General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Professor Moriarty

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I think you're seeing it as an entirely one way conversation. In my view, the genius of Trump and Johnson is recognising an alternatively reality that is already there and reaching out to it and reflecting it.

Well, reaching out to incoherent disaffection, reinvigorating that disaffection, then reshaping it to suit your political goals.

hotmail.com

sid waddell wrote: »

There's always one set of rules, ie. no rules, for the crypto-fascist charlatan who has created a fantasy world where facts don't matter, and another set of rules entirely for those who occupy a fact based reality and oppose their lunacy.

It comes down to the difference in principles and morals between the crypto-fascist right and anybody to the left of them.

The crypto-facists have none and are expected to have none, and yet people seem to love it, whereas they apply entirely different standards to others.

The fairytale of the Pied Piper of Hamelin explains Trump and Johnson and Bolsonaro as well as anything.

I do not understand the comparison with Trump and Johnson. They are two completely different personalities and Britain has a different electoral system.

I realise there is a temptation to bring in Trump to every political conversation but perhaps on this occasion, it isn't warranted.

sid waddell

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I think you're seeing it as an entirely one way conversation. In my view, the genius of Trump and Johnson is recognising an alternatively reality that is already there and reaching out to it and reflecting it.

It's just appealing to base prejudices and mobilising hatred, there's nothing genius about it, all this has already been done many times before, there's nothing remotely original about it.

sid waddell

hotmail.com wrote: »

I do not understand the comparison with Trump and Johnson. They are two completely different personalities and Britain has a different electoral system.

I realise there is a temptation to bring in Trump to every political conversation but perhaps on this occasion, it isn't warranted.

The techniques they use are largely the same - to use Timothy Snyder's term they are both "politicians of eternity" - they inhabit a world where genuine hope that things can get better for society is gone and where desperation pervades - to rule, they have to manufacture a world of eternal threat, they have to continually manufacture crisis and continually invent enemies, they have to create a world where nothing is true and therefore everybody is the same, apart from the great leader who is destined to rule. Simplistic slogans repeated endlessly become the "gospel" of such politics.

Trump has been more naked in his invention of enemies but Johnson has spent most of his career doing the same. Both are shameless and cannot be shamed.

The US and UK electoral systems are both very different and very similar - the main similarity being the effective two party system in which one party can rule absolutely on a minority of the vote.

James Brown

It's all conning. Johnson and Co.'s big concern was more things like the EU anti-tax avoidance directive than immigrants.

There was a good article as to why working class people might vote Tory/Republican:

politics at the national level is more like religion than it is like shopping. It's more about a moral vision that unifies a nation and calls it to greatness than it is about self-interest or specific policies. In most countries, the right tends to see that more clearly than the left. In America the Republicans did the hard work of drafting their moral vision in the 1970s, and Ronald Reagan was their eloquent spokesman. Patriotism, social order, strong families, personal responsibility (not government safety nets) and free enterprise. Those are values, not government programmes.

The Democrats, in contrast, have tried to win voters' hearts by promising to protect or expand programmes for elderly people, young people, students, poor people and the middle class. Vote for us and we'll use government to take care of everyone! But most Americans don't want to live in a nation based primarily on caring. That's what families are for.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/jun/05/why-working-class-people-vote-conservative

Bannasidhe

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Telling people who've stopped voting for your party that it's their own fault because they weren't bothered is unlikely to win them back to the fold.

What?

We are talking about how the LP choose their leader, I merely pointed out that under their current system the ordinary voter can have far more influence in that process by simply joining the LP than any other national UK political party will give them.

It would be a bit rich to complain you don't like the leader when you didn't bother engaging in the selection when you have the chance.

Bit like complaining about the govt but not bothering to vote.

Corbyn was elected by the people who joined the LP. It's that simple.
If voters don't like the process they are free to join the LP and advocate for the process to be changed.

