• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

UK Labour Leadership Crisis: Corbyn retained as leader by strong margin

Status
Not open for further replies.
Except.. Its not a strawman.
Look up his supporters' responses to the latest polls. The staggering level of hoop jumping is astounding. Heck, I've made a Momentum parody page last week and over 50 genuine supporters liked it. You can't make this stuff up.

Yeah, I'm gonna need a link to that page pal. Sounds like it could be fun.

They're a total cult at this point, utter denial of the facts. As someone said, right up there with truthers in the level of delusion on show. Corbyn's ideas are largely good, but he's nowhere close to being the right guy to make them happen. He harms his own cause, and it's a shame he will inevitably be sticking around to tear the party, he will make his attitudes untouchable and poisonous in British politics for a long time.
 

PJV3

Member
Yeah, I'm gonna need a link to that page pal. Sounds like it could be fun.

They're a total cult at this point, utter denial of the facts. As someone said, right up there with truthers in the level of delusion on show. Corbyn's ideas are largely good, but he's nowhere close to being the right guy to make them happen. He harms his own cause, and it's a shame he will inevitably be sticking around to tear the party, he will make his attitudes untouchable and poisonous in British politics for a long time.

Yeah that's the depressing thing for me, I want a shift leftwards, but he's gonna make sure that doesn't happen for decades. In the UK with FPTP you have to be getting well beyond the 20% who will vote for left wing government.

It's not going to happen and now instead of attracting voters we're shedding traditional Labour support. He's not up to the job and people will not put their livelihood at risk voting for him.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
We have fixed 5 year terms unless May can convince 2/3 of parliament to vote for an early one.

Vote of no confidence tho. Simple majority, which she has.

It'd take a while (go through the readings process), but a simple majority vote is all that is required to remove the fixed term parliament act. Then a simple majority no confidence and bobs your uncle

Ok, just to clarify this lot a bit.

1) Repeal of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act requires a simple majority of the Commons and it needs to go through the Lords as well. If the Lords don't approve, then there's another year to push it through with the Parliament Acts.

I suspect the Lords would not approve this as a vehicle for an early election purely for political advantage.

I addition, there's been some doubt expressed as to whether mere repeal of the Act would necessarily return the Prime Minister's discretion as it was before.

2) The Vote of no confidence route requires only a simple majority and only of the Commons, but that vote must not be reversed at any time in the following two weeks. It may be easy to get the initial vote, it'll be a lot harder to pack the commons chamber full time for a fortnight.

3) Otherwise it's a 2/3 majority needed.
 
Ex-Pfizer lobbyist. Abstained on the welfare bill last year. Despite being Shadow DWP Minister for 9 months, the idea he put forward against zero hour contracts is...one hour contracts. Basically, seems simultaneously untrustworthy and useless


Nice strawmen you got there

For reference, I'd be happy with Clive Lewis, Richard Burgon, John McDonnell, anyone from the actual left, even if some of them are a bit inexperienced. But none of them are going to get enough nominations from other MPs because last time it happened we got Corbyn and they had a collective breakdown at the concept of an actual socialist leading Labour so they won't let it happen again.

Richard burgeon and John McDonnell? Seriously? As leader of the Labour Party? And you're claiming this isn't cult like behaviour? Why not abbot too while you're at it, since the only qualification any of the other two have is affiliation to dear leader.

As for Lewis he seems less idiotic than the others, but has done absolutely fuck all in the Labour Party or outside of it.
 
Richard burgeon and John McDonnell? Seriously? As leader of the Labour Party? And you're claiming this isn't cult like behaviour? Why not abbot too while you're at it, since the only qualification any of the other two have is affiliation to dear leader.

As for Lewis he seems less idiotic than the others, but has done absolutely fuck all in the Labour Party or outside of it.


I like how you have total impatience with these current political choices but are totally blinded by the fact that a lot of people have felt the way you feel for at least the last 6 years since the financial crash.
 

Uzzy

Member
As for Lewis he seems less idiotic than the others, but has done absolutely fuck all in the Labour Party or outside of it.

Well, aside from a tour of duty in Afghanistan. It'd be pretty hard for the Tories to challenge his beliefs and credentials on security matters.
 
More than a few of those types of people were at the DNC convention as well.

The reason why they're were only a "few" of those people at the DNC Convention is pretty simple - the Democrat's still gave something to the base, even when they were out of power. When the Republican's tried to blame the DNC for the economic collapse, they didn't meekly put their head down and say, "yes, we're sorry, 'tis was all our fault, Daddy."

