Off Topic Politics Thread

[Ian Thumwood]

Corbyn captured the imagination to such an extent that 71% of voters disapproved of him in the final poll run before he departed as leader, and the 75% disapproval he reached at one point is the worst figure for any major party leader in the Anglosphere that I can find, ever (the only other who came close was George W Bush). He inspired a lot of people to choose the Conservative Party, and very little else.

He tanked in 2019 when Labour's election campgain was poorly organised and incoherent. In 2016 he came within a whisker of outsting Theresa May. The young people of this country loved him. I remember talking to some young fans in the stand at a Winchester game and it was clear that this generation were finding Corbyn inspirational. They were singing his name at Glastonbury and the media was full of coverage of issues such as the World Transformed conference and the emergence of Momentum. People in France were also enthused by what Corbyn was offering. Granted, the issue of Brexit was a problem he could not overcome but had it not been on the agenda in 2016, he would have got in. Difficult for me to express the affection people had for Jeremy at grass roots to someone living in Canada but it was palpable - probably only comparable to the arrival of New Labour in 1996 but without the cynicism. A great chance for the UK (and the Western world, in fact) that passed by. Easily the UK political leader with the greatest about of passion and conviction for his beliefs in my life-time. In addition, he also had a cadre of politicians behind him that supported him and shared his ideas.

 

[Schad]

Schad

Labour's results are underwhelming.

This is literally the first by-election where their results were underwhelming. From 2022 on, here are all of the results:

Conservative hold (in a riding where the previous Conservative MP was murdered, I might add, and neither Labour nor the Lib Dems contested it), Labour hold, Labour gain, Lib Dem gain, Labour hold, Labour hold, Labour hold, Labour gain, Lib Dem gain, Conservative hold.

So in 10 by-elections, Labour has won 6 (+2), the Lib Dems have won 2 (+2), and the Conservatives had won 2 (-4). That seems...pretty good?

 

[Schad]

He tanked in 2019 when Labour's election campgain was poorly organised and incoherent. In 2016 he came within a whisker of outsting Theresa May. The young people of this country loved him. I remember talking to some young fans in the stand at a Winchester game and it was clear that this generation were finding Corbyn inspirational. They were singing his name at Glastonbury and the media was full of coverage of issues such as the World Transformed conference and the emergence of Momentum. People in France were also enthused by what Corbyn was offering. Granted, the issue of Brexit was a problem he could not overcome but had it not been on the agenda in 2016, he would have got in. Difficult for me to express the affection people had for Jeremy at grass roots to someone living in Canada but it was palpable - probably only comparable to the arrival of New Labour in 1996 but without the cynicism. A great chance for the UK (and the Western world, in fact) that passed by. Easily the UK political leader with the greatest about of passion and conviction for his beliefs in my life-time. In addition, he also had a cadre of politicians behind him that supported him and shared his ideas.

And by 2019 he was the most disliked major party politician in the polling history of the United Kingdom. The public was not crying out for Jeremy Corbyn, and he got shellacked, by Boris Johnson of all people.

 

[OddRiverOakWizards]

Schad

Labour's results are underwhelming. I think that Sunak has proved to be a better PM than most people would have anticipated but the Uxbridge seat was previously occupied by Boris whose reputation should have ensured that the Conservatives should have been completely discredited in this by-election. Labour are not resonnating with the voters and the people they have on the front bench such as Thornberry and Raynor come across as whiny as opposed to being the kind of politicians who are passionate about their believes. As leader, Starmer is entirely vanilla and no one really knows what he believes in except that he wants to be PM. He will not offer people real change and , in a world where we are facing a cost of living crisis, global warming, a war in Ukraine and a migration crisis that all Western governments refuse to address the cause of. In these times we need a leader with vision. Starmer is totally grey and indistinguishable - rather like the John Major puppet on spitting image. He is a total waste of time, more keen to confront his own party members than the problems the world currently faces.

And if he did come out with more radical policies he would be branded a Communist with a magic money tree with no control on spending by the right wing press. It may not be true. Starmer may not be your ideal candidate but if Labour can hold together instead of infighting for once then they are extremely competitive at the general election. Then policies can be more expansive.

 

[Ian Thumwood]

And by 2019 he was the most disliked major party politician in the polling history of the United Kingdom. The public was not crying out for Jeremy Corbyn, and he got shellacked, by Boris Johnson of all people.

By 2019 the media had amassed their resources against Corbyn as they were aware that John Mc Donnell had plans to bring the papers to heal. I think that the anti-semantic argue was fabricated and not helped by the likes of MPs like Burger whose loyalty towards socialism was sceptical. Yes, Corybn was destroyed in 2019 but this was not the case in 2016 before the right wing press had the chance to get their claws into him - albeit Kuenssberg on the BBC had a good try to begin with.

 

[Ian Thumwood]

And if he did come out with more radical policies he would be branded a Communist with a magic money tree with no control on spending by the right wing press. It may not be true. Starmer may not be your ideal candidate but if Labour can hold together instead of infighting for once then they are extremely competitive at the general election. Then policies can be more expansive.

The best we can hope for is Labour get in and the party ousts Starmer and appoints someone who represents labour with more credibility.

 

[StJabbo1]

I think you should have bullet-pointed what this says in your own words so Os can learn how to understand the written word.

• Effectively there is no apology for refusing to let Farage bank with them.
• The apology is that they wrote a report about him which is pretty brutal in its language, evidently never expecting him to see it.
• He still isn’t being offered a place with Coutts
• He doesn’t merit one

Good point well bulleted. You could add one re the disingenuous claim the gatemouthed gobshite made about not having access to banking.

 

[......loading......]

On Corbyn, he also had one of the biggest swells in popularity ever because he offered a genuine ideological stance. His own lack of personal dynamism and the fact the press were scared of what he represented led to an enormous backlash.

The younger generation are ready for change in society, but the establishment will fight it all the way. We need a dynamic socialist leader with a whiter than white history.

 

[ChilcoSaint]

On Corbyn, he also had one of the biggest swells in popularity ever because he offered a genuine ideological stance. His own lack of personal dynamism and the fact the press were scared of what he represented led to an enormous backlash.

The younger generation are ready for change in society, but the establishment will fight it all the way. We need a dynamic socialist leader with a whiter than white history.

And the reason Labour didn't win Uxbridge was more of a backlash against the ULEZ expansion than a reflection of Starmer's popularity.

 

[shoot_spiderman]

The best we can hope for is Labour get in and the party ousts Starmer and appoints someone who represents labour with more credibility.

Here’s a suggestion. Let’s be pragmatic

The only Labour leader to win an election in the last 44 years is Blair. Was he the leader you wanted?

If Labour got a leader that certain parts of the party wanted they would lose to this shambles of a Tory party

It’s a fact that currently the press will shaft them and Starmer is a more difficult target than Corbyn

It’s a fact that people won’t vote for a truly left wing leader as they’ve been scared off by the press & other right wing factions

You have a choice. A ‘Socialist’ leader in opposition or a moderate leader in government

The proof of the progressive policy pudding is in the eating. If Labour get into power they at least have a chance to shift the agenda. That can be with Starmer initially, but may then be able to shift to more radical policies later

Let’s at least band together for a victory. We can argue about the policies when we actually have the opportunity to implement them. At least a moderate Labour gov is better than what we have now

 

[StJabbo1]

On Corbyn, he also had one of the biggest swells in popularity ever because he offered a genuine ideological stance. His own lack of personal dynamism and the fact the press were scared of what he represented led to an enormous backlash.

The younger generation are ready for change in society, but the establishment will fight it all the way. We need a dynamic socialist leader with a whiter than white history.

If the DSL embraces electoral reform and closer ties with the EU I'm signing up. Rejoining the customs union and single market may not be manifesto promises but it's the great leap forward needed.

 

[StJabbo1]

Good point well bulleted. You could add one re the disingenuous claim the gatemouthed gobshite made about not having access to banking.

Never forget.

You must log in or register to see media

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

Never forget.

You must log in or register to see media

Quite frankly, the one and only time I wouldn’t have lost much sleep had a plane crash been more successful.

 

[Archers Road]

"The head of NatWest has apologised to Nigel Farage for what she called “deeply inappropriate comments”
Dame Alison Rose issued a public statement on Thursday and wrote a letter to Farage apologising for the way the NatWest subsidiary had handled its decision to cut ties with the Brexit campaigner.

An internal report had described Farage as a “disingenuous grifter” who promotes “xenophobic, chauvinistic and racist views”.

Rose said the comments, prepared for Coutts’ wealth reputation risk committee, “do not reflect the view of the bank”. She added: “No individual should have to read such comments and I apologise to Mr Farage for this.” However, she stopped short of reinstating Farage as a Coutts client, instead reiterating an offer to open a basic account for him at NatWest."

It's a PR disaster for an institution for the privileged entitled elite that shouldn't have
described Farage as a “disingenuous grifter” who promotes “xenophobic, chauvinistic and racist views” in their report however accurate it certainly is.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-nigel-farage-coutts-bank-account-closure-row

“Disingenuous grifter” is pretty much spot on imo.

 

[Billy Bates]

Band together for a victory and worry about the policies once in.

WTF

Now, personally id rather understand the policies of all parties to enable everyone to make informed decisions.

 

[StJabbo1]

Quite frankly, the one and only time I wouldn’t have lost much sleep had a plane crash been more successful.

Public disgrace and humiliation fits the bill or me. Worth noting he was refused a German passport having lied about his address in German and had not met the residence criteria,and been separated from his German born wife for a number of years. He's a ****ing wrongun in so many ways.
https://skwawkbox.org/2016/12/30/pr...ip-and-hes-under-police-investigation-for-it/
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38879101

 

[Billy Bates]

Looking at the Summer Transfer thread, I wonder how many left leaning folk on here use things like ‘RemovePaywall” sites to get free access to content.

I would have thought that is along the same path as being privileged, entitled, and elite.

Not on the wind up either btw, is an interesting concept of what boundaries people set as acceptable etc.

 

[StJabbo1]

Looking at the Summer Transfer thread, I wonder how many left leaning folk on here use things like ‘RemovePaywall” sites to get free access to content.

I would have thought that is along the same path as being privileged, entitled, and elite.

Not on the wind up either btw, is an interesting concept of what boundaries people set as acceptable etc.

Good tip Billy although how using whatever means to circumvent paywalls aligns in any way with being or aspiring to be a member of the privileged, entitled elite is beyond me.
Here's the how for those who want to get on the removal train.
https://www.wikihow.com/Access-News-Articles-for-Free

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

Good tip Billy although how using whatever means to circumvent paywalls aligns in any way with being or aspiring to be a member of the privileged, entitled elite is beyond me.
Here's the how for those who want to get on the removal train.
https://www.wikihow.com/Access-News-Articles-for-Free

This line from the link you just posted is everything that's wrong with this - "Even if you do support great journalism, it can be pricey to subscribe to every publication you want to read."

I mean, seriously, "even if you do support driving a Ferrari, actually paying for one can be pricey".

This whole entitled attitude of "I want it, therefore I should have it for free" is incredibly destructive, be it music, journalism, film, whatever.

If you refuse to pay for something, you don't have a right to complain about declining journalistic standards.

 

[StJabbo1]

This line from the link you just posted is everything that's wrong with this - "Even if you do support great journalism, it can be pricey to subscribe to every publication you want to read."

I mean, seriously, "even if you do support driving a Ferrari, actually paying for one can be pricey".

This whole entitled attitude of "I want it, therefore I should have it for free" is incredibly destructive, be it music, journalism, film, whatever.

If you refuse to pay for something, you don't have a right to complain about declining journalistic standards.

Agreed, not something I use and I donate to the free access news sites I use.