A rule change took place in 2018 as it happens:
Each candidate needs to be nominated by 10% of the combined ranks of Labour MPs and MEPs. A rule change in late 2018 required candidates to be nominated by at least 5% of constituency parties or at least three affiliates (two of which must be trade unions) which represent a minimum of 5% of the affiliated membership.

So MPs and MEPs do get a role in the selection process - it's just their votes do not count as 'more' than any other member when it comes to the actual election of the leader.
The nomination process has now been expanded to include affiliates.

That is far from the 'any headbager' someone claimed was the case.
They have to be a nominated headbanger.

Bannasidhe

prawnsambo wrote: »

I suppose that's how it worked in the USSR and currently China and North Korea, so maybe you are right. Everyone who votes should join the Labour party so that they can 'decide' who leads it.

Ah would you stop.
Seriously, the members of the LP get to vote from a selection of nominated candidates which is very much like voting for the blasted MPs/TDs and here you are with rubbish about the USSR etc.

Registered voters get to vote in a GE.
LP members get to vote in a leadership election. Stop hyperbolicing it to make it look sinister when it is the opposite.

Ultimately Tory members get to vote who is the leader of the Conservatives - they just have a selection that has been more carefully pre-selected so perhaps you can find some totalitarian regime you can compare that to in the interests of balance.

hotmail.com

sid waddell wrote: »

The techniques they use are largely the same - to use Timothy Snyder's term they are both "politicians of eternity" - they inhabit a world where genuine hope that things can get better for society is gone and where desperation pervades - to rule, they have to manufacture a world of eternal threat, they have to continually manufacture crisis and continually invent enemies, they have to create a world where nothing is true and therefore everybody is the same, apart from the great leader who is destined to rule. Simplistic slogans repeated endlessly become the "gospel" of such politics.

Trump has been more naked in his invention of enemies but Johnson has spent most of his career doing the same. Both are shameless and cannot be shamed.

The US and UK electoral systems are both very different and very similar - the main similarity being the effective two party system in which one party can rule absolutely on a minority of the vote.

Like the Yes We Can slogan used by Obama?

No offence, but I just don't even know what you're on about.

Boris reminds me of Bertie Aherne if I had to compare him to a politician.

tdf7187

MPFGLB wrote: »

Comparing Corbyn to Hitler you will find is defamation

Of whom, Hitler was actually popular (at one point).

tdf7187

hotmail.com wrote: »

Boris reminds me of Bertie Aherne if I had to compare him to a politician.

Yes, both are bluffing opportunists.

tdf7187

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ah would you stop.
Seriously, the members of the LP get to vote from a selection of nominated candidates which is very much like voting for the blasted MPs/TDs and here you are with rubbish about the USSR etc.

Registered voters get to vote in a GE.
LP members get to vote in a leadership election. Stop hyperbolicing it to make it look sinister when it is the opposite.

Ultimately Tory members get to vote who is the leader of the Conservatives - they just have a selection that has been more carefully pre-selected so perhaps you can find some totalitarian regime you can compare that to in the interests of balance.

It wasn't intended to be sinister but the reality is it opened the door for entryists from the far left to take over the Labour party.

prawnsambo

Duke of Url wrote: »

Tell me where you find the data on how another country handled leaving the EU, delivered multiple trade deals and also delivered domestic policies at the same time.

I need this to perform a projection.

Please factor in everything listed above which needs to be taken into consideration and not separated.

You can start with the last 30 years

Thanks

Because that's what you meant by this? Forgive me for not reading between the lines for the above paragraph.

Duke of Url wrote: »

It will be interesting now how the Tories go about politics with such a massive majority. They could actually transform England for the Better.

sid waddell

tdf7187 wrote: »

It wasn't intended to be sinister but the reality is it opened the door for entryists from the far left to take over the Labour party.

Corbyn won the leadership with a majority of pre-May 2015 members.

He didn't win via "entryism".

