Politics

[NJS 3977]

What you call the hard left is pretty much democratic socialism elsewhere - certainly in terms of the 2019 manifesto though I'd agree that didn't go as far as some wanted.

 

I'd call Blair and where Starmer probably wants to be mildly centre right - I sill remember 2005 when the Lib manifesto was a lot more "socialist" than labour's and so far Starmer and Reeves have suggested nothing that isn't "old style" Tory policy.

[Rayvin 4964]

6 minutes ago, NJS said:

What you call the hard left is pretty much democratic socialism elsewhere - certainly in terms of the 2019 manifesto though I'd agree that didn't go as far as some wanted.

 

I'd call Blair and where Starmer probably wants to be mildly centre right - I sill remember 2005 when the Lib manifesto was a lot more "socialist" than labour's and so far Starmer and Reeves have suggested nothing that isn't "old style" Tory policy.

 

Honestly I broadly agree but we are never going to win. We've been defeated utterly and there's just no point in trying to fight the big battles anymore. Best we can do is hope to win a policy here or there.

[Renton 17744]

1 minute ago, NJS said:

What you call the hard left is pretty much democratic socialism elsewhere - certainly in terms of the 2019 manifesto though I'd agree that didn't go as far as some wanted.

 

I'd call Blair and where Starmer probably wants to be mildly centre right - I sill remember 2005 when the Lib manifesto was a lot more "socialist" than labour's and so far Starmer and Reeves have suggested nothing that isn't "old style" Tory policy.

 

Honestly, I'm not that interested in the labels as such because its all relative and subjective. To me it's quite simple. Those who want to seize power and introduce incremental changes for the good, and those who want to remain ideologically pure and aren't really interested in power at all. Which group does most good and which does most harm? 

[Rayvin 4964]

2 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Honestly, I'm not that interested in the labels as such because its all relative and subjective. To me it's quite simple. Those who want to seize power and introduce incremental changes for the good, and those who want to remain ideologically pure and aren't really interested in power at all. Which group does most good and which does most harm? 

 

I think Labour under Corbyn really did try for power, mind. I also don't think there's a black and white view of this, the centrists in Labour have done plenty of harm to your espoused objective themselves. No one in Labour came out of the Corbyn fiasco looking good, there was plenty of shit to go around.

[Renton 17744]

10 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I think Labour under Corbyn really did try for power, mind. I also don't think there's a black and white view of this, the centrists in Labour have done plenty of harm to your espoused objective themselves. No one in Labour came out of the Corbyn fiasco looking good, there was plenty of shit to go around.

 

I don't agree that the centrists have harmed my objectives - to improve the country and make it fairer - at all. Perhaps you could give me an example (I might agree with you on foreign policy tbf, but I'm talking domestically). If you mean the centrists were a block to Corbyn getting elected, then I disagree. He was utterly unelectable, full stop.  

[Kid Dynamite 5902]

1 hour ago, Renton said:

 

 

It's got swathes of the electorate convinced though. Literally suitcases of booze wheeled into 10 Downing Street by the party that wrote the laws it was breaking, whilst the Queen was sat alone at her husbands funeral.

 

Whoever lied that Rayner wasn't present wants sacking though. That's given them the in they were looking for 

[Rayvin 4964]

56 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

I don't agree that the centrists have harmed my objectives - to improve the country and make it fairer - at all. Perhaps you could give me an example (I might agree with you on foreign policy tbf, but I'm talking domestically). If you mean the centrists were a block to Corbyn getting elected, then I disagree. He was utterly unelectable, full stop.  

 

They supported austerity and surrendered the narrative on Labour being economically competent in the process, thus setting us back what will likely be two decades of economic progress by telling the public that the party whose approach to the economy is slash and burn with a dose of corruption, actually had the right of it.

 

In so doing they actually created Corbyn's movement. That complete betrayal of not just their principles but also fucking reality is what gave his entire platform the impetus it needed.

[Rayvin 4964]

In fact, you could argue that they were the first ones to take an axe to all the good work they did under Blair. All because they didn't have the fucking stones to stand up and tell people the truth and felt the need to pander to fucking muppets. Which is, I note, where we are once again.

[Renton 17744]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

They supported austerity and surrendered the narrative on Labour being economically competent in the process, thus setting us back what will likely be two decades of economic progress by telling the public that the party whose approach to the economy is slash and burn with a dose of corruption, actually had the right of it.

 

That's a fair point. But they did that in opposition, nothing they could have done practically to stop austerity although I wholeheartedly agree they lost the narrative on this and it was a strategic blunder. This was under Ed Miliband though of course, generally considered to be fairly leftish. I think austerity would have been much diminished in power though, hence my repeated point, you have to be in power for any of this to matter. 

[Renton 17744]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

In fact, you could argue that they were the first ones to take an axe to all the good work they did under Blair. All because they didn't have the fucking stones to stand up and tell people the truth and felt the need to pander to fucking muppets. Which is, I note, where we are once again.

 

Wrong. After 2008 Brown went Keynesian if anything and the economy was in recovery before Cameron throttled it. 

[Gemmill 34413]

Well, Starmer has now pledged to resign if fined. 

[Renton 17744]

Starmer confirms he will resign if he's fined. This could still work out okay for him. 

[Rayvin 4964]

Just now, Renton said:

 

Wrong. After 2008 Brown went Keynesian if anything and the economy was in recovery before Cameron throttled it. 

 

I mean, we're talking about the fallout from Brown, the Milliband years and the eventual collapse of common decency within Labour that led to their shameful vote on, I believe, a welfare bill to 'keep up appearances on austerity'. That was them taking an axe to New Labour and that was when they needed a firm fucking shake. Which they got.

 

I am more than happy to agree that Corbyn was a disaster in hindsight but I'm not having this idea that centrist Labour didn't cause, stoke and deliver that issue themselves. They were a zombie party that believed in nothing and betrayed most of its principles as part of an existential crisis that it never recovered from as a result of compromising half the things it believed in just to win power.

 

In fact, the more I think about this the more concerned I am about where we are at present.

[Rayvin 4964]

6 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

Well, Starmer has now pledged to resign if fined. 

 

Good for him, nice to see some integrity if nothing else.

[Renton 17744]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

 

I mean, we're talking about the fallout from Brown, the Milliband years and the eventual collapse of common decency within Labour that led to their shameful vote on, I believe, a welfare bill to 'keep up appearances on austerity'. That was them taking an axe to New Labour and that was when they needed a firm fucking shake. Which they got.

 

I am more than happy to agree that Corbyn was a disaster in hindsight but I'm not having this idea that centrist Labour didn't cause, stoke and deliver that issue themselves. They were a zombie party that believed in nothing and betrayed most of its principles as part of an existential crisis that it never recovered from as a result of compromising half the things it believed in just to win power.

 

In fact, the more I think about this the more concerned I am about where we are at present.

 

A bit over-dramatic. They were a minority party that couldn't block any tory policies regardless. They didn't want to be tarred with the reckless spending stereotype. I think they abstained rather voted affirmatively though iirc. But I agree this was a massive tactical and strategic blunder and I can see why it would make many people extremely angry. Ed was always a poor choice of leader. Blame the unions again for that. 

[Renton 17744]

4 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Good for him, nice to see some integrity if nothing else.

 

A good strategic move more like. He won't resign if he's found to have broken the rules and not fined. And county Durham's constabulary's policy is not to give retrospective fines (see Dominic Cumming's much more egregious rule breaking). 

[NJS 3977]

Big bollocks from Starmer to be fair. 

[Rayvin 4964]

4 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

A bit over-dramatic. They were a minority party that couldn't block any tory policies regardless. They didn't want to be tarred with the reckless spending stereotype. I think they abstained rather voted affirmatively though iirc. But I agree this was a massive tactical and strategic blunder and I can see why it would make many people extremely angry. Ed was always a poor choice of leader. Blame the unions again for that. 

 

I blame the unions for a great deal, believe me.

 

To me this one isn't over dramatic. The collapse of resistance to austerity, that surrendering of the narrative could be blamed for everything from Corbyn through to Brexit, Johnson to the pandemic response. The idea that we needed to stop spending in order to recover is responsible for so fucking many issues in this country, in my opinion, that it is frankly up as an unforgiveable sin as far as I'm concerned.

[Gemmill 34413]

I don't think he had a choice tbh. But at least doing this gives him bacl the upper hand in the argument again, because no matter what Johnson chucks at him he can say "I'm going if I'm fined. You've been fined and yet there you stand. You cunt."

[Renton 17744]

5 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I blame the unions for a great deal, believe me.

 

To me this one isn't over dramatic. The collapse of resistance to austerity, that surrendering of the narrative could be blamed for everything from Corbyn through to Brexit, Johnson to the pandemic response. The idea that we needed to stop spending in order to recover is responsible for so fucking many issues in this country, in my opinion, that it is frankly up as an unforgiveable sin as far as I'm concerned.

 

Fair enough, I see your point. Tbh I can barely remember what happened under Cameron, too distracted by work and family at the time. Until 2016, then work and family just got in the way of politics.

 

 

Edited May 9, 2022 by Renton

[Rayvin 4964]

I noticed Grimes tweeted that he thought Starmer was a huge hypocrite but he didn't think this was a good use of Durham constabulary's time. They know they've fucked this one up IMO.

[Rayvin 4964]

1 minute ago, Renton said:

 

Fair enough, I see your point. Tbh I can barely remember what happened under Cameron, too distracted by work and family at the time. Until 2016, the work and family just got in the way of politics.

 

 

 

Tbf I was a little surprised I went off so hard on this bit, but I remember now just how fucking angry I was back then at what was happening, and how utterly voiceless and powerless I felt to do anything about it. For all I get worked up about Brexit, austerity will always be my original fucking gripe

[NJS 3977]

5 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

I blame the unions for a great deal, believe me.

 

To me this one isn't over dramatic. The collapse of resistance to austerity, that surrendering of the narrative could be blamed for everything from Corbyn through to Brexit, Johnson to the pandemic response. The idea that we needed to stop spending in order to recover is responsible for so fucking many issues in this country, in my opinion, that it is frankly up as an unforgiveable sin as far as I'm concerned.

I think David Milliband was a bit dismissive of the unions to be fair - not realising how much he needed them. 

 

I think the surrender on the crisis narrative is a joint Ed Milliband/Ed Balls failing. 

[Toonpack 6844]

3 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

I noticed Grimes tweeted that he thought Starmer was a huge hypocrite but he didn't think this was a good use of Durham constabulary's time. They know they've fucked this one up IMO.

 

If I saw that twat craftywank at the match or thereabouts, rest assured he'd have a trip and fall, preferably at the top of some steps.

[Rayvin 4964]

1 minute ago, Toonpack said:

 

If I saw that twat craftywank at the match or thereabouts, rest assured he'd have a trip and fall, preferably at the top of some steps.

 

You'd be doing the world a favour. Originally a Lib Dem until he realised he could make more money as a Tory iirc. He's the personification of the concept of 'loathsome'.