Politics Thread!

[Portland]

Does anyone else wish this pic:



Had accidentally been placed in this story on the Beeb news?

Hacienda film tracks down pieces of music history

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33763972

[phattslagg]

I am still convinced that the perceived support for the Tories in the election was heavily skewed by the predictions made by nearly all the "experts" that we would now be in another coalition. I'd wager many of the floaters that voted Tory thought that, in doing so, they were voting for more of the same, not realising that they were in fact unleashing the devil, now unfettered by the lib dems.

Anyway - the point is that those of us that will be voting for Corbyn know that there will likely be no better opportunity to see if real change is actually possible. A victory for him will doubtless create a tidal wave across the party, but maybe that's just what it needs.

[pogo]

But it’s based on repeated election results

No, it's based on what you think Labour Party supporters want, and based on your estimation of how many people in the UK would support a Labour Party that's true to its roots. As someone who doesn't agree with anything the Labour Party originally stood for, or even show any signs of understanding what that was, you are almost uniquely unsuitable to make such predictions.

Labour don’t have to win over Labour supporters – by definition they are already onside. It’s people who don’t support Labour, or at least who didn’t at the last election. Today’s letter from Mr Blair puts it bluntly:

If Jeremy Corbyn becomes leader it won’t be a defeat like 1983 or 2015 at the next election. It will mean rout, possibly annihilation. If he wins the leadership, the public will at first be amused, bemused and even intrigued. But as the years roll on, as Tory policies bite and the need for an effective opposition mounts – and oppositions are only effective if they stand a hope of winning – the public mood will turn to anger. They will seek to punish us. They will see themselves as victims not only of the Tory government but of our self-indulgence.

[F-ZeroOne]

One misconception about HS2 is that its at the expense of the rest of the network; recent hiccups not withstanding, its actually in addition to quite a lot else thats on the cards. Also... the Japanese built the shinkansen between Tokyo and Osaka. They then expanded it more-or-less continuously for fifty years. Shouldn't they have just stopped with the first bit, for fear of "expanding the commuter belt"?

I accept the point about "YMMV" but also... something will have to be done sooner or later to ease capacity problems. And, AFAIK, no-one has come up with a viable alternative that doesn't - once you start getting into the details - either have major problems of its own or will have the same long term benefits.

I was thinking more about a tactic for demonstrating value for money for improvements. you start where the improvement is needed the most and the demonstrable benefits are soonest appreciated. I acknowledge that I'm guessing but I believe that's not necessarily lines leading into London

But that is happening, bit by bit (as an example, the new bi-mode long-distance trains that FGW will be operating to the Westcountry. They can't do a lot about the infrastructure, not at the most Westerly points, because that would be a major project, but improvements at Reading and electrification to Bristol will help a bit) Its not going to happen for everyone, not all at once, nor are they all going to get the same amount of money spent. And the West Coast Main Line is where improvement is going to be needed, and soonest, which is what HS2 is seeking to relieve.

[(o)(o)]

Labour don’t have to win over Labour supporters – by definition they are already onside.

You expect people to take you seriously with comments like this ??

Posting quotes from someone Labour supporters consider a traitor a stooge a liar and WAR CRIMINAL isn't going to further your argument either. Blair is largely responsible for the loss of Labour support that you attribute to a drift to the right. He took us into a war nobody wanted. IMO he's as out of step in his latest remarks as he is on foreign affairs.

Britain is embracing Corbyn, we're sick and fucking tired of shyster caricature cardboard cut out bullshit merchants. Authenticity is what people are hankering after. The left was never voted in?? If Benn hadn't been strategically prevented from becoming Labour leader in 1982 .....

[pogo]

Yes, the invasion in 2003 was a disaster ! No wonder Labour lost the next election !! Blair would never win an election again !!!

Except it didn’t happen. Labour and Blair won again in 2005. They lost in 2010 but that had little to do with the war or Blair.

Labour need to get back to the share of the vote they had under Blair. And they are not going to do it by moving further left. Those voters, the voters on the left, will support Labour anyway. They have no one else to vote for, as there’s no-one to the left of Labour that’s a national electoral force.

They need a strategy and a leader that embraces not just socialist principles but also policies that appeal to the centre. That does not have to be Blairism. Much has changed since Blair was PM, and a modern centre-left agenda could look very different. But it does need to be centre-left, to attract traditional Labour voters, former Lib-Dem voters, and even disillusioned Tory ones.

[(o)(o)]

Yes, the invasion in 2003 was a disaster ! No wonder Labour lost the next election !! Blair would never win an election again !!!

That is not a rebuttal of my point at all.

Your constant need to distill complex factorial information down into simplistic chunks, presumably so you can understand it, doesn't alter the fact that the world is complex and throwing your toys out of the pram won't alter that situation.

BTW I didn't spontaneously produce that opinion - it was based on a survey of human people.

Would you like an adult to locate it for you?

[pogo]

I’m sure you can find an opinion poll which shows opposition to the war. But it did not lose Labour the 2005 election and by 2010 it was irrelevant, because of time, because our participation had ended, because Blair had stepped down, and most importantly because of the far more pressing economic issues.

Hardly anyone thinks it important now. It just seems to be small number on the left, using it to beat up on Blair, forgetting that he’s by far their most successful leader ever, the only living labour leader ever to win an election.

We played only a small part in the Iraq war, we would have been probably involved whoever was in power, and it would have happened without our involvement. Blaming Blair for it makes no sense. But I guess it’s easier than listening to him. Easier to ignore him and continue with the fantasy that Corbyn can lead Labour to victory.

[Mark]

Easier to ignore him and continue with the fantasy that Corbyn can lead Labour to victory.