And anyway, 500,000 people is not "entryism", it's a mass movement. That's what Labour was always intended to be, the party of the workers, who are the mass of the population.

prawnsambo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ah would you stop.
Seriously, the members of the LP get to vote from a selection of nominated candidates which is very much like voting for the blasted MPs/TDs and here you are with rubbish about the USSR etc.

Registered voters get to vote in a GE.
LP members get to vote in a leadership election. Stop hyperbolicing it to make it look sinister when it is the opposite.

Ultimately Tory members get to vote who is the leader of the Conservatives - they just have a selection that has been more carefully pre-selected so perhaps you can find some totalitarian regime you can compare that to in the interests of balance.

I'll stop if you start replying to my posts in context. Do I have to quote the post I replied to again to remind you what you intimated?

Joe_ Public

I think maybe people exaggerate the power of momentum a little bit. True, it does exert quite a bit of influence on nec, but in all it has a membership of 40,000 which is less than 10% of overall party membership. Where i would see committed and passionate activists, others see far left extremists. Difference of interpretation i guess.

BadTurtle

Duke of Url wrote: »

It will be interesting now how the Tories go about politics with such a massive majority. They could actually transform England for the Better.

Hahaha, yeah. The solution to any problem is to multiply it by 5.

Letwin_Larry

tdf7187 wrote: »

Of whom, Hitler was actually popular (at one point).

if i recall my history correctly, Hitler unlike poor Jeremy was quite adept at getting his message across. he was an outstanding orator and motivator of the masses.

(please note i am NOT condoning and/or endorsing his extreme hate-filled, murderous, ruinous policies.)

James Brown

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

if i recall my history correctly, Hitler unlike poor Jeremy was quite adept at getting his message across. he was an outstanding orator and motivator of the masses.

(please note i am NOT condoning and/or endorsing his extreme hate-filled, murderous, ruinous policies.)

Boris will be even keeled and a leader for all peoples

Letwin_Larry

MPFGLB wrote: »

A defamatory statement is a false statement of fact that exposes a person to hatred, ridicule, or contempt, causes him to be shunned, or injures him in his business or trade. ...

Comparing someone to Hitler is


BTW I think I have had enough politics to last for a few years so going to sign off

Its been enjoyable debating on here

I think those in the poor areas of England have missed an opportunity and will live to regret their choice

I hope I am wrong but dont think so

I think being against something has a stronger pull in modern democracy (where issues and problems are complex but people demand simple solutions) than being for something different and where simple sound bites make it through the noise even if they are untrue

i recall on this forum posters gloating after Boris initially took office and suffered defeat after defeat in the Hoc. they crowed that he would be the shortest lived PM in history.

looks like some folk love to dish it out, but cant handle any blowback.:D

Lefty Bicek

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I would accept theres some truth in that. Heard it said by a couple of pundits that a frequent issue raised about corbyn in working class areas was the perception he is part of the metropolitan establishment. So, many of them voted for boris johnson instead! Perception is king when it comes to politics.

There's an interesting article on the BBC website, on how Dennis Skinner lost his seat.

It comes through clearly that Corbyn was a massive, massive problem.

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50777371

It ought to be said also, that Skinner declared himself for Leave, and his constituency voted overwhelmingly to Leave in the referendum.

I think Brexit has less to do with how people made their decision than many have thought. Just because Boris campaigned on a certain agenda doesn't mean that people voted for him, for that reason.

I think many people voted for a leader, rather than a party. A worrying thing in a way.

PeadarCo

sid waddell wrote: »

That's what Labour was always intended to be, the party of the workers, who are the mass of the population.

And this is one of the reasons Labour lost. An attachment to idea's of the past that are not only simplistic but are old and don't actually match the views of their target audience.

Corbyns popularity figures were a disaster for a long time. They were worse than Johnsons who didn't exactly set a high bar when it comes to popularity. They are worse than a well known liar(a lot of his supporters even acknowledge this) and a party that has been in charge of Brexit and in government in some shape or form for a decade and enacting unpopular policies aside from Brexit.