They fought. That's the difference - what concrete things that the 'base' cares about can Labour say they've done in years? The Democratic Party, even before Obama could say, "we stopped Dubya from handing over Social Security to Wall Street, despite being in the minority."

The welfare bill is the obvious answer - the Democrat's would never do something as politically stupid as that. Yes, of course cutting benefits is popular, but sometimes you've got to something unpopular in the short term for the health of the party in the long term.

Even Bill did things for the base - vetoing the welfare reform bill three times, shutting down the government to stop cuts in Medicaid, putting forth DADT, raising taxes, etc. and then did things that were widely more popular that importantly large swathes of the base were OK with - yes, the far left didn't like the various crime bills in the 90's, but at the time, the black community did support those bills because their neighborhoods were war zones.

That's the thing Labour lost somewhere, as an American. They became so obsessed with grabbing the middle, they forgot to fight for their core values to keep the base from latching on to anybody who said, "ya' know, Corbyn's nuts, but at least he sounds like a Labour party member."
 

Piecake

Member
The reason why they're were only a "few" of those people at the DNC Convention is pretty simple - the Democrat's still gave something to the base, even when they were out of power. When the Republican's tried to blame the DNC for the economic collapse, they didn't meekly put their head down and say, "yes, we're sorry, 'tis was all our fault, Daddy."

They fought. That's the difference - what concrete things that the 'base' cares about can Labour say they've done in years? The Democratic Party, even before Obama could say, "we stopped Dubya from handing over Social Security to Wall Street, despite being in the minority."

The welfare bill is the obvious answer - the Democrat's would never do something as politically stupid as that. Yes, of course cutting benefits is popular, but sometimes you've got to something unpopular in the short term for the health of the party in the long term.

Even Bill did things for the base - vetoing the welfare reform bill three times, shutting down the government to stop cuts in Medicaid, putting forth DADT, raising taxes, etc. and then did things that were widely more popular that importantly large swathes of the base were OK with - yes, the far left didn't like the various crime bills in the 90's, but at the time, the black community did support those bills because their neighborhoods were war zones.

That's the thing Labour lost somewhere, as an American. They became so obsessed with grabbing the middle, they forgot to fight for their core values to keep the base from latching on to anybody who said, "ya' know, Corbyn's nuts, but at least he sounds like a Labour party member."

Yea, I never really understood why labour decided to agree with the Tories about austerity.

To me, spending and stimulus in a depression and spending on things and programs that would be beneficial to the nation and/or provide a good return investment is a fundamental aspect of a center-left political party. I have always found it a bit odd that out of US and the nations of Europe, the nation that didnt go balls deep into austerity's rump was the US considering that the US is more right on the political spectrum than Europe.

I think Hilary's speech tonight is something that labour can learn from. The language and rhetoric she used was meant to appeal to the middle, appeal to the independents, and appeal to Republicans who think Trump is nuts and can grudgingly accept 4 years of standard liberal domestic policty (that might not ever pass thanks to obstructionism) for a sane foreign policy -- but the actual policy that she talked about was all left policy goals. And that was a theme throughout the whole convention as well.
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
The US has a more progressive populace than the UK, and has done for some time. In the US you can win an election on a left-wing platform; in the UK the left can only win by claiming to be as right wing as possible.

[edit] Or rather a higher percentage of higher progressives in the populace.
 
By what metric?
By the simply fact that they are less interested in actual governance than the far right, right or centre.

They don't want to work on change themselves, from what I've seen over the last 6 months, the far left just want to pressure those who are in government to incorporate their ideas.

Far right activitist are a special brand of crazy, but they actually want to be in power to enact those ideas.

A threat to national security perhaps? ;)

They are not a threat to national security because they have no interest in actually doing what it takes to be in power. It's about purity not compromise.

Why that is dangerous is that they convince the young that that's the way poltics works. Ideals and emotion over pragmatism and concensus.
 

War Peaceman

You're a big guy.
The US has a more progressive populace than the UK, and has done for some time. In the US you can win an election on a left-wing platform; in the UK the left can only win by claiming to be as right wing as possible.

[edit] Or rather a higher percentage of higher progressives in the populace.

Because they have a more diverse population, most of whom have been the victims of racial oppression. This has given them real empathy for helping others and an understanding of how to politically organise. We are white and overindulged.
 

Maledict

Member
Yea, I never really understood why labour decided to agree with the Tories about austerity.

To me, spending and stimulus in a depression and spending on things and programs that would be beneficial to the nation and/or provide a good return investment is a fundamental aspect of a center-left political party. I have always found it a bit odd that out of US and the nations of Europe, the nation that didnt go balls deep into austerity's rump was the US considering that the US is more right on the political spectrum than Europe.

I think Hilary's speech tonight is something that labour can learn from. The language and rhetoric she used was meant to appeal to the middle, appeal to the independents, and appeal to Republicans who think Trump is nuts and can grudgingly accept 4 years of standard liberal domestic policty (that might not ever pass thanks to obstructionism) for a sane foreign policy -- but the actual policy that she talked about was all left policy goals. And that was a theme throughout the whole convention as well.

It was a combination of two things. Firstly, Gordon Brown was a terrible, terrible communicator who just wasn't up to the job in terms of selling their ideas. He did a good job actually managing the crisis, but failed to take the country with him.

Secondly, the leadership contest to succeed him went on for FAR too long, and happened during the usual 'bounce' period a new government gets (especially the coalition government which started off with very high approval ratings). By the time they had a new leader, the austerity message was basically locked in stone with the general public. To combat that you would need a communicator like Blair - unfortunately for labour, the unions had hand picked the least effect on leader on offer in the hope it would give them more control.

It was a combination of two leaders on the trot that couldn't sell their ideas, combined with a horrendously long leadership election at exactly the wrong time.
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
By the simply fact that they are less interested in actual governance than the far right, right or centre.

They don't want to work on change themselves, from what I've seen over the last 6 months, the far left just want to pressure those who are in government to incorporate their ideas.

Far right activitist are a special brand of crazy, but they actually want to be in power to enact those ideas.
So hang on, by your reckoning, the far right is less dangerous than the left on the grounds that they want to get into power to enact their dangerous ideas? I feel like there's part of the puzzle that will illuminate this claim that I'm missing.
 
So hang on, by your reckoning, the far right is less dangerous than the left on the grounds that they want to get into power to enact their dangerous ideas? I feel like there's part of the puzzle that will illuminate this claim that I'm missing.


Yes. Because to get in power, the Far right will always have to compromise with people they disagree with and maybe even privately hate. Their platform will be watered down somewhat. Likewise with any decision they have to make. There will have to be concessions.

The far left don't care about that. It's their way or the high way. They don't care about consequences. They are right and everyone else is wrong. That's dangerous.
 
The Leadership contest is depressing for a Labour voter. It's like you are powerless to stop driving head first into a tree. You've got your seatbelt on and are hopeful for the best and least damage possible.
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
Yes. Because to get in power, the Far right will always have to compromise with people they disagree with and maybe even privately hate. Their platform will be watered down somewhat. Likewise with any decision they have to make. There will have to be concessions.

The far left don't care about that. It's their way or the high way. That's dangerous.
Still waiting for the puzzle piece that will cause this to make sense.
 
The US has a more progressive populace than the UK, and has done for some time. In the US you can win an election on a left-wing platform; in the UK the left can only win by claiming to be as right wing as possible.

[edit] Or rather a higher percentage of higher progressives in the populace.

I think this is basically true and why Jessie's (interesting) Comparison with the Dems doesn't work so well. Unfortunately we can't simply say Tories = GOP, Labour = Dems and compare from there. If the EU vote (kinda) and the geographic locations of where voters have broken to UKIP tell us anything, it's that Labour's base never was progressive. It's much more of a City vs Rural thing, which in turn *does* kinda mean you get more socially backwards Tories because they're more popular rurally, but only just, because places that used to be industrial are now basically rural in the sense that there's fuck all there. London's an exception because so much of it is bustling and vibrant and has, like, stuff to do.

Is this the case in the US? Is there a significant portion of the Democratic vote base that's socially more in line with the GOP? I don't think there is, but I could be wrong.
 

daviyoung

Banned
The US has a more progressive populace than the UK, and has done for some time. In the US you can win an election on a left-wing platform; in the UK the left can only win by claiming to be as right wing as possible.

[edit] Or rather a higher percentage of higher progressives in the populace.

It's not analogous. The UK's left wing party is more in line with Sanders' brand in the US while the UK's right wing party are more in line with Clinton's. UK's progressive parties are Green and to a lesser extent the Lib Dems.
 
You don't really always want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

You think the FTPA is a good thing?

Personally I think 5 years is way too long to be handing over power to a government. And the Act is a shoddy thing anyway, only meant to duct tape the 2010 coalition together.

Edit:

2) The Vote of no confidence route requires only a simple majority and only of the Commons, but that vote must not be reversed at any time in the following two weeks. It may be easy to get the initial vote, it'll be a lot harder to pack the commons chamber full time for a fortnight.

I don't follow. Why would you need to "pack the commons full time for a fortnight"? Are you suggesting that Corbyn et al would sneak into the chamber in the dead of night and pass a motion of confidence in the May government?
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
It's not analogous. The UK's left wing party is more in line with Sanders' brand in the US while the UK's right wing party are more in line with Clinton's. UK's progressive parties are Green and to a lesser extent the Lib Dems.

I disagree with this. The Tories are not a match for the Democrats; for a start, it was a major pillar of Obama's election campaign that he would extend the welfare state, and a major pillar of Osborne's that he would cut it.

Cameron supported John McCain to be president back in 2004, for instance.

The Tory party is much, much closer to the Reps than the Dems. British people like to tell themselves differently because we like to pretend we're better than the Americans, but we ain't.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I don't follow. Why would you need to "pack the commons full time for a fortnight"? Are you suggesting that Corbyn et al would sneak into the chamber in the dead of night and pass a motion of confidence in the May government?

That's more-or-less what I'm saying, yes.

Probably not quite so blatantly, but this sort of thing has been done before (with stealth voters concealed in the upper corridors and emerging at the last minute to vote). With surrogates of course, or the optics would be dreadful.
 

Maledict

Member
I disagree with this. The Tories are not a match for the Democrats; for a start, it was a major pillar of Obama's election campaign that he would extend the welfare state, and a major pillar of Osborne's that he would cut it.

Cameron supported John McCain to be president back in 2004, for instance.

The Tory party is much, much closer to the Reps than the Dems. British people like to tell themselves differently because we like to pretend we're better than the Americans, but we ain't.

Absolutely agree. It utterly infuriates me when people say that the Democrats are most similar to the Tories. It hugely undervalues the Democrats as social progressives, and hugely overvalued the Tories.

One party enacted massive stimulus to save jobs and extended healthcare for millions. One party slashed spending in the middle of a recession and continues to move towards private healthcare.

One party had the majority of its members vote against gay marriage. One party had the first transgender caucus at its national convention.

One party says that immigration is a source of strength and that we should look outwards with hope it the world. One party says that immigrants stole our jobs and increased crime and that we name need to deport people who came here legally.


The conservatives and the democrats are poles a-fucking part in terms of policy, both economic and social.
 

Piecake

Member
I think this is basically true and why Jessie's (interesting) Comparison with the Dems doesn't work so well. Unfortunately we can't simply say Tories = GOP, Labour = Dems and compare from there. If the EU vote (kinda) and the geographic locations of where voters have broken to UKIP tell us anything, it's that Labour's base never was progressive. It's much more of a City vs Rural thing, which in turn *does* kinda mean you get more socially backwards Tories because they're more popular rurally, but only just, because places that used to be industrial are now basically rural in the sense that there's fuck all there. London's an exception because so much of it is bustling and vibrant and has, like, stuff to do.

Is this the case in the US? Is there a significant portion of the Democratic vote base that's socially more in line with the GOP? I don't think there is, but I could be wrong.

I definitely don't think there is

I am going to quote myself from the poligaf thread

I think what the Trump nomination is showing us is that many Republican voters don't really give a shit about conservative small government thinking. They voted Republican because of social values and white identity politics/white nationalism. Trump is the candidate that hit those two crucial buttons, but also went the demagogic populist route of elites fucking over the little guy. That's a very different pitch than usual Republican platforms, and a pitch that turned out to be popular with Republicans.

Well, I'll amend my first statement. The only social conservatives that are not in the republican party are minorities, and the republican party has made it pretty clear that they are not wanted.

I kinda doubt that this is relevant to the Tories since they don't seem to be the party of white identity and white nationalists, but I don't follow British politics particularly closely so I could be wrong. And if they are, I don't see a way that a populist demogouge becomes the leader of the Tories and blows everything up due to the differences in party nomination in the US and Britain.
 

Log4Girlz

Member
I think this is basically true and why Jessie's (interesting) Comparison with the Dems doesn't work so well. Unfortunately we can't simply say Tories = GOP, Labour = Dems and compare from there. If the EU vote (kinda) and the geographic locations of where voters have broken to UKIP tell us anything, it's that Labour's base never was progressive. It's much more of a City vs Rural thing, which in turn *does* kinda mean you get more socially backwards Tories because they're more popular rurally, but only just, because places that used to be industrial are now basically rural in the sense that there's fuck all there. London's an exception because so much of it is bustling and vibrant and has, like, stuff to do.

Is this the case in the US? Is there a significant portion of the Democratic vote base that's socially more in line with the GOP? I don't think there is, but I could be wrong.

Blue dog Democrats. Reagan Democrats.
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
does anyone here think it's morally acceptable, as a lifelong left-winger, to deliberately end your interest in politics and resigning yourself to the unchallenged status quo?

part of me says, 'no of course not', but then the pragmatist in me genuinely believes that there is no way—short of a miracle—to reverse or alter our nation's current regressive trajectory. given that, where is the point of constantly worrying about the runaway freight train when it can't be stopped and the people on board seem to be very happy with the situation?
 

Crispy75

Member
does anyone here think it's morally acceptable, as a lifelong left-winger, to deliberately end your interest in politics and resigning yourself to the unchallenged status quo?

part of me says, 'no of course not', but then the pragmatist in me genuinely believes that there is no way—short of a miracle—to reverse or alter our nation's current regressive trajectory. given that, where is the point of constantly worrying about the runaway freight train when it can't be stopped and the people on board seem to be very happy with the situation?

Continuing the runaway freight train analogy:

The train might be currently unstoppable, but you've got to man the brakes anyway, because if you walk away, they'll dismantle the lever. One day, the train might find itself rolling uphill, or on old rusty tracks and then you'll find that the brakes actually work.
 

TrueBlue

Member
does anyone here think it's morally acceptable, as a lifelong left-winger, to deliberately end your interest in politics and resigning yourself to the unchallenged status quo?

part of me says, 'no of course not', but then the pragmatist in me genuinely believes that there is no way—short of a miracle—to reverse or alter our nation's current regressive trajectory. given that, where is the point of constantly worrying about the runaway freight train when it can't be stopped and the people on board seem to be very happy with the situation?

Honestly, while I will probably vote left for the foreseeable future, I do feel it might be nothing more than a token vote. I don't want to be Generic Disenfranchised Graduate #7, but it feels like I'm heading that way, despite my best efforts.

Oh well, I guess nothing worthwhile is easy.

Damn it.
 

Piecake

Member
does anyone here think it's morally acceptable, as a lifelong left-winger, to deliberately end your interest in politics and resigning yourself to the unchallenged status quo?

part of me says, 'no of course not', but then the pragmatist in me genuinely believes that there is no way—short of a miracle—to reverse or alter our nation's current regressive trajectory. given that, where is the point of constantly worrying about the runaway freight train when it can't be stopped and the people on board seem to be very happy with the situation?

I am of the firm belief that change happens gradually, and that dramatic change usually result in counter-revolutions or simply a lot of people who really feel left out of this new change in direction - both of which don't really result in a whole lot of actual change.

What that means is either a depressing amount of effort, work, and time needed to gradually change society for you as a member of a political group or political party, or you simply voting for the people who you think has the best chance of getting in power to start enacting the chance or at least some of the change that you want.

I think either is perfectly fine morally. No one should expect anyone to be a political activist, but if you care about your country and its citizens then you gotta vote. I am not a political activist, and the extent of my political involvement is voting.

I think this is an interesting article that hits on gradual change and transformation

"Compared to the citizens of other developed immigrant-receiving countries, Canadians are by far the most open to and optimistic about immigration," Irene Bloemraad, a sociologist at UC Berkeley and its chair of Canadian studies, wrote in a 2012 study published by the Migration Policy Institute.

"In one comparative poll, only 27 percent of those surveyed in Canada agreed that immigration represented more of a problem than an opportunity. In the country that came closest to Canadian opinion, France, the perception of immigration as a problem was significantly higher, at 42 percent."

Why? According to Bloemraad, the Canadian government has spent decades attempting to foster tolerance and acceptance as core national values, through policies aimed at integrating immigrants and minority groups without stripping them of their group identity.

For example, Canada emphasized permanent resettlement and citizenship in its immigration policy, rather than the sort of guest worker policies you've often seen in the US and Europe.

This actually worked in reshaping the values of citizens, making them more tolerant. Bloemraad explains:

A key aspect of the "Canadian model" lies in the view that immigration helps with nation building. Bolstered by the federal government, this view goes beyond political and intellectual elites to be embraced by a significant proportion of ordinary Canadians.

Indeed, one recent paper found that, in Canada, those who expressed more patriotism were also more likely to support immigration and multiculturalism. In the United States this correlation went in the opposite direction: those expressing greater patriotism were more likely to express anti-immigrant attitudes
.

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/8/11879482/ramadan-justin-trudeau-canada
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
thanks for the article

to be clear, i wasn't saying i would stop voting. just, you know, stop reading about politics. stop reading political blogs. stop engaging in political discussions.
 

Piecake

Member
thanks for the article

to be clear, i wasn't saying i would stop voting. just, you know, stop reading about politics. stop reading political blogs. stop engaging in political discussions.

Perhaps an easy solution is to focus your attention a lot more on policy instead of politics. I honestly don't pay close attention to politics unless something major happens or there is a new election, but I do find talking about policy and reading up on it fascinating.

I think you would be a lot less angry, stressed, defeated and/or depressed that way. At least that is how it works for me.
 
UKIP is the hard right of the Reps
Tories are the soft right of the Reps
LD are Dems (this one is actually easiest - the Dems are a sister party to the LDs, same as the Canadian Liberals, the Dutch Liberals, etc)
Modern Labour has no US counterpart, as the US doesn't have a history of a socialist union-backed party. New Labour were the right wing of the Dems.
The Greens are somewhere near Sanders (but it is very hard to pin down Green policy as it is a coalition of environmentalists, communists, socialists and one-issue movements).
 

Tak3n

Banned
This election is allreeady over, going to be a Landslide

2016_07_25_week_labour_leadership_poll.jpg
 

hodgy100

Member
well yeah everyone called this months ago. this whole exercise was a shitshow, they should have jsut co-operated until he made a big fucking mess then they actually have a platform to topple with. The people opposing him jsut come across as unreasonable (even if the opposite is true)
 
I am of the firm belief that change happens gradually, and that dramatic change usually result in counter-revolutions or simply a lot of people who really feel left out of this new change in direction - both of which don't really result in a whole lot of actual change.

What that means is either a depressing amount of effort, work, and time needed to gradually change society for you as a member of a political group or political party, or you simply voting for the people who you think has the best chance of getting in power to start enacting the chance or at least some of the change that you want.

I think either is perfectly fine morally. No one should expect anyone to be a political activist, but if you care about your country and its citizens then you gotta vote. I am not a political activist, and the extent of my political involvement is voting.

I think this is an interesting article that hits on gradual change and transformation



http://www.vox.com/2016/6/8/11879482/ramadan-justin-trudeau-canada


I wish more "progressives" would understand this. You cant demand people come round to your way of thinking with appeals to emotion and idealistic soundbites.

You have to roll your sleeves up, get in the trenches and work with the people who disagree with you, everyday, even as they scream and heckle at you until convince them that your way is just and right.

Every processive breakthrough has come from decades of working like this.
 

hodgy100

Member
I wish more "progressives" would understand this. You cant demand people come round to your way of thinking with appeals to emotion and idealistic soundbites.

You have to roll your sleeves up, get in the trenches and work with the people who disagree with you, everyday, even as they scream and heckle at you until convince them that your way is just and right.

Every processive breakthrough has come from decades of working like this.

I think that this is just the counter reaction due to the lurch to the right we are seeing. People are scared they are going to loose all the thigns that make them feel safe, so We lurch to the left.
 
That's more-or-less what I'm saying, yes.

Probably not quite so blatantly, but this sort of thing has been done before (with stealth voters concealed in the upper corridors and emerging at the last minute to vote). With surrogates of course, or the optics would be dreadful.

It sounds preposterous to me! But I'll defer to you if you say it's happened before.
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
I wish more "progressives" would understand this. You cant demand people come round to your way of thinking with appeals to emotion and idealistic soundbites.

You have to roll your sleeves up, get in the trenches and work with the people who disagree with you, everyday, even as they scream and heckle at you until convince them that your way is just and right.