It's interesting you keep on with this line about Corbyn not being able to win an election, when myself (and a fair few folk I know) have signed up to vote for him just to provide a reasonable degree of opposition, and steer the party back to where we believe it should be. We're not looking at winning an election right now - we're looking at getting a labour party that isn't just Tory-Lite (the type of Labour party we stopped voting for). I'd like it to win obviously, but I want the party first and foremost to represent ideals that I can be bothered to vote for.

Voting for the winner is not a priority (what kind of politcs would that be?). Voting for something I believe in is. At this stage if voting Corbyn ends up breaking the Labour party then that's probably for the best - it's bloody useless right now, quite frankly. If it implodes then what comes after can't be any worse.

[pogo]

I sort of agree with that. I don’t think Corbyn can win and election. But there’s clearly a strong groundswell of support for him on the left within the Labour party, which is impossible to ignore. So let him be elected and see what happens. Maybe he will still be there in 2020 and lose, or maybe they will realise his limitations sooner and put someone in charge with a better chance. I don’t think they will split; they should still be the second biggest and main opposition party in 2020, even if their vote collapses further.

It’s interesting why it’s happening. He is in many ways the best candidate, Kendall is unconvincing and the other two just seem like more of the same. But it’s also the electoral system. Last time the members, the MPs, the unions each had 1/3 of the vote. Members and MPs voted for David, but unions voted for Ed, and in much stronger numbers so Ed won. Many (including me) cried foul over the unions swinging it. So they changed the rules. Now there is just one member one vote. Union members can still vote but the have to sign up as members, although that was made cheap and easy to try and encourage them.

The problem is that removed MPs from the process; except for the initial nominations they have no special role. And they tend to act as a moderating force. Members meanwhile have not gone for a sensible centrist but seem more enthused by the supposedly token leftie this time, probably as he is a more convincing candidate. And after initially signing up in disappointing numbers many union members joined late, and they seem likely to strongly favour Corbyn after major union endorsements.

[(o)(o)]

I’m sure you can find an opinion poll which shows opposition to the war.

I didn't say "people didn't vote labour in 2008 because Iraq" idiot.

You are just replying to a mirror image of your inability to parse information.

And look - you've contradicted yourself again.

...you can find an opinion poll which shows opposition to the war.
.....Hardly anyone thinks it important now...

Basically polar opposite statements written within the same post .. it's MENTAL

@ Mark ... Will Self's said similar and attcked the voting system (here here) and how bitter people are over the Blairite legacy eg war in Iraq.



The probability Corbyn can win in 2020 (and it is a probability not a WILL WIN or CANNOT WIN situation fuck sake) is IMO a lot stronger than apparent

1. The media had a big hand in steering the 2015 election. That needs to be corrected. Corbyn's straight talk cuts right through the BS we need more people like that to come out the woodwork.
2. Young uns are becoming more engaged in politics.
3. Five more years of this shite? Practically nobody will want to vote Tory.

It was opposition of the Tories that got them out last time and I have faith that the people of Britain are predominantly decent people.

[(o)(o)]

Nauseating !!


What a weasel

[gravy]

Unemployment rises! Who's fault is it?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 51248.html

SNP and Labour's apparently!

[(o)(o)]

SNP also cynically reduced unemployment in Scotland just to make Tories look bad.

Ken Livingstone said 'anyone could have won for Labour in 1997' here is a solid argument for that claim

Does Labour moving to the left equal electoral oblivion?

Central to this claim is the juxtaposition of Tony Blair’s “golden years” versus Ed Miliband “move to the left” costing Labour the last election. Both elements of this argument are simply fictitious.

Tony Blair’s victory was as much a product of the previous few elections as it was of the 1997 campaign. Labour had consistently improved its position since its low point in 1983 (27.6% to 30.8% to 34.4% to 43.2%). Remember that before John Smith’s untimely death, Labour was widely predicted to win the election, having established an ostensibly unassailable 23 point lead over the Tories. A week before he passed away, the Conservatives suffered a spectacular defeat in Council elections.

From the point of Blair’s election onwards Labour’s share of the vote began to steadily decline (43.2% to 40.7% to 35.2% to 29%) and actually rallied a little under Miliband to 30.4%, despite being obliterated in Scotland. You can see all the figures here. The facts, then, are that Labour was a party ascendant since 1983 and declining since 1997. You may not like it, but that is the only cogent conclusion...

I’m not saying that Blair’s policies did not help him to get initially elected. They did. But they were also deeply unpopular while in government – the decision to go to war with Iraq saw the biggest exodus of Labour Party members, seeing membership dip to levels not recorded since the 1930s. It is also worth noting that Blair was not just positioning himself in order to win. He genuinely believed in his programme and could orate on it with authenticity and passion...

In short, Blair’s success as much as Miliband’s failure are down to an immensely complex nexus of circumstances. To reduce them to “move to the right = winning” versus “move to the left = losing” is a profoundly cynical move by those who want the party to move to the right regardless.

Party popularity ebbs and flows.

[pogo]

...you can find an opinion poll which shows opposition to the war.
.....Hardly anyone thinks it important now...

Basically polar opposite statements written within the same post .. it's MENTAL

I don’t know if you are just trolling or really don‘t get it. It’s simple. The public have opinions about many matters. But only a few are important when they come to vote. Fox hunting. The monarchy. MPs salaries. These are all things the press like to go on about, and some MPs make an issue of, but they do not affect people in their day to day lives. And that definitely includes a war that happened over ten years ago, that happened thousands of miles away, and that we played a small part in. There’s no evidence it made any difference in the elections in 2005, 2010 or 2015.