Corbyn is loved by his supporters but if you want to govern you have to build coalitions. You can see that very obviously in the Irish political system. A lot of hard core Corbyn supporters have viewed moderates such as so called Blarites, the Lib Dem supporters and soft Tories as enemies. Not as potential allies that with a little bit of compromise could be brought on side. It was all or nothing something magnified by first past the post and Labour got nothing.

Johnson was got away with this election by ignoring the hard trade offs that need to be made in the months ahead so it will be interesting to see how long his government lasts.

FrancieBrady

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i recall on this forum posters gloating after Boris initially took office and suffered defeat after defeat in the Hoc. they crowed that he would be the shortest lived PM in history.

looks like some folk love to dish it out, but cant handle any blowback.:D

It wasn't gloating so much as a statement of the reality that he wasn't going to last echoed by serious journalism in his own country.

Luckily Varadkar threw him a bone in Chesire and he swallowed it because he needed to.

sid waddell

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I think maybe people exaggerate the power of momentum a little bit. True, it does exert quite a bit of influence on nec, but in all it has a membership of 40,000 which is less than 10% of overall party membership. Where i would see committed and passionate activists, others see far left extremists. Difference of interpretation i guess.

What the Momentum types need to cut out is the overly aggressive rhetoric on Twitter etc., the bad language, the veiled undertones of physical aggression and threats.

I follow a good few Labour suppporting Twitter accounts and too many of them go in for that sort of stuff.

The thing is, it's hard not to go in for that sort of language about a government which shamelessly engages in dog whistle racism and so clearly despises the poor and disadvantaged, and basically sums up some of the worst of humanity.

This sort of stuff has real consequences for real people and makes their lives a misery. It's quite an understandable reaction actually, it's the way real people talk.

In Liverpool the word Tory is usually followed by the word "scum", and not without good reason, it's almost like if somebody mentions the British Army in Derry.

Viscerally, in a very real way, I share that sort of feeling, I do despise the Tory party in general, and this incarnation of the Tory party in particular makes me utterly sick.

But firing that sort of aggressive language around on Twitter accounts which are (or should be) designed to persuade people, is off putting for the majority of people.

That's what Momentum and the Novara Media/Canary/Skwawkbox types are s**t at - persuasion - they only preach to the already converted.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a model of how to persuade. She's extremely passionate, charismatic and articulate and the language she uses is always non-threatening, but completely on point and always persuasive.

But I guess even then, look at how she's vilified by the right in the US, it's almost unbelievable, and you even get it from "centrist" Democrats, never mind Republicans. That sort of vicious, hysterical vilification is what decent politics that genuinely wants to improve the lot of society is up against, no mattter what its modus operandi.

Dyr

sid waddell wrote: »

What the Momentum types need to cut out is the overly aggressive rhetoric on Twitter etc., the bad language, the veiled undertones of physical aggression and threats.

I follow a good few Labour suppporting Twitter accounts and too many of them go in for that sort of stuff.

Momentum, like a lot of the current era true believers on all sides are absolute zealots. Was funny watching them branding vast swathes of Labours heartlands as racists as bigots this morning. Yeah, that'll win them back.

Probably more worrying for the left is that it's welded to a vision of uber liberalism that most of its support base are utterly sick of.

Chips Lovell

sid waddell wrote: »

It's just appealing to base prejudices and mobilising hatred, there's nothing genius about it, all this has already been done many times before, there's nothing remotely original about it.

I never said it was remotely original. It’s been happening since the days of Ancient Rome.

Joe_ Public

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

There's an interesting article on the BBC website, on how Dennis Skinner lost his seat.

It comes through clearly that Corbyn was a massive, massive problem.

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50777371

It ought to be said also, that Skinner declared himself for Leave, and his constituency voted overwhelmingly to Leave in the referendum.

I think Brexit has less to do with how people made their decision than many have thought. Just because Boris campaigned on a certain agenda doesn't mean that people voted for him, for that reason.

I think many people voted for a leader, rather than a party. A worrying thing in a way.

I certainly wouldn't believe for a second that many of those abandoning labour are in any way fooled into thinking brexit is going to provide some amazing economic boon to their lives. This seems to me to be years, decades in the making and labour either didnt know how or didnt possess the means to deal with it.

Letwin_Larry

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It wasn't gloating so much as a statement of the reality that he wasn't going to last echoed by serious journalism in his own country.

Luckily Varadkar threw him a bone in Chesire and he swallowed it because he needed to.

it wasn't serious journalism it was punditry. the HoC was a totally dysfunctional, it was a circus.

Boris will go down in history as the person who had the courage to take it on and try and put some order on it. he has now succeeded where most were simply unable to even try.

history will judge him well for this.
Leo is a footnote.

FrancieBrady

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

it wasn't serious journalism it was punditry. the HoC was a totally dysfunctional, it was a circus.

Boris will go down in history as the person who had the courage to take it on and try and put some order on it. he has now succeeded where most were simply unable to even try.

history will judge him well for this.
Leo is a footnote.

Leo saved his bacon in Cheshire and history will judge Johnson's entire career. He has a long long way to go to save anything out of the chaos and may very well be the PM that presides over the dissolution of the UK.

sid waddell

PeadarCo wrote: »

And this is one of the reasons Labour lost. An attachment to idea's of the past that are not only simplistic but are old and don't actually match the views of their target audience.

Corbyns popularity figures were a disaster for a long time. They were worse than Johnsons who didn't exactly set a high bar when it comes to popularity. They are worse than a well known liar(a lot of his supporters even acknowledge this) and a party that has been in charge of Brexit and in government in some shape or form for a decade and enacting unpopular policies aside from Brexit.

Corbyn is loved by his supporters but if you want to govern you have to build coalitions. You can see that very obviously in the Irish political system. A lot of hard core Corbyn supporters have viewed moderates such as so called Blarites, the Lib Dem supporters and soft Tories as enemies. Not as potential allies that with a little bit of compromise could be brought on side. It was all or nothing something magnified by first past the post and Labour got nothing.

Johnson was got away with this election by ignoring the hard trade offs that need to be made in the months ahead so it will be interesting to see how long his government lasts.

A mass movement party representing workers is a brilliant idea and an idea of the present and the future, as well as the past. It's an idea for any moment, and especially now.

The problem is not the idea, it's the execution. It has to be a broad church party, but it also needs coherence in terms of leadership and message.

New Labour may have won elections, but it took its eye off the ball big time at grass roots level, The Democrats in the US did the same.

The Republicans in the US now are winning because they made a conscious decision decades ago that the best way to build was from the bottom up, by getting Republicans into every two-bit local position and all the way up from there. Clinton and Obama might have won elections, but at the lower level the Democrats were asleep, and letting their grass roots movement wither away.

The US and UK political systems are very different in the way they work in this regard, but the principle is the same. You can't neglect the grass roots, but you also have to have real leadership at the top, leadership that can carry a mass movement.

sid waddell

Bambi wrote: »

Momentum, like a lot of the current era true believers on all sides are absolute zealots. Was funny watching them branding vast swathes of Labours heartlands as racists as bigots this morning. Yeah, that'll win them back.

Probably more worrying for the left is that it's welded to a vision of uber liberalism that most of its support base are utterly sick of.

Are you talking about economic liberalism or social liberalism?

Social liberalism is merely another name for respecting people's rights, treating them with dignity - treating others as you would like to be treated.

It is quite astounding that so many people see this as a negative thing.

Vast swathes of those voters do have racist tendencies. Brexit was an essentially racist project. That's telling it like it is.

I have sympathy for the conned, I have no sympathy for the con artists. They are cynical opportunists.

A lot of people on the right talk about an "entitlement" culture and "free speech", but feel entitled to voice racist dog whistles or outright racism without challenge.

That's gross hypocrisy.