Every processive breakthrough has come from decades of working like this.
I don't think that's true, frankly. The biggest lurch in progressive support in the UK was caused by World War 2 (and 1). The Overton windows can and has moved in leaps by bounds. It happened when Attlee won; it happened again when Thatcher won.

The thing is, slowly changing the political consensus is not like going to the gym. It's perfectly possible to put your entire life into trying to change things to how you think they should be and see absolutely no payoff, because there are people on the other side of the spectrum trying to do exactly the same thing.

The state of my current thinking is that the conservatives won the political tug of war and now hold the reins of the country, both in terms of controlling the seat of government and also having won the hearts and minds of the populace. I don't see anything in the current political landscape that has the power to change that.

I would prefer any Labour government to any Tory government; but I also believe that any Labour government that could currently win an election with this demographic base could only be forced into fighting a rearguard action against a further drift of that base to the right. That's not invaluable in itself; any amount of time that the left gets to delay the inevitable is valuable. But I think it can only delay it, not reverse it, at this point.
 
does anyone here think it's morally acceptable, as a lifelong left-winger, to deliberately end your interest in politics and resigning yourself to the unchallenged status quo?

part of me says, 'no of course not', but then the pragmatist in me genuinely believes that there is no way—short of a miracle—to reverse or alter our nation's current regressive trajectory. given that, where is the point of constantly worrying about the runaway freight train when it can't be stopped and the people on board seem to be very happy with the situation?


There's better ways to challenging the status quo than voting.

Make movies, art, music, start a disruptive business ... politics (and the press that cover it) are a bunch of Oxbridge PPE graduates, they don't want to challenge the status quo.
 
I don't think that's true, frankly. The biggest lurch in progressive support in the UK was caused by World War 2 (and 1). The Overton windows can and has moved in leaps by bounds. It happened when Attlee won; it happened again when Thatcher won.

The fact two catastrophic events accelerated the process, doesn't change what I'm saying. Unless you are advocating we wait till the next world war, which I don't think you are. Likewise, Thatcher won from years of effective sniping from the sidelines and finding key issues that swing voters would worry about. There was no overnight flip.

The thing is, slowly changing the political consensus is not like going to the gym. It's perfectly possible to put your entire life into trying to change things to how you think they should be and see absolutely no payoff, because there are people on the other side of the spectrum trying to do exactly the same thing.
Someone put it best last night at the DNC:-

"Sow the seeds of the garden you will never see".

Yes it's true that there will be people working in exactly the opposite direction. However, if you resign yourself to ineffective protests or worse, disengage from the process entirely, those same people take the platform further away from what you are fighting for.

The state of my current thinking is that the conservatives won the political tug of war and now hold the reins of the country, both in terms of controlling the seat of government and also having won the hearts and minds of the populace. I don't see anything in the current political landscape that has the power to change that.


Then instead of worrying about the current landscape, play the long game and work on the future. If that was the left was doing in the first place, the results would be here to fight the rhetoric.

I would prefer any Labour government to any Tory government; but I also believe that any Labour government that could currently win an election with this demographic base could only be forced into fighting a rearguard action against a further drift of that base to the right. That's not invaluable in itself; any amount of time that the left gets to delay the inevitable is valuable. But I think it can only delay it, not reverse it, at this point.


A drift to the right is not becoming the right. It's in the centre things are done, especially when you are coming from the side with the less popular ideals. Labour cannot turn back the worst Tory policies without accepting that at this point in time, some conservative policies are popular with the wider electorate. Instead of demanding purity, the left should be providing the check an balance to make sure the party doesn't go too far right in a quest to gain and remain in power.

"Tory lite" might be distasteful to you, but right now without effective left leadership and pragmatism, we may be looking at being governed by "UKIP lite" in 4 years time.
 
Someone put it best last night at the DNC:-

"Sow the seeds of the garden you will never see".

Yes it's true that there will be people working in exactly the opposite direction. However, if you resign yourself to ineffective protests or worse, disengage from the process entirely, those same people take the platform further away from what you are fighting for.

I mean

Given the realities in the field, its easy for any faction to claim that that's what they're trying to do.

Also a good excuse for when one fails, fwiw. "oh, i was just preparing the field for the next wave".
 

ss1

Neo Member
This is very depressing to be honest. Corbyn doesn’t realise that he is completely unelectable in a General Election and will end up consigning the Labour party for at least another 10-15 years in political wilderness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom