on the other hand outright making things up and, when caught out, acting like it doesn't matter and carrying on doing it, or just saying what you want to say on the topic you wish to speak on regardless of what you were asked.

And Blair and Cameron were both happy to participate in media interviews, both with more friendly media types and those with a reputation for being fearsome interviewers. Even Donald Trump has given interviews to critical media organisations, although he generally spends as much of the time attacking the organisations concerned as actually doing the interview. Boris? He'll be hiding in the fridge.

If you compare the results in 17 to yesterdays, you'll find that Labours share of the vote actually went up, just not where it counted
Sorry, no you won't. There were a few places where it did go up. But in the country as a whole it went down - by 7.9%. Perhaps you are getting confused with the Lib Dems, who did see a significant increase in vote share, but lost seats and whose party leader has now stood down (for obvious reasons)

  • The Lib Dems probably got the most screwed over by FPTP, again nothing new.
  • In Scotland, Labour got around double the vote of the Lib Dems nut thr latter got 4x the representation
In terms of vote spread/efficiency, Labour's situation in Scotland is similar to that of the Lib Dems in England and vice versa.
 

Denny Fisher

Stand User
Under first past the post, the candidate with the most votes wins the seat.
Would proportional representation be more democratic? And a better alternative to the current system?
 
Under first past the post, the candidate with the most votes wins the seat.
Would proportional representation be more democratic? And a better alternative to the current system?
More democratic? probably,
Better alternative? yes but it's not perfect either, with PR you are more likely to get hung parliaments, which ensure the parties have to work together, which is a better system but the voting public ....? After the result they have just served the country and some of the reasoning I've witnessed for their voting this way, beggars belief, So I doubt they'd even understand or care.
 

Mr L

Great Teacher
Under first past the post, the candidate with the most votes wins the seat.
Would proportional representation be more democratic? And a better alternative to the current system?
It allows for a form of compromis so more of the public's views can influence the result. As of now, the majority of MPs get in with a minority of their constituency.
 

Mr L

Great Teacher
I mean, it would be better yes.

I also feel their be devolved legislatures in England with PR, as the other parts of the UK have.
 

Vashdaman

Za Warudo
It really does bemuse me all this talk of Corbyn being so toxic apparently. I mean, it's obvious that a lot of people clearly consider him to be, but as ayase said earlier, what exactly that opinion is based on appears to be a mystery. Unless it's simply based on the media's baseless smears, and it probably is. In some ways I feel it was actually Corbyn's lack of toxicity if anything that drove people away from him, especially considering they ran straight into the flabby arms of Johnson who is actually the most shamelessly toxic PM candidate I've seen in my lifetime.

And I'm sorry to say that they did not go to Swinson, they did not go to Chuka Umunna or Anna Soubry or any of their very sensible indeed ilk. This was a worse election for centrists than it was for corbynites, centrism is dead in the UK and it has been for a while now. To go too far back into the vacuous centre now would simply be folly for Labour. As would, in my opinion, even bothering to try and court the rabidly right wing mainstream press. Ed Miliband already tried to play that game, and it didn't work then and it will work even worse now. A Blair 2.0 wouldn't have won that election for labour and won't win the next one, things have changed. But I don't know how we will win.
 
It was a self-fulfilling prophecy. Corbyn came with historical baggage. He's been a left-wing activist since the seventies, a constant rebel in the Blair years, and on record talking to the kind of people that it is impolitic to talk to, no matter how pure your motives may be. There was a time when it was necessary to sit down and talk with the IRA, but not when Corbyn was doing it.

That kind of baggage makes you a target for the majority right wing press, who paint him as toxic. People read it, start believing it, and Corbyn takes this high road approach of not dealing with it. He does nothing to nip it in the bud, stays aloof. Then the anti-semitism thing kicks off, and he has to have his arm twisted to breaking point before he makes a non-commmital half statement on the matter. It was last week. Last bloody week when he finally used the words 'I'm sorry'. He finally, after three years comes up with a policy on brexit... and it's a long-winded, complicated thing which boils down to he'll be the referee in the next referendum. All Boris has to say is "Get Brexit Done!"

Toxic. The guy was Chernobyl! And now he won't quit. He should be gone, back in the back benches. The Labour Party should be cleaning up this mess, figuring out what went wrong and how to fix it, but Corbyn is still there, trying to repaint his failure in a way that proves he was right all along. He's a turd that they just can't flush!

Yeah, I know. It turned into a rant, but I can't understate just how pissed off I am at Corbyn right now.
 

Vashdaman

Za Warudo
Yes, but you've just proven my point, none of that is real toxicity, it is media spun toxicity, and was exacerbated by centrists within the labour party who instead of challenging the false narrative agreed with it. He has talked with the IRA, and with other groups you may believe it is impolitic to talk with, in order to facilitate peace. Talking with these people and not demonising them is not impolitic at all, it is quite the opposite and very politically advantageous if peace (and not simply power) is what one desires. Also, his links and associations to various groups have been exaggerated ridiculously, if he is simply in the same room as someone then the press will claim he is a member of their group.

Yes, perhaps Corbyn was a bigger target due to the fact he has actually been a bigger campaigner for peace and equality than most, but even the most insipid bland person will be crucified if they were to offer what Corbyn offered. The establishment of this country and its media hate and are terrified of socialism and will simply fabricate stories if they can't find real dirt, this is obvious by now surely.

You're also painting his nuanced and reasonable brexit policy as if that was toxic too. What would you have liked the policy to be instead?
Coming up with a brexit policy that satisfied the centrist remainers, and the leavers within his party too, was an almost impossible talk, don't you see that?

He lost because he was too principled and scrupled, not because he was the power hungry monster you imagine him to be.
 
Last edited:

thedoctor2016

Symphogear
What would quiting right now do? We dont have a deputy leade anymore so who would temp replace him god knows. Nobody was complaining when May resigned but stood on as PM for 3 months or Cameron for his leadership replacement. But Jeremy does it oh no he should go now. If Tom watson didnt resigned yes but he did so he should stay.
 
Top