The British Politics Thread - The Bear and Badger

djchump

monkey wrote:

MattyJ wrote:

djchump wrote:

I thought there were all those chat logs showing that there very much was people within Labour who were working to throw the election by undermining Corbyn at every turn? Or did I remember that wrong?

You are correct

No one in Labour tried to throw the election. Blairite staff secretly redirected funding to seats they thought needed defending. ...

MattyJ and JonB say you're wrong about this.

https://www.google.com/search?q=labour+chat+logs+undermine

Ooof, it sounds even worse than I remembered: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leak-report-corbyn-election-whatsapp-antisemitism-tories-yougov-poll-a9462456.html

djchump

monkey wrote:

Yes the famously inclusive left-wing. Of course.

Is this in contrast to the FAMOUSLY inclusive right-wing?
As in, the kinds of people who murdered Jo Cox in the street? Those famously inclusive people who are so welcoming of immigrants?

monkey wrote:

It must be all those times I’ve been told to fuck off and join the Tories that gave me a different impression.

I don't really see what you getting told to fuck off by some people has anything to do with politics in the UK TBH.

monkey wrote:

I’m not trying to widen any rift, gaslight or bullshit. I think the left need to learn to compromise with the socially conservative country in which they live. This isn’t about the PLP.

The right keeps pushing right, and the left needs to "compromise" and keep getting dragged along with it? Nah. Fuck that.

Armitage_Shankburn

This isn't about policies, what's right for people or britain- it's about someone feeling like he belongs to a club, a faction,.feeling like a winner and wanting to rub it in. It's all about ego, that's all. Just don't engage.

Roujin

Imagine simping for social conservatism.

monkey

hunk wrote:

@monkey Regardless of your own personal leftist centre stance, can you acknowledge labour was infiltrated by the hard right and that it was one of the main reasons why Corbyn failed?

'Hard right' is not the correct term for Blairites. But they ran a lot of Labour HQ by the time Corbyn took over and for the first two years of him being in charge. 'Infiltrate' is not the correct term for openly joining a party when it has beliefs you agree with and rising through the ranks. The issue was their behaviour when it didn't. As for 'main reason', no. The PLP and Labour HQ undermining him did, well exactly that. It undermined him. Boris Johnson was undermined by his own party, resignations, sackings, then went on to win a landslide. It doesn't help obviously and I'm not defending the PLP or Labour HQ. But the idea that Labour would have won if not for some pesky centrists working behind the scenes is not an argument I'm convinced by.

monkey

djchump wrote:

monkey wrote:

MattyJ wrote:

djchump wrote:

I thought there were all those chat logs showing that there very much was people within Labour who were working to throw the election by undermining Corbyn at every turn? Or did I remember that wrong?

You are correct

No one in Labour tried to throw the election. Blairite staff secretly redirected funding to seats they thought needed defending. ...

MattyJ and JonB say you're wrong about this. https://www.google.com/search?q=labour+chat+logs+undermine Ooof, it sounds even worse than I remembered: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leak-report-corbyn-election-whatsapp-antisemitism-tories-yougov-poll-a9462456.html

The leaked report came from outgoing Corbynites. Labour HQ didn't see winning as a realistic outcome. They wanted him to lose so he would go. They didn't do anything concrete to make him lose. Losing but increasing the vote share was the worst of all worlds for them. I'm not here to defend them, but they didn't try and throw an election.

Diluted Dante

Hard left isn't the correct term for Corbyn and Momentum, but that didnt stop the cunts on the right using the term for them.

monkey

djchump wrote:

monkey wrote:

Yes the famously inclusive left-wing. Of course.

Is this in contrast to the FAMOUSLY inclusive right-wing? As in, the kinds of people who murdered Jo Cox in the street? Those famously inclusive people who are so welcoming of immigrants?

erm...what.

djchump wrote:

monkey wrote:

It must be all those times I’ve been told to fuck off and join the Tories that gave me a different impression.

I don't really see what you getting told to fuck off by some people has anything to do with politics in the UK TBH.

