Politics

[Rayvin 4948]

Just now, Renton said:

 

About their powers of perception or true motives. 

 

Ok so, people who voted for Corbyn are stupid or secretly Tories.

 

We've come full circle.

[Meenzer 13924]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

I think she'll be shot with shit from the get go, the LDs will opine that they could work with Labour if not for Nandy, they'll find something in her past that equates her with Stalin ideologically, and will brand her reckless and a danger to the country's finances.
 

 

Considering how there's no centre in this country any more, they sure seem good at ruining things for Labour

[Rayvin 4948]

1 minute ago, Meenzer said:

 

Considering how there's no centre in this country any more, they sure seem good at ruining things for Labour

 

What in that post had anything to do with centrism.

 

There's no popular support for the centre in this country anymore, but plenty of centrist politicians. As you well know?

[Meenzer 13924]

So the centre is massively influential even though nobody wants it. Cool.

[Renton 17534]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

Ok so, people who voted for Corbyn are stupid or secretly Tories.

 

We've come full circle.

 

No, not true Tories (really, you got that from what I said?), socialist ideologues who don't accept compromise. I've thought for years now idealism in any guise is a huge problem, and it is going to be the death of the labour party. I'd call this collective stupidity personally. 

[Rayvin 4948]

Just now, Meenzer said:

So the centre is massively influential even though nobody wants it.

 

Can you please explain what the centre, at this point, has to do with Lisa Nandy?

 

I'm stupid and/or a Tory remember, I need things spelled out.

[Renton 17534]

Just now, Meenzer said:

So the centre is massively influential even though nobody wants it.

I want it. And I think most people do. There no credible option to vote for though. 

[Meenzer 13924]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

Can you please explain what the centre, at this point, has to do with Lisa Nandy?

 

You literally just said that the centre will ensure that Nandy can't succeed.

[Renton 17534]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

Can you please explain what the centre, at this point, has to do with Lisa Nandy?

 

I'm stupid and/or a Tory remember, I need things spelled out.

 

You're definitely proving the former today. 

[Rayvin 4948]

Just now, Renton said:

 

No, not true Tories (really, you got that from what I said?), socialist ideologues who don't accept compromise. I've thought for years now idealism in any guise is a huge problem, and it is going to be the death of the labour party. I'd call this collective stupidity personally. 

 

Yes, I got that from what you said. What other ulterior motives could one have? It can't be socialism, since most socialists will make those views visible quite readily.

 

I'm accepting compromise - I'll compromise to the point of Starmer, as long as he's backing socialist policies - on the basis that he fits a number of the irrelevant check boxes that don't matter to me because I'm stupid, but which do matter to the super intelligent. Like being ok with nuking people, loving the queen, and accepting that sometimes, baseless opinions are as valuable as facts.

[Rayvin 4948]

2 minutes ago, Meenzer said:

 

You literally just said that the centre will ensure that Nandy can't succeed.

 

10 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I think she'll be shot with shit from the get go, the LDs will opine that they could work with Labour if not for Nandy, they'll find something in her past that equates her with Stalin ideologically, and will brand her reckless and a danger to the country's finances.

 

And then we'll lose again and rinse and repeat.

 

Find me the word 'centre' in my post. Unless, you're saying that everything I've written there is indeed what the centrists do when they fear someone on the left. In which case I applaud you for coming forward with such a bold view, but I don't think it'll be popular on here.

[Holden McGroin 4795]

17 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I think she'll be shot with shit from the get go, the LDs will opine that they could work with Labour if not for Nandy, they'll find something in her past that equates her with Stalin ideologically, and will brand her reckless and a danger to the country's finances.

 

And then we'll lose again and rinse and repeat.

 

More likely a sex vid

[Dr Gloom 19717]

18 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I think she'll be shot with shit from the get go, the LDs will opine that they could work with Labour if not for Nandy, they'll find something in her past that equates her with Stalin ideologically, and will brand her reckless and a danger to the country's finances.

 

And then we'll lose again and rinse and repeat.

She is quite different to Corbyn, so I don’t see that they necessarily reject her in the same way. 

She has talked honestly about the need to talk to socially conservative labour voters in places like her seat Wigan, who worry about how their communities are changing.

These are difficult discussions the next labour leader has to have. So far, I only hear Nandy talking about it.

Unlike you, I don’t think these voters are lost cause. If labour gives up on them, they will never govern again.

[Rayvin 4948]

1 minute ago, Dr Gloom said:

She is quite different to Corbyn, so I don’t see that they necessarily reject her in the same way. 

She has talked honestly about the need to talk to socially conservative labour voters in places like her seat Wigan, who worry about how their communities are changing.

These are difficult discussions the next labour leader has to have. So far, I only hear Nandy talking about it.

Unlike you, I don’t think these voters are lost cause. If labour gives up on them, they will never govern again.

 

Three years ago I made this post on the guardian after Trump won:

 

Well indeed - but given this billionaire has just managed to persuade large tranches of the lower classes to vote for him, we have to look at why the left's message is not resonating with them. And honestly, I'm struggling to think that the left actually does have a message for these people. It has one for minorities, and for middle class women, but for working class white men and women? Hardly.

The left has failed to build a consensus and coalition based on economic stature, instead choosing to do so based on social and political factors. In doing so, it has left a great many people behind. The right has just manipulated the discourse to make it look like economic progress is something they can offer. The fact that they can't and won't is by the by for those who voted, as the left wasn't offering it either.

I think they've sent a message more than anything else - and while that message is coloured with racist language quite frequently (and deplorably), I suspect that these people could quite readily live in ethnically diverse communities (as they often do) were their anger being directed at the people ultimately responsible. Failure to harness and direct that anger, is the left's problem.

We need to build a coalition with these people again. Or we're fucked.

 

So I agree that we won't govern without them. But those people aren't coming back either way. I don't see how Labour can get them back while holding onto the millions of ideological young people who aren't going to have mortgages and stability which might have otherwise persuaded them to vote pragmatically.

[Meenzer 13924]

17 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

Find me the word 'centre' in my post.

 

 

I give up.

[Rayvin 4948]

Just now, Meenzer said:

 

 

 

Thought so

 

Don't worry about it, I understand  

[Meenzer 13924]

[Rayvin 4948]

I was primarily thinking of the Tory press, FYI. With the LDs sprinkled in for their consistent hypocrisy on the issue of working with Labour.

[Meenzer 13924]

Find me the words 'Tory press' in your post.

[ewerk 26118]

36 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I said that if we lose this, we were done for 15 years come what may. I stand by that. We can go over to the centre if you want but we're going to achieve fuck all on that front too.

 

If we're going to lose anyway, I'd prefer to lose without compromise. Die on my feet, as it were. So yes, I am that stupid apparently - although Starmer as spoken positively enough about socialism that I think Corbyn won the battle for the heart and soul of the party anyway, so I'm comfortable voting for him.

Fair dos, you are that stupid.

[Rayvin 4948]

Just now, Meenzer said:

Find me the words 'Tory press' in your post.

 

I don't need to, I know what I meant. You're the one who decided to make a big show of it being about centrism.

 

I don't recall the centrists doing much beyond talking about Corbyn being unelectable while citing what the Tory press thinks of him, incidentally. And I agree with your earlier point anyway - they don't have the power to be an effectual force for now so aren't a concern.

[Rayvin 4948]

1 minute ago, ewerk said:

Fair dos, you are that stupid.

 

Seems like it

 

I'll stick to forming opinion based on coherent arguments, you stick to name calling.

[Dr Gloom 19717]

5 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Three years ago I made this post on the guardian after Trump won:

 

Well indeed - but given this billionaire has just managed to persuade large tranches of the lower classes to vote for him, we have to look at why the left's message is not resonating with them. And honestly, I'm struggling to think that the left actually does have a message for these people. It has one for minorities, and for middle class women, but for working class white men and women? Hardly.

The left has failed to build a consensus and coalition based on economic stature, instead choosing to do so based on social and political factors. In doing so, it has left a great many people behind. The right has just manipulated the discourse to make it look like economic progress is something they can offer. The fact that they can't and won't is by the by for those who voted, as the left wasn't offering it either.

I think they've sent a message more than anything else - and while that message is coloured with racist language quite frequently (and deplorably), I suspect that these people could quite readily live in ethnically diverse communities (as they often do) were their anger being directed at the people ultimately responsible. Failure to harness and direct that anger, is the left's problem.

We need to build a coalition with these people again. Or we're fucked.

 

So I agree that we won't govern without them. But those people aren't coming back either way. I don't see how Labour can get them back while holding onto the millions of ideological young people who aren't going to have mortgages and stability which might have otherwise persuaded them to vote pragmatically.

the bigots like left wing economic policies - free stuff, a strong nhs, nationalised utilities etc. they didn't like the manhole-spotting, vegetarian pacifist delivering the message. and yes, they wanted to exit the EU. but let's not forget what brexit was all about - immigration, immigration, immigration. 

if the new labour leader delivers left wing economics combined with a stronger stance on things like crime, defence/security and immigration, we have a chance. 

 

[ewerk 26118]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

Seems like it

 

I'll stick to forming opinion based on coherent arguments, you stick to name calling.

You stick to banging on about centrism.

[ewerk 26118]

1 minute ago, Dr Gloom said:

the bigots like left wing economic policies - free stuff, a strong nhs, nationalised utilities etc. they didn't like the manhole-spotting, vegetarian pacifist delivering the message. and yes, they wanted to exit the EU. but let's not forget what brexit was all about - immigration, immigration, immigration. 

if the new labour leader delivers left wing economics combined with a stronger stance on things like crime, defence/security and immigration, we have a chance. 

 

Anyone know if Jason Statham is a Labour party member?