The British Politics Thread - The Bear and Badger

davyK

I'd rather they just broke the law instead trying this type of move.

JonB

monkey wrote:

But in general, Labour have to be more savvy and can't just denounce everything on sight. It's just used against them. Why should Starmer be objecting to this 'with all his force?'. What good will that do? The bill will pass regardless. The more attention Starmer draws to it, the more the Tories can use it to drive a wedge between him and the Red Wall voters (who won't give a shit about this bill, and will wonder why Starmer is banging on about this instead of battering the government over Covid).

They can do that anyway. It's an abysmal strategy that attracts no one. The Tory/right-wing press narrative is that Labour don't support the troops etc, because they abstained. And now they can't properly object to it down the line either, because they never properly opposed it.

It's the same with everything at the moment. Starmer objects to something and it's easy to ask him why he supported it earlier, or didn't stand against it. Today he was asking for more Covid measures. The other week he was telling the govt to send kids back to school or else.

In order to not offend anyone, he seems willing to ensure he has no leg to stand on when election time comes. It's moronic and he'll be left hoping the Tories have fucked things as badly as Trump to stand a chance.

Funkstain

Don’t worry Jon. It’s all about getting into power, see? Being electable and all that. Then when there: wham! Progressive policies across the board! Can’t do anything if you’re not in power first, right? And there’s so much history of centrists suddenly turning left once in power to draw upon, to give us hope for *checks notes* incremental improvements for *peers closely* specific and narrow elements of society *sighs, rips up notes* the voting middle class liberals

monkey

JonB wrote:

monkey wrote:

But in general, Labour have to be more savvy and can't just denounce everything on sight. It's just used against them. Why should Starmer be objecting to this 'with all his force?'. What good will that do? The bill will pass regardless. The more attention Starmer draws to it, the more the Tories can use it to drive a wedge between him and the Red Wall voters (who won't give a shit about this bill, and will wonder why Starmer is banging on about this instead of battering the government over Covid).

They can do that anyway. It's an abysmal strategy that attracts no one. The Tory/right-wing press narrative is that Labour don't support the troops etc, because they abstained. And now they can't properly object to it down the line either, because they never properly opposed it. It's the same with everything at the moment. Starmer objects to something and it's easy to ask him why he supported it earlier, or didn't stand against it. Today he was asking for more Covid measures. The other week he was telling the govt to send kids back to school or else. In order to not offend anyone, he seems willing to ensure he has no leg to stand on when election time comes. It's moronic and he'll be left hoping the Tories have fucked things as badly as Trump to stand a chance.

You should look at some opinion polls. Again, this is all premature.
There's no contradiction between tighter Covid restrictions and keeping the schools open btw.

JonB

I should look at opinion polls and this is premature?

The opinion polls aren't great anyway. Slightly behind again on the latest. Given the disaster of government this year, it's not good.

There is a contradiction on demanding schools reopen no if no buts no mention of safety measures, then complaining that the govt doesn't have enough safety measures.

Of course you ignore everything else.

mistercrayon

I think starmer was setting a trap for the government. It was a pretty dirty trap though because it put pressure on getting kids and staff in school.

The trap was that he knew that Johnson would fuck it up but the challenge was to make sure the schools were open with the same gusto and infrastructure that allowed new hospitals and furlough to be introduced.

monkey

JonB wrote:

I should look at opinion polls and this is premature? The opinion polls aren't great anyway. Slightly behind again on the latest. Given the disaster of government this year, it's not good. There is a contradiction on demanding schools reopen no if no buts no mention of safety measures, then complaining that the govt doesn't have enough safety measures. Of course you ignore everything else.

Sorry, slight misunderstanding here. The talk about them having 'never properly opposed it' is premature, because they probably will still end up opposing it, or at least they might. Which is why I didn't respond to it. If they abstain at a third reading it will be a moral failure.

Diabolical Tory governance didn't help Corbyn's personal approval ratings. And if people think Starmer's as in line with Tories as you say, why do they see him differently?

Boris Johnson uses the same attack on Keir Starmer's view on schools as you are. He's said he wants schools to be open if they're safe. Johnson intentionally misreads that into being not sure what he wants and flip-flopping. He wants safe schools. That isn't two things. I haven't seen him say anything like 'no ifs, no buts' but I might have missed it.

mistercrayon

He does say “no ifs no buts” but depending on how you want to read that you can read it as doing so regardless of all safety concerns or that there will be no excuses if they can’t open schools because the government has failed to get on top of the challenge. Ie there has been time to get safe schools happening if the government was on it.

The dirty trick is that it can easily go badly wrong.

Diluted Dante

Probably because it was in an article he wrote in The Mail.

So, let me send a very clear message to the Prime Minister: I don’t just want all children back at school next month, I expect them back at school. No ifs, no buts, no equivocation. Let me be equally clear: it is the Prime Minister’s responsibility to guarantee children get the education they need and the benefit of being back with their teachers and classmates.

monkey

mistercrayon wrote:

He does say “no ifs no buts” but depending on how you want to read that you can read it as doing so regardless of all safety concerns or that there will be no excuses if they can’t open schools because the government has failed to get on top of the challenge. Ie there has been time to get safe schools happening if the government was on it. The dirty trick is that it can easily go badly wrong.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I think it's the second one. The preceding paragraphs are clearly talking about the Government having enough time to get a plan in place. Making them safe by that date should be "no ifs or buts". He doesn't want them sent into Covid incubators.

It was obvious the day schools were shut in March what the problems would be and what the solutions needed to be. The Government needed a plan and the Prime Minister needed to take responsibility to make sure that plan was implemented.
We built the Nightingale hospitals to protect the NHS. We introduced the furlough scheme to protect jobs. We needed to see the same grit and determination to protect our children’s education.
Instead, Boris Johnson wasted months flailing around blaming everybody else and refusing to take any responsibility or show any leadership. His priorities were wrong, too.
He set up a ‘task force’ for the reopening of bowling alleys but refused my offer to do the same for schools. He set a deadline for reopening the economy but ditched his commitment to get classrooms back open before the summer.
We cannot afford to see the same mistakes being made over and over again.
Children, young people and families must be a national priority with the leadership to match. Every day children are missing out on their education is a tragedy. It has a devastating impact on their wellbeing and life chances, as well as putting a huge strain on families who are forced to juggle childcare and work commitments.
So, let me send a very clear message to the Prime Minister: I don’t just want all children back at school next month, I expect them back at school. No ifs, no buts, no equivocation. Let me be equally clear: it is the Prime Minister’s responsibility to guarantee children get the education they need and the benefit of being back with their teachers and classmates.

JonB

monkey wrote:

Sorry, slight misunderstanding here. The talk about them having 'never properly opposed it' is premature, because they probably will still end up opposing it, or at least they might. Which is why I didn't respond to it. If they abstain at a third reading it will be a moral failure.

Too late to claim any moral high ground, I think. If you're against something morally, you oppose it from the start. And what of the MPs who lost their shadow cabinet jobs for voting against? Sacked for being too moral? Doesn't look good.

monkey wrote:

Diabolical Tory governance didn't help Corbyn's personal approval ratings. And if people think Starmer's as in line with Tories as you say, why do they see him differently?

Supposedly the only reason Labour weren't 20 points ahead for the last 5 years was Corbyn. Now Starmer's picked up a few points off the Lib Dems, to return to a position Labour were in some months before the election. The Tories have stayed pretty stable. I'm not sure why it should fill anyone with confidence.

monkey wrote:

Boris Johnson uses the same attack on Keir Starmer's view on schools as you are. He's said he wants schools to be open if they're safe. Johnson intentionally misreads that into being not sure what he wants and flip-flopping. He wants safe schools. That isn't two things. I haven't seen him say anything like 'no ifs, no buts' but I might have missed it.

It's an easy attack line because it's so vague and inconsistent. He keeps supporting the government, then occasionally making demands for this or that, and it comes across as nothing. There'll be a point where he has to present an alternative, and it'll be too easy to ask, so why did you support the govt on that then?

I mean, maybe it'll be a winning tactic, even though this kind of politics has a terrible recent track record. But then if it wins, what's it for?

mistercrayon

You’re looking at it the wrong way imo and also prematurely. We don’t know what “Kier Starmer Britain” looks like because it hasn’t been presented yet. And we don’t know if that is an appealing thing to Britain (whatever that means then).

I know Blair is a villain but I think for at least a little bit people had thought he’d found the magic formula that got people better schools, hospitals and lower social tension by leveraging the seemingly infinite money pot of the big finance. Yeah it went wrong off the rails and a wiser person might have seen the problems (although I would suggest that finding that wiser person and them not being seen as a complete crank was tricky - consider the film the big short only exists because there were a few marginal people who saw the gap).

I know it’s easy to say now that Blair could have won with any old crap but i think the 1992 election showed that you can’t take boredom for granted.

JonB

Boredom is a luxury that many people can't afford. A clear alternative is required, and something even Blair could offer when he first won. Now Starmer's offering a watered down version of a dead politics.

LarryDavid

Blair initially had some kind of bizarre charisma to sell his vision, Keith’s a non-entity, he’s like if the Company from the Alien universe had designed a 2nd android model to deal with minor insurance claims and photocopying duties.

equinox_code

I can’t see myself ever voting for someone who isn’t making a stand against bills like this. It’s really the bare minimum

mistercrayon

JonB wrote:

Boredom is a luxury that many people can't afford. A clear alternative is required, and something even Blair could offer when he first won. Now Starmer's offering a watered down version of a dead politics.

A clear alternative was offered to this though in December. Like basically exactly what many social democrats wanted and yet it wasn’t convincing enough to the majority of people in Britain (First past the post etc etc).

What success do you see in just offering the same again? Hoping people will be bored of the conservatives enough to give the other guy a go?

In a democracy the people choose what they want. I think at this moment we have a pretty decent idea of what they want so it seems buttheaded to expect them to completely change, let alone have a politician able to change the minds of people when people are constantly being influenced by millions of other things in their normal life.

Maybe fallout of corona and brexit will make people focus on what they want and create the change in mindset but while things remain broadly the same I think it makes no sense to offer corbyn 2.0 so soon after corbyn 1.0.

JonB

I think the basics at this stage are to try and unite a divided party and actually oppose the fuck-up government, suggesting ways you could handle the situation better.

You also need a longer term social vision containing concrete promises that will improve people's lives (I don't think Corbyn quite managed that either, but was on the right track). The more the government fails, the more alternatives can appeal, and in the end there's no point becoming the thing people voted for last time - that's already covered - you have to move them to you a little. You have to offer them something to move to.

Honestly I don't think the Labour Party has the wherewithal to achieve this at the moment. It's deeply divided and doesn't have a plan. But even with that in mind, Starmer is doing a poor job.

RedDave2

From an outside view in, I think Brexit had a bigger effect on the election than any specific policy from Tory or Labour. Thats what it was about. It would be interesting if Corbyns run came after Brexit is was settled. I think there was a lot made of Labours flip-flopping (or perceived) on the issue of brexit. If it was a straight up Policy vs Policy, it might have been quite different.

mistercrayon

Yeah brexit was the key I think. I heard a view (that makes sense to me) that it wasn’t even brexit per se that was the problem to an extent but that the Labour Party was going to commit some kind of democratic robbery in some elitist scam.

AndCallMeCharlie

Kier being boring is a good thing for the purpose of removing Johnson, when a public chooses a leader it’s like selecting a boyfriend / girlfriend - prioritising the opposite qualities from the predecessor.

GooberTheHat

LarryDavid wrote:

Blair initially had some kind of bizarre charisma to sell his vision, Keith’s a non-entity, he’s like if the Company from the Alien universe had designed a 2nd android model to deal with minor insurance claims and photocopying duties.

Coldplay are one of the best selling bands ever. Brits like boring/vanilla/beige.

JonB

People tend to go for narratives. It's not about specific policies so much as how they're laid out as part of a story - what's going wrong, what's causing it, how it's fixed. Thatcher, Blair and now Johnson/Farage & co. have done this better than others in my lifetime and have had the biggest success (nothing to do with being boring).

If you don't have a clear narrative then the dominant one continues to set the terms of discussion. Right now the narrative is dangerous and divisive and needs to be challenged by an alternative. But Labour aren't doing that - they're acting as though the Tory narrative is basically fine, it's just not being well executed, which will only cement it further.

GooberTheHat

Or are they keeping their powder dry until it will actually make a difference? I'm not saying they are, or that they are right to do so, but they might be making that calculation.

Brooks

Corbs had a great story, unfortunately the entities in charge of relaying it were the British media, who it absolutely threatened. If you're going for reform and you don't show up with your own robust soundsystem you are demonstrably bummed.

LarryDavid

GooberTheHat wrote:

Coldplay are one of the best selling bands ever. Brits like boring/vanilla/beige.

It doesn't mean you should aspire to it.

Keith is non-threatening to the press, the City and big business, hence he gets a fair hearing. These people have had us over a barrel for decades, it's one of the reasons we can't even get a decent opposition, let alone a decent government.

But in the longterm it's damaging playing their game, the right move the goalposts further and further and people like Starmer (and the rest of the PLP, don't want to single out just one man) actively obstruct anything vaguely leftwing to act as a counterbalance. And for what? The hope that if they bend over backwards sufficiently it might be enough to get themselves a solitary positive editorial in a right-wing newspaper?

I don't mean to have a go at people in here, or appear needlessly argumentative, it's just frustrating. I don't have the answer either, apart from the long drawn out process of building up a functioning new, wider left and associated supportive structure virtually from the ground up.

I can see why Starmer does what he does, electorally it's sensible. But it's a short-term measure, and one that won't even begin to make the changes required. IMO, etc.

JonB

GooberTheHat wrote:

Or are they keeping their powder dry until it will actually make a difference? I'm not saying they are, or that they are right to do so, but they might be making that calculation.

They probably are. But a narrative isn't something you can suddenly present, it's something that soaks in over years. The anti-EU narrative didn't take hold overnight.

There's a danger that Labour will win effectively with a mandate to continue what that Tories are doing, just with more efficiency. The argument always seems to be that first they get in power and then they can start doing good things, but I can't recall an example where someone's conceded political ground to win and not just continued further down the same path.

monkey

You can't concede something then get it back. That's true and it shouldn't be expected. But all leaders will have to concede stuff. Even someone handed everything in life like Cameron still had to give up his social liberalness when he had the Mail and Telegraph to answer to. He was pro drug legalisation, for instance. Pro-environment. He wasn't allowed to take any of that with him because the Tory electoral coalition wouldn't have it. He probably spent a few days pretending he had a soul to search, then made the tough choice to throw his principles away so he could have the prestige of being PM and get stuck in to all those nice juicy tax cuts.

It seems to me that there's a denial that you (‘the Left’ in general) have to compromise at all. About anything. Your policies are all apparently spot on and anything that departs from that is a sell out. In order for you to get any power, and to stop the absolute worst people having it, you'll need to compromise. Not with some media-fuelled, increasingly right-wing agenda that only seeks compromise to nullify opposition. That does exist but it's not what I'm on about. The left need to compromise with the working class just to find the numbers to get into power at any time.

Those voters don't have your foreign policy or national security interests. On that, if anything, they're right-wing. Not because they've been misinformed by a corporate media system. They genuinely want something else. They'd prefer the security services err on the side of blowing a terrorist's head off. These are the people who you have to find common ground with. The Labour party is the vehicle for that coalition. You don't seem to appreciate that the leader has to try and bridge both groups. Not give you everything you want all the time. You've had that for 4 years and it didn't work out very well.

Economically they're more flexible. Sceptical of big ideas and spending loads of money on big, transformative projects but will give it a fair shake. What would discredit any plans on that front is if that's always the answer. If you're not seen as 'responsible' or 'can't be trusted' on spending, then all your projects start to look like ideological fantasies. Brown ramped up public spending and investment only after promising to follow three years of Tory spending plans, earning trust.

So that coalition can get stuff done economically but only if you concede on foreign policy. You'll never get a government that is left-wing on national security. Ever. Give it up. Not without major global change that is beyond the scope of the job of leader of the Labour party. You might get one that is more ethical (or less unethical) than the one at present and can turn things around in the economy. But only if you're willing to do the hard thing and compromise. None of you kicking off in this thread seem willing to.

Roujin

How the fucking fuck this walking bloated corpse of a human can stand up in parliament, say there are more people in hospital with Covid now, than when we entered lockdown, but that we shouldn't do another lockdown is fucking beyond me.

The interim measures didn't work you stupid fucking fucks, only the lockdown actually reduced numbers properly. As soon as the restrictions were eased, cases started creeping up, as soon as schools went back it went through the roof.

Roujin

It's not our fault that the virus won't play nicely with capitalism or our massively underfunded public services, but here we are.

Gee whizz if only more housing was state owned so you give them proper rental and mortgage breaks, if only public services weren't slashed to the bone so people could be supported instead of getting those at the top tax breaks, etc etc.

poprock

OMG. Who could predict that capitalism might be incompatible with global emergencies? OH NOES.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories