Oh, hi pop.

poprock wrote:

There’s an understandable panic reaction of ‘We lost! We have to change if we want to win!’ Thing is, it shouldn’t be about winning. It should be about believing in something and sticking to it. I want political parties who stand for different approaches so that I (and the whole electorate) can choose between them.

I dont fully disagree, but thats only ever likely to appease the party followers. Political Parties have to be appeal outside their fanbase to work and then they can bring the message to the masses.

Aiming to win isn't the same as just acting as the other guy. But it is about selling yourself to people who otherwise might not vote you in. Its a soft sell approach and it shouldn't be seen as selling out. You have to look at what the aim of the party is - if its only to ever be in opposition than fine, be as principled as you like. But if you want to effect change, you have to get in power.

I want to change this "received wisdom" or "common sense" that utterly enables progressivism's enemies to churn out cliched rubbish and have it enshrined as a killer argument.

That's how you get through to people - when they stop believing in stupid shit like needing magic money trees, or "how are you going to pay for this" without actually looking at the work that has gone into a policy, or "Labour left the country bankrupt and always will" (which is a second degree extension of the first degree of "common sense" bullshit)

And yes, what I'm saying here is that advocating for electioneering via centrism is the same as reinforcing these damning and false stereotypes, and simply makes them more powerful

Voter 1: "it would be nice to have nationalised trains, national broadband etc, but we can't afford it, it's a pipe dream, Labour are crazy, they will bankrupt us"

Centrist: "no wait - we'll just have a look at some extra regulations instead, we'll water everything down"

Tory: "remember all those crazy ideas? even they don't believe in it, it's all bollocks, they will kill the economy, can't be trusted with money"

Voter 1: "yeah see it's true what they say about Labour, they have no idea how to run a country"
Voter 2: "now they don't seem that different from Tories, I'm voting LibDem/Green/SNP/etc"

I mean the opposite is also true. You can’t expect people to want to rock the boat if things feel okay.

Funkstain wrote:

I want to change this "received wisdom" or "common sense" that utterly enables progressivism's enemies to churn out cliched rubbish and have it enshrined as a killer argument. That's how you get through to people - when they stop believing in stupid shit like needing magic money trees, or "how are you going to pay for this" without actually looking at the work that has gone into a policy, or "Labour left the country bankrupt and always will" (which is a second degree extension of the first degree of "common sense" bullshit) And yes, what I'm saying here is that advocating for electioneering via centrism is the same as reinforcing these damning and false stereotypes, and simply makes them more powerful

It isn't either or. If Labour had had any response to magic money tree objections about their enormous spending plans, they should have deployed it. But there was no decent defence given, so the framing is completely set by the tabloids and the Tories. And everything Corbyn did seemed to fit this narrative. Miliband and Brown both had this problem too. As Starmer said in his Guardian interview, Labour did a piss-poor job (my words) of fighting elections on austerity and welfare cuts, and took that as a repudiation of their policy and started the austerity-lite stuff that birthed Corbynism. They should have just found a better way of cutting through.

monkey wrote:

They should have just found a better way of cutting through.

that's pretty much what I'm saying

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

monkey wrote:

I have now joined Labour so I can vote for whoever sucks Tony Blair's dick the longest.

Monkey announces leadership bid

Spoiler:

badum-tish

#QueerForKeir

Gremill wrote:

mistercrayon wrote:

I mean the opposite is also true. You can’t expect people to want to rock the boat if things feel okay.

Can't you though? Things are fine for me, personally, but I wanted a government that works to take better care of those less fortunate than me.

You can take a loss though.

If you’re just about okay a wild feeling promise feels more gambly.

Funkstain wrote:

RedD: the issue in your argument is that you say we need "ideal" conditions to achieve progressive election wins. This is an assumption condition based on over simplification: what does it actually mean? What are these ideal conditions? If only some of them are ideal, is that enough? Is it merely an instinctive reaction - that too many voters will simply reject progressivism if falls outside "received wisdom / common sense" of how the world REALLY works? (aside: why do you think so many people hold on so dearly to this form of "common sense", when collectively they are wholly unqualified to determine sound economic policy?) More likely, you rhetorically use the word "ideal" to describe something that could never happen - and then link that to, well, anything you think is "unrealistic". This idea that the Labour Party, like Fine Gael, are somehow total political and economical ingenues, with no idea how the "real" world works (again, that really difficult emotive rhetorical word with no proper definition other than "if it sounds a bit too out of today's comfort zone, it must be crazy"). I'm more interested in concrete arguments - there's general acknowledgement that the manifesto was way too much, that the Labour leadership dealt poorly with antisemitism, that the Brexit position was too little far too late, that Corbyn is simply not a good politician; but linking that to the idea that a) progressive ideas can never get in without "ideal" conditions or b) you can lie / cheat your way in and then somehow volte-face into progressive policies BUT you know be aware of the "real world" is so unambitious, and more damningly I just don't see how it achieves real change, lasting or otherwise. Keeping things flatlined whilst waiting for the next Tory government to lower the line again

I dont know if I explained things badly or if you misunderstood me - but its not the policies that are the problem. Its the selling of them that matters. There is a need to compromise if you want to get to those policies. Nothing wrong with saying you want to nationalize something - but you have to realise that some of the population may not want that. So it might be a case of saying that you are going to go in with a broad plan where some, less objectionable agencies, are nationalized to show that the model works and then you would look to expand while you are in government. This way you are slowing showing people it will work. Now, you might say but that will take ages. Yes, but if you arent in government you cant do any of it so you do need to compromise.  And I'm not saying Labour need "ideal" conditions but I am saying they need to understand they are selling an idea. And not everyone is fully on board with the idea. My point with Fine Gael was that they had to adjust to suit. Not that they change tact. Its like a head strong Vegan trying to hard sell you a veggie diet as opposed to someone gradually showing you how versitile that diet can be and hey, maybe give it a go. One of the biggest problems I see in politics nowadays is that everyone has a side and the other side must be wrong. You need the compromise. Not everyone is the same. For all of the slamming of centerist politics, it's how it works. That's the problem with democracy. Everyone has their own view, and you have to accept that not everyone has your experience of it. And it doesnt always line up, even when there is common ground. Sure, some dont educate themselves in it, but for many people they have a decent grasp of things and they still might choose a different option.

Funkstain wrote:

mistercrayon wrote:

Progressive ideas couldn’t win if the conservatives are making enough voters feel okay (cf: the eighties)

I mean, that seems like common sense - but who is to say that progressive ideas can't make enough voters feel okay too? This is what kills me in this kind of talk, I truly don't believe so many people are "I'm alright Jack BUT I don't really want every other jack to be OK so fuck progressivism" the Tories keep winning because the myths are sustained

Has it ever crossed your mind that maybe the attitude isn't I dont want every other Jack to be OK but more that they dont think its healthy? That they see whole areas of their city where there are kids brought up in families where they are on their third generation of living on benefits, and that there is no wish to try and break that cycle? That they think that social welfare is fine but there are people who use it and abuse it too easily? Or that rather than being a great equaliser, it can actually slow things down as many on it limit their ideas of what they can achieve? 

I believe our society should look after our sick. I believe we should educate everyone. I believe in universal health care and affordable housing for all. But I also believe in the value of a competitive market economy. I believe people are better when they are working, ideally in a job they enjoy. I will be pushing my daughter to go to college and to work full time, either as an employee or an employer. I believe in fair wages, but I also think a high minimum wage has a negative impact on the overall market. I think CEOs are near universally massively overpaid but I have no problem with someone getting a much higher wage than me if their job warrents it.

I cannot stress enough how important education is and how soul destroying it is when I take on a young employee and they tell me college is for nerds and geeks while at the same time how the rich 'they' think they are better than that same person who is declining the 3rd level education I'm offering them, to be paid for by my company. 

I have tried to hire people to full time jobs but was told point blank I would need to offer 40k to get them off the benefits package they were getting from the state. 

I protested Irish Water not because I was against water charges but because I strongly disagreed with how the company (a semi state) was put together. But I stood alongside others who just opposed the water because they felt they already paid enough.

My wife is constantly amazed that her friend can claim so much from the Irish state while working cash in hand and claiming the single parents allowance along with her boyfriend who works in logistics but also claims single parent allowance for the same child while living in the same house while registered at his parents. The welfare state is clearly open to abuse so maybe you can understand why some dont want to expand it.

Absolutely the rich are raking it in with tax breaks both illegal and legal, but the idea that they are the only ones is simply not the case. Maybe thats why some dont jump to an agenda which wants to open more opportunity for people to abuse what a government does with the taxes it takes in. 

Ultimately It's not always a case of "I only care about me"  - sometimes its a case of "I dont agree with your approach"

As someone who has worked and not worked and lived comfortably and kept myself thoroughly occupied and enhanced anyway - working sucks a fuck. In the bin with it.

Totally. But try selling that to people in this country with our media. Labour’s talk about a shorter working week was met with incredulity and incomprehension.

“Reduce the amount of time per week I have to prostitute myself for someone else’s profit margins? What is this madness?”

EDIT: responding to Brooks first point

Brooks wrote:

The scale of bennies fraud versus plutes dodging their obligations is so laughably one-sided I can never imagine giving a shit about the former.

Plutocrats are untouchable, part of the worry is the elderly voting to make everything worse for those coming after them. Pulling up the ladder because the newspapers tell them that immigrants and benefits schemers are costing us too much, oblivious to the huge weight their longer and longer lives have on our societal infrastructure.

I understand why it works though. One is visible, one is invisible.

It’s negative solidarity too. “I have to suffer this miserable shitty life of work, why should anyone else avoid it?”