I am not the only person in the UK to express reservations about Corbynism and be told to fuck off and join a different party. It's so common that it's a meme that I thought would be understood. Apparently not.

djchump wrote:

monkey wrote:

I’m not trying to widen any rift, gaslight or bullshit. I think the left need to learn to compromise with the socially conservative country in which they live. This isn’t about the PLP.

The right keeps pushing right, and the left needs to "compromise" and keep getting dragged along with it? Nah. Fuck that.

Nope. You have to compromise with the electorate. Not the right.

Funkstain

I guess the reason I'm not getting anywhere with you on this discussion, Monkey, is because of a fundamental disagreement regarding how best to "deal" with a "socially conservative" electorate. This seems to be your main point: that to get into power, any Labour leadership needs to gain the trust and votes of a large section of the electorate who, regardless of economic ideology, are "socially conservative", in that they dislike wokeness, millennials, immigrants, foreigners, LGBT+ "ideology", and so on.

I get this argument, it is clear. My point is that I disagree, strongly, with it. On several grounds:

1) you'll consider this one naive I'm sure, but I don't believe the right thing to do is to betray basic principles like "let's indulge bigots and xenophobes and war hawks" to get into power

2) this one is more important, and harks back to Jon's and others' ideas of a narrative, a story. The dislikes I list above: where do they come from? the very idea of LGBT "ideology", what in the fuck is that? It's a story, a right-wing story. The "story" so far is that immigrants are bad, the EU is bad, the foreigners deserve bombs, terrorists (muslims) are a genuine threat to personal security and need proactively dealing with regardless of method, leftie activist lawyers undermining our sovereignty, etc etc etc. These stories are strong and clear. My view is that the best way to counter them is not just accept that x many vital voters believe them, inherently (insulting!), and that's that. My view is that the best way to counter them is come up with our own, compelling, truthful stories and do everything possible to amplify them.

Now, that second point is far harder than merely "compromising" with people who now believe the far-right (oh go on then, "socially conservative") narrative, and I think that Starmer is treading a well-worn path to power, and no doubt that feels like something worth celebrating (in the usual rather melancholy "well he's a big improvement on Johnson" way which I hate). But I'd rather we had opposition leaders who could tell their own story, and well, and convincingy, and begin to change the mood music of the country.

This is not about bashing Starmer unequivocally. Jon's right: he needs to stop the bickering and infighting, he needs to present a united opposition, he needs to be careful about criticising a government struggling against a pandemic and so on.

But I utterly reserve the right to call the shitbag out when he forces his PLP to abstain in votes like that, and when he sacks leftists in party for voting against it, and when he doesn't make even the slightest effort to present something that can start to create that alternative story in the country. Nothing!

So, so far, he's a 3/10 and only because I enjoy watching Johnson crumble at PMQs.

djchump

monkey wrote:

djchump wrote:

MattyJ and JonB say you're wrong about this. https://www.google.com/search?q=labour+chat+logs+undermine Ooof, it sounds even worse than I remembered: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leak-report-corbyn-election-whatsapp-antisemitism-tories-yougov-poll-a9462456.html

The leaked report came from outgoing Corbynites. Labour HQ didn't see winning as a realistic outcome. They wanted him to lose so he would go. They didn't do anything concrete to make him lose. Losing but increasing the vote share was the worst of all worlds for them. I'm not here to defend them, but they didn't try and throw an election.

Evidence in that Independent article says like you're wrong on this.

monkey

What bit is wrong and why?

acemuzzy

Do you agree that Labour insiders tried to decrease the vote share, monkey?

Armitage_Shankburn

People need to read "Left Out". It's very balanced, obviously, but I really do recommend it.

monkey

acemuzzy wrote:

Do you agree that Labour insiders tried to decrease the vote share, monkey?

Not as far as I know. I’m open to evidence. It’s ultimately beside the point because I’m not interested in defending the PLP or Labour HQ between 2015-2017. They’re all cunts but afaik there’s no evidence they tried to intentionally stop people voting for Labour.

Funkstain

So... the other point then about compromising with the electorate?

monkey

Funkstain wrote:

So... the other point then about compromising with the electorate?

Yeah sorry it’s a long post and I’m juggling about 5 different arguments here while trying to do all my irl bullshit. I’m just knocking back the quick ones. Will respond asap.

djchump

monkey wrote:

What bit is wrong and why?

Like, dur.

monkey wrote:

Do you agree that Labour insiders tried to decrease the vote share, monkey?

Not as far as I know. I’m open to evidence.

Read the article then.

monkey wrote:

It’s ultimately beside the point because I’m not interested in defending the PLP or Labour HQ between 2015-2017

Ah, a pre-emptive shifting of the goalposts.

monkey wrote:

They’re all cunts but afaik there’s no evidence they tried to intentionally stop people voting for Labour.

Oooh, if only there was some kind of convenient roundup of the evidence that you could quickly peruse to save yourself having to sift through 860 pages of chat logs?! Gosh, if only. But I guess that doesn't exist so now we'll never know if you actually have an open mind about this or not.

*cough*

RedDave2

Hey... that isnt a cough, thats a LINK!

Reading that article, it certainly looks like some where trying to sabotage Corbyn and I can only assume its because they didn't want what he was selling to the labour party (which isn't as unusual as it sounds in a big political party but its a bad look for the party overall) or actively trying to sabotage the party overall - regardless of whether it was full on left or leaned to the right. Either way, not a good look at all.

I do think Monkey has an overall point about compromise - politics works best with compromise as opposed to full blown us vs them. But regardless of Labour, the tory party have looked to have set itself as impossible to work with so you cant compromise with them. With the electorate, I think we have run into a similar problem. Politics feels so divisive (not just in the UK but the states) that there is no middle ground to get to. If the right swing too much to the right, as much as I wish it wasnt, I'm not sure you can compromise with that kind of voter base.

Funkstain

The point I'm making is that compromise should not be cover-all code word to accept the stories (immigration bad, etc) which have so influenced the voters which Labour apparently need.

There are several assumptions and generalisations in the argument which I'm trying to tease out so we can address them. I think generic, massively assumptive statements result in pointless arguments because you cannot argue against them in a nuanced way.

I mean, everyone knows that to win in politics you have to compromise. this is a pointless truism. the question is, to what extent, with whom, why, is there an alternative to compromise, etc etc.

Everyone knows the opposition needs more votes to win. this is a pointless truism. but it's going too far to equate those "more votes" as necessarily and wholly and uniquely coming from the "social conservative" population; it's too much of an assumption (without some kind of empirical back up more than "I reckons" and "voters rejected") that social conservatives are a) this massively important vital group of voters b) they cannot be compromised with without dropping all sorts of principles c) they cannot change their minds in any way

and so on. I can't argue with : labour need more votes and to get them they need to compromise with naturally socially conservative voters. I can argue with: all sorts of details and nuances surrounding and influencing these truisms!

monkey

Funkstain wrote:

I guess the reason I'm not getting anywhere with you on this discussion, Monkey, is because of a fundamental disagreement regarding how best to "deal" with a "socially conservative" electorate. This seems to be your main point: that to get into power, any Labour leadership needs to gain the trust and votes of a large section of the electorate who, regardless of economic ideology, are "socially conservative", in that they dislike wokeness, millennials, immigrants, foreigners, LGBT+ "ideology", and so on. I get this argument, it is clear. My point is that I disagree, strongly, with it. On several grounds: 1) you'll consider this one naive I'm sure, but I don't believe the right thing to do is to betray basic principles like "let's indulge bigots and xenophobes and war hawks" to get into power

I agree but 'indulge' is not what's going on though. It's a strategic attempt to avoid getting into a fight that, at this point, under these circumstances, can't be won and shouldn't be had.

2) this one is more important, and harks back to Jon's and others' ideas of a narrative, a story. The dislikes I list above: where do they come from? the very idea of LGBT "ideology", what in the fuck is that? It's a story, a right-wing story. The "story" so far is that immigrants are bad, the EU is bad, the foreigners deserve bombs, terrorists (muslims) are a genuine threat to personal security and need proactively dealing with regardless of method, leftie activist lawyers undermining our sovereignty, etc etc etc. These stories are strong and clear. My view is that the best way to counter them is not just accept that x many vital voters believe them, inherently (insulting!), and that's that. My view is that the best way to counter them is come up with our own, compelling, truthful stories and do everything possible to amplify them. Now, that second point is far harder than merely "compromising" with people who now believe the far-right (oh go on then, "socially conservative") narrative, and I think that Starmer is treading a well-worn path to power, and no doubt that feels like something worth celebrating (in the usual rather melancholy "well he's a big improvement on Johnson" way which I hate). But I'd rather we had opposition leaders who could tell their own story, and well, and convincingy, and begin to change the mood music of the country. This is not about bashing Starmer unequivocally. Jon's right: he needs to stop the bickering and infighting, he needs to present a united opposition, he needs to be careful about criticising a government struggling against a pandemic and so on. But I utterly reserve the right to call the shitbag out when he forces his PLP to abstain in votes like that, and when he sacks leftists in party for voting against it, and when he doesn't make even the slightest effort to present something that can start to create that alternative story in the country. Nothing! So, so far, he's a 3/10 and only because I enjoy watching Johnson crumble at PMQs.

That can't happen here. There's no situation where Starmer gets the opportunity to tell a story about the misuse of torture, more humane foreign policies. He gets ten seconds to put his point of view across on the news. Then it's a load of reporters summarising what he thinks. What's he going to do? Give a speech? Now? When people are losing their jobs and dying? And he's on about stopping torture at a speech that is then condensed into ten seconds. Pick your battles.

Funkstain wrote:

The point I'm making is that compromise should not be cover-all code word to accept the stories (immigration bad, etc) which have so influenced the voters which Labour apparently need. There are several assumptions and generalisations in the argument which I'm trying to tease out so we can address them. I think generic, massively assumptive statements result in pointless arguments because you cannot argue against them in a nuanced way. I mean, everyone knows that to win in politics you have to compromise. this is a pointless truism. the question is, to what extent, with whom, why, is there an alternative to compromise, etc etc.

It's only a truism if people agree with it. I think you're the first person that does. And it's difficult to dive into the detail of something if people don't even accept the initial proposition.
You're equalling social conservatism with the far-right there which is a bad look. These are normal people, nothing to do with intelligence, nothing nasty about them. But if there's any trade-off on their safety v the rights of eg terrorists, they would not choose the same things as you. Again, there's a conversation there about whether that is the trade off. But again, you've got ten seconds to make your point before everyone else piles in and drowns you out.

Funkstain wrote:

Everyone knows the opposition needs more votes to win. this is a pointless truism. but it's going too far to equate those "more votes" as necessarily and wholly and uniquely coming from the "social conservative" population; it's too much of an assumption (without some kind of empirical back up more than "I reckons" and "voters rejected") that social conservatives are a) this massively important vital group of voters b) they cannot be compromised with without dropping all sorts of principles c) they cannot change their minds in any way and so on. I can't argue with : labour need more votes and to get them they need to compromise with naturally socially conservative voters. I can argue with: all sorts of details and nuances surrounding and influencing these truisms!

a) They are massively important in that they are needed to win an election.
Here's a good link on that.
b) Working class voters and social conservatives have compromised by voting for a selection of people that didn't represent them. Blair, Cameron, Johnson. Uneasy alliances with the parties they led / lead and the voters that voted for them.
c) They can change their minds. This isn't about intelligence, or stubborness. It's about the values that they hold. People can change their minds but what's the mechanism? You have ten seconds to provide an answer.

monkey

djchump wrote:

What bit is wrong and why?

Like, dur.

Do you agree that Labour insiders tried to decrease the vote share, monkey?

Not as far as I know. I’m open to evidence.

Read the article then.

It’s ultimately beside the point because I’m not interested in defending the PLP or Labour HQ between 2015-2017

Ah, a pre-emptive shifting of the goalposts.

They’re all cunts but afaik there’s no evidence they tried to intentionally stop people voting for Labour.

Oooh, if only there was some kind of convenient roundup of the evidence that you could quickly peruse to save yourself having to sift through 860 pages of chat logs?! Gosh, if only. But I guess that doesn't exist so now we'll never know if you actually have an open mind about this or not. *cough*

This link contains a lot of private whingeing from disgruntled Blairites. From a report made by outgoing disgruntled Corbynites. That doesn't include any of their own private communications. I've read it twice now and haven't seen anything to support the claim that anyone in Labour tried to throw the 2017 general election. If there's something specific I've missed, then quote it. Now I've read your link, you can read mine.

Brooks

Social conservatism basically is pretty fucking nasty though, historically speaking. It's not as glamourous as full blown jackbooted blackshirts, but that starts somewhere - a hostility to disruption of hierarchy and anything one can't immediately understand. These are not instincts worth preserving by affording these instincts some kind of dignity.

davyK

Funkstain wrote:

2) this one is more important, and harks back to Jon's and others' ideas of a narrative, a story. The dislikes I list above: where do they come from? the very idea of LGBT "ideology", what in the fuck is that? It's a story, a right-wing story. The "story" so far is that immigrants are bad, the EU is bad, the foreigners deserve bombs, terrorists (muslims) are a genuine threat to personal security and need proactively dealing with regardless of method, leftie activist lawyers undermining our sovereignty, etc etc etc. These stories are strong and clear. My view is that the best way to counter them is not just accept that x many vital voters believe them, inherently (insulting!), and that's that. My view is that the best way to counter them is come up with our own, compelling, truthful stories and do everything possible to amplify them.

The absence of such counters is at the root of a great many of our problems. The stories that are prevalent appeal to emotions and are part of a cycle of re-enforcement. You are pushing uphill trying to counter them. There simply hasn't been enough talent and resource applied to the problem - party infighting has soaked all that up.

Diluted Dante

But if there's any trade-off on their safety v the rights of eg terrorists

There isn't.

monkey

Diluted Dante wrote:

But if there's any trade-off on their safety v the rights of eg terrorists

There isn't.

That’s covered in the next two sentences of the original post.

hunk

monkey wrote:

@monkey Regardless of your own personal leftist centre stance, can you acknowledge labour was infiltrated by the hard right and that it was one of the main reasons why Corbyn failed?

'Hard right' is not the correct term for Blairites. But they ran a lot of Labour HQ by the time Corbyn took over and for the first two years of him being in charge. 'Infiltrate' is not the correct term for openly joining a party when it has beliefs you agree with and rising through the ranks. The issue was their behaviour when it didn't. As for 'main reason', no. The PLP and Labour HQ undermining him did, well exactly that. It undermined him. Boris Johnson was undermined by his own party, resignations, sackings, then went on to win a landslide. It doesn't help obviously and I'm not defending the PLP or Labour HQ. But the idea that Labour would have won if not for some pesky centrists working behind the scenes is not an argument I'm convinced by.

I guess I'm a bit more cynical than you are.
It's quite obvious Labor is consumed by inner strife which led to Corbyn's downfall. Concessions to the centre/right should be made after you're voted into power not before hand. Even if you win the election you'll never ever get legislation/policy though if you play your hand like that, submitting early on. It's a weak strategy, hence the decline of the left.

But then again, the strife is about party identity and where you stand on the political spectrum. If the party and MP's can't reach a concensus on that, there's no hope of unision and thus winning an election. Ever.

Best for the 'centrist' faction to split off and go their seperate ways? Imho, etc.

Armitage_Shankburn

Here we go - weirdo's first question to Starmer - have you costed the impact on the economy of a circuit breaker lockdown?

Did he ask that question of BoJo back in the day?

Did he ask it yesterday?

Compromise. Settle for less. Don't ask for more. Just be the same but nicer. Go "awwww!" When people lose jobs or die. But don't propose to do anything. Then when the election comes, you'll be a spendthrift socialist anyway. Oh the joy.

poprock

Well, fuck.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/12/mps-reject-calls-by-campaigners-to-enshrine-food-safety-in-uk-law

hunk

No worries, it's what the people want!

Brooks

Tories pissing off farmers is an interesting development.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories