Rayvin

And the fact that 'the money' was one of the key reasons to leave prior to the vote.

Based on the above:

A boost to the LDs has to be a Remainer issue. Greens potentially also, frankly, just from the other side of the Labour spectrum. The Tories having taken some more of Labour is a bit fucking weird but there we are I guess. Those numbers are on par with Corbyn iirc.

I'll stress I'd be perfectly happy with a national anthem that didn't push a single person's life over and above everyone else's.

Was just surveyed by YouGov. "Do you like, love, dislike, hate the British national anthem?" "Do you own a union jack flag or something that displays it" "Do you think government buildings should fly the flag every day?" What the fuck is this country on? And for the record, my answers: 1 - Hate it 2 - No 3 - No

I think "hope" is probably the problem. Some people are too far gone. Understandably, tbh.

I suspect Labour will just about hold on and are making noises like this in order to shore up turnout. If they lose it'll be a clusterfuck though.

I mean, that's what you're asking for though - Biden was completely the same. Yeah he seems to have a bit of life in him now, but pre-election he was aiming to be as bland as possible. Starmer is literally doing what you and these journalists are saying he should be.

The current polls are intensely depressing. We're basically a one party state.

I don't think I've ever disagreed with that if it would actually work. My contention has generally been that the centre is a busted flush that has nothing to offer despite its acolytes claiming that it's the one true path. I was pro New Labour, I backed Miliband, I backed Brown even. They failed, their ideas failed, the whole concept failed. Corbyn wasn't the messiah because he was super left wing, he was the messiah because he was offering something different to the bland, vacuous, Tory lite policies that Labour had been increasingly trying to get behind to remain 'relevant' against the context of a lost battle over the narrative around austerity. To be clear, the centre in Labour had lost 2 elections before the 'unelectable hard left' came along. The left has subsequently lost another 2, although in one of those it came quite close to causing an upset - albeit in very unusual circumstances. Biden has won this victory, like it or not, also in very unusual circumstances. I think my argument here really is that we've proven absolutely nothing about what needs to happen in the UK political scene by looking at the US post-Trump. Why did Miliband not win? Why did Brown not win? Why hasn't New Labour been in power forever? I would also argue that the situation is more difficult in the UK than it is in the US. People are far more polarised in this country - part of that is a consequence of Corbyn but the genie isn't going back in the bottle I don't think, so we have to roll with it. If Starmer is going to win he will need to speak to the left, right and centre simultaneously. Johnson isn't the great evil that Trump was, he can't rely on his enemy motivating the left to vote while he goes chasing after the centre - which is what Biden did - especially as Johnson is actually outflanking him on the left with spending. To be clear though, a hard left winger isn't the answer either - it could have been pre-Brexit, but not now. I think, unfortunately, that the ludicrous handling from ALL involved within Labour during the Corbyn years has rather ensured that the answer is Johnson.

Well obviously the centrist republicans would prefer Biden to Sanders - and I'm fully aware of the issue with the word socialism. We've talked these points to death so let's not

I think Biden would have beaten him either way - I don't think the pandemic was as big a factor as Trump being repellent generally. That said, I really don't think anyone voted 'for Biden' more than they voted 'against Trump'. So I don't personally think his victory proves very much at all about centrist/left strategy unfortunately. With that said, Starmer is clearly not going to be able to win on a hard left footing - he's too bland to pull people with him on something like that and the well has been poisoned too much anyway.

Tbf, I'm coming to a new viewpoint on this stuff now anyway - I only replied to this one because I read the same article the other day and also had a friend of mine (far more left wing) read it so we could talk it through. My current view is that I'm not even really paying attention to politics anymore because it was just making me miserable, and I'm looking more at things I can control myself - i.e. my own life. So, other than the essays contributed so far, I'll accept that a diversity of opinion exists and leave it there I mean, I'll try to. We'll see.

I'm also going to add - the left aren't going to cost Starmer victory. No one is listening to them, no one cares. Starmer is going to lose because he can't win back the Brexit redwallers (the left will have zero impact on these people) and he can't retain the diehard remainers (the left has basically zero impact here either as they would also be seeking to move on, from everything I've read). You can safely forget about the left torpedoing Starmer. If he fucks up, and he will, it's because the centreground in Labour has failed.

Yeah i read that a few days ago. That article has very little on substance though, mostly because not enough time has passed to judge anything. Yes he's been successful with COVID so far but then over the same time period so has Johnson. Take that out of his argument and there's not much left. Also Freedland is a longstanding centrist on the Labour front and was needling Corbyn from the word go when he won power. So to be clear with your comment, the left and the centre need to stop fighting each other. The centre was actually even worse when Corbyn won power - coups, articles in the press, stabbing people in the front, etc. For what it's worth though, the left in the US has been far far more visible and vocal in opposition to the centrist wing of the democrats at least as far as the actual politicians are concerned. Corbyn has said next to fuck all since he resigned, AOC has been threatening to jack in politics altogether if things dont improve. Biden is having an easy ride because people still remember Trump. I don't think he's going to be able to rely on that forever. That said, I'm reserving judgement for now - he seems to be doing ok. But that article is naively premature or, more likely, a cheap jab to confirm the writer's existing worldview. He'll be invisible if things start going wrong.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/apr/01/uk-pledges-extra-250m-for-hi-tech-research-collaboration-with-eu After extensive posturing, we have decided that we don't want our entire scientific community to collapse after all.

Suppose I wouldn't argue with that but then as I've said, I'm not "politically aware" in the same sense that the progressive left are politically aware. And I think that Gloom genuinely thinks (or did think) that this was my political alignment - which appears to have been why this particular back and forth has run on as long as it has.

This is useful in that it covers both my view and Corbyn. What I can say though, is that he is overlooking one possibility that at least speaks for my view on the situation - Baddiel sets out that Jews being targeted is considered lower priority than other groups for left wing people - but I wouldn't say that's the case for me. When I looked at that mural and saw the rich oligarchs who run the world, I didn't give a fuck about their race or ethnic markers. Not because antisemitism isn't as significant an issue for me as islamophobia or general racism, but because I don't think racism, sexism, bigotry and so on are anywhere near as important to tackle as global economic inequality and the sheer amount of power that puts in the hands of very few people. I can't speak for Corbyn, but I don't remember him spending a great deal of time on identity politics either - he's possibly in a boat not too dissimilar to mine. To someone who considers identity politics a sideshow and a distraction from what actually matters, that mural isn't going to look like much beyond an acknowledgement that super rich are the true enemy. And I can say that honestly, because that's completely how I saw it. I can see his point absolutely, and he might have Corbyn bang to rights - but for clarity, his explanation of why I (for instance) haven't recognised the antisemitic nature of that mural is off the mark. Truthfully, I do care about these issues - I just don't think any of the root problems that cause them can be solved without a complete overhaul of the system. And until we get that complete overhaul, anything else is a distraction. Maybe this view is a good example of white privilege tbf, that I can afford to take such a line because I'm not being immediately persecuted by these issues. I could accept that view absolutely. But even so, it doesn't really change how I see it. Really interesting to discuss this though, it's been enlightening even just in terms of helping me understand the wider context around both my views and those of others.

So I can see that, but then it's not a left wing thing there, it's a 'me' thing. That mural conformed to a view of the world that I hold and cognitive bias did the rest. I would argue that what I was particularly ignorant to, was that people with left wing views could be antisemitic - not that Jewish people are an identity that needed protecting.

Yes but again, not for the reasons you might be thinking. The issue I had with the mural was that I didn't recognise the people depicted in it as Jewish. I will concede to ignorance of some of the stereotypes there, as I think I did at the time - but I genuinely looked at it and saw 'the rich' and them alone. I can see how this was also a dog whistle, and on reflection I think Corbyn had probably been around the block enough to be wary of that point too (at least more than I was). But yeah, for me that mural was just about the rich divvying up the world and crushing the rest of us, which I recognised as something I fundamentally believe - so that was all I saw when I viewed it. I also recall, with respect of Corbyn, that he had made his comments on this mural a year or two beforehand, and that smaller press outlets had picked up on it then. It was 'interesting' that it was only an issue for the bigger ones now that they needed something to throw at him. Have to ask mind, do you think we clashed because I was sitting there saying Jewish people were actually running the world and this was some kind of accurate depiction of the state of play??

The book appears to argue that the progressive left has a tendency to ignore or overlook the identity of Jewish people and that as a consequence they are not afforded the same 'protections' of the left wing hierarchy of privilege/oppression. I suspect it says more than that but this was as much of the foreword as I was able to read from the preview. I think this point is fair enough and I have no issue with it - the examples cited are strong and I think I've seen enough to suggest that this is the case anyway. I'm not a progressive left winger though, I don't tend to put a lot of stock in intersectionality which is really the dynamic that he's taking issue with. I would also go so far as to say that the progressive left is more concerned with virtue signalling to specific demographics than it is with actually creating meaningful change. My concern is that you think I am a progressive left winger, and you think my thinking maps to theirs. It doesn't - I am left wing but that doesn't mean I've wholesale embraced progressivism, and I've spoken out frequently against identity politics in principle anyway. If however we're saying that this book will reveal to me some of the underlying facts or details of what was going on that I may not have previously been aware of, then that's another story - but I suppose we might be able to clear up a lot of this by you simply outlining to me what it is you think I need to see that is in this book, based on what you think my views are, if that makes sense.

I feel like the lone voice for my view in almost every political argument I'm involved with in here, which is a key reason I've stopped posting so much - so I completely understand that frustration. But as I said at the time, I do think we were broadly talking at cross purposes for the majority of our discussions around this point.

I recall arguing quite a bit that it was a witch hunt that would never have happened under a centrist leader because it wouldn't have been politically useful for it to have taken place - which I accept now is not an accurate vision of it, though I'm nowhere near being fully on the other side of it - and I recall arguing that the organisation that 'independently' reviewed and condemned Labour under Corbyn was also populated by Tories and racists. Which it is. If this had been a storm about black people, trans people, white people, whatever - I would have said the same things, based on the way in which the whole discussion was weaponised by Corbyn's political enemies and the wider context of pathetic attempts to remove him from power by those who are now doing such a good job of proving what electability looks like. Either way though, I never sought to argue that Jewish people simply didn't matter. They do matter, and this whole debacle must have been both galling and frustrating for them. I just feel like the issue only got the attention it did because of fear of actual change from the powers that be in the press and Labour - I still feel like that. That's how low my trust in the media and Labour's traditional establishment is. That's nothing to do with my perception of Jewish people and everything to do with putting this scenario into the context of everything that was happening around it.

Absolutely possible. I suppose if his primary goal for this year is indeed differentiating himself from Corbyn then he has indeed succeeded at that. If he picks up steam from that point on then it will represent a solid foundation, even.

A rather less than favourable analysis of Starmer's first year: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/29/keir-starmer-year-labour-poll-ratings There's a lot in there that I agree with, albeit you could still argue that we're in very exceptional times.