The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, meregreen said:

“. National Black Police Associationl” I’ve always felt uncomfortable with groups which require you to be a certain colour to be a member. True integration, in a world without such requirements, is surely the aim.Just makes me uncomfortable, it accentuates differences rather than removes them.

Well yes, the fact there is one, says there's a problem in itself. It was set up after Steven Lawrence

[darrenm]

Looks like all the catastrof**ks are finally having an effect on the Tories and Labour are closing back to the neck and neck where Corbyn's Labour spent most of the time.

Also great news for Mr 'never interrupt your enemy' Starmer

 

[chrisp65]

 

That Britain Elects tweet is a bit disingenuous to say the least. Go to the original YouGov data and It’s omitted the SNP who polled above the BXP at 5%

If you omit the SNP it’s less clear what Labour’s problem is and so less easy to resolve.

[HanoiVillan]

I don't understand why pollsters are including the Brexit party? Does it even exist? Even if it does, it is surely clear after the last election that treating it as a national political party is absurd. 

[ml1dch]

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't understand why pollsters are including the Brexit party? Does it even exist? Even if it does, it is surely clear after the last election that treating it as a national political party is absurd. 

Wasn't there talk after the last election that they might rebrand and turn into a sort of "yell at each other angrily about burkhas and gays" party?

[HanoiVillan]

3 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Wasn't there talk after the last election that they might rebrand and turn into a sort of "yell at each other angrily about burkhas and gays" party?

Since it is entirely controlled by N Farage I guess that's up to him. 

[StefanAVFC]

They should rebrand as the 'Sink migrant boats' party

[Wainy316]

Yep clearly the increase in their share in the polls is due to current migrant business.

Says a lot about the motives behind the Brexit vote.  That said if it splits the right vote a bit then it’s not entirely bad.

[HanoiVillan]

This is simple, clear and effective IMO:

If they're going to go after 'competence', they should at least do it well, so this is a step in the right direction. I would still like them to add criticisms of 'integrity' and 'ideology' though.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

This is simple, clear and effective IMO:

If they're going to go after 'competence', they should at least do it well, so this is a step in the right direction. I would still like them to add criticisms of 'integrity' and 'ideology' though.

Hmmm. My instinct as someone who loathes the tories is to agree with the desire to go after them for their venal, rotten lack of integrity and ideology, too. But..

Strategically I think it's better to keep it really simple. It is blatantly apparent (you've only got to look at the last week's worth of right wing paper's front pages) that essentially everyone can see and knows the Tories to be incompetent. Attack them for that and you've got an open door. It opens the door too, to people listening to Starmer who might otherwise not.

Then when he's won them over, got them more amenable to the notion of Starmer and Labour as prospective PM and Gov't, at that point lay into the obvious corruption of democracy, favours for mates. lies, deception and all the rest of it. There will be more of it to go at then, too.

If he goes at the corrupt nature of them now, he'll scare the horses, they'll be more likely to just switch off and not listen. To break the horse in, first show you're not a threat, then persuade it to let you approach and ...er this is going to go all all Kenneth Williams, so I'll stop there. 

[tonyh29]

10 hours ago, Wainy316 said:

Yep clearly the increase in their share in the polls is due to current migrant business.

Says a lot about the motives behind the Brexit vote.  That said if it splits the right vote a bit then it’s not entirely bad.

The BNP vote seems to have increased by 2% since the May You Gov poll   , I guess  it might show the motive behind 2% or 4% of people asked  , but the Brexit vote was 52% of people who voted  , so I don't think it really shows what you are suggesting 

Interesting on attitudes to the current Migration 62% of Remain voters felt it was Serious  / Somewhat Serious problem  v 93% of leavers  ... so clearly there is a difference between the two camps but that's still nearly 2/3rds of Remain voters who feel this is a serious issue  ... all in all 73% of those polled felt it was a serious problem 

I think it's too complex for sweeping statement if I'm honest .

 

[OutByEaster?]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Hmmm. My instinct as someone who loathes the tories is to agree with the desire to go after them for their venal, rotten lack of integrity and ideology, too. But..

Strategically I think it's better to keep it really simple. It is blatantly apparent (you've only got to look at the last week's worth of right wing paper's front pages) that essentially everyone can see and knows the Tories to be incompetent. Attack them for that and you've got an open door. It opens the door too, to people listening to Starmer who might otherwise not.

Then when he's won them over, got them more amenable to the notion of Starmer and Labour as prospective PM and Gov't, at that point lay into the obvious corruption of democracy, favours for mates. lies, deception and all the rest of it. There will be more of it to go at then, too.

If he goes at the corrupt nature of them now, he'll scare the horses, they'll be more likely to just switch off and not listen. To break the horse in, first show you're not a threat, then persuade it to let you approach and ...er this is going to go all all Kenneth Williams, so I'll stop there. 

I think there's plenty of good in that, but I think Starmer needs to be mindful that he has more than one horse to break in - persuading moderate Conservative voters that he's the right man for them might be easier than persuading more left leaning traditional Labour voters that he's also the right man for their vote. He'll need both to achieve his aims.

 

[blandy]

36 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

persuading moderate Conservative voters that he's the right man for them might be easier than persuading more left leaning traditional Labour voters that he's also the right man for their vote. He'll need both to achieve his aims.

That's true. I think the persuading the Corbyn-loving voters is going to be harder in the short term. It shouldn't be, but it is. A number of the more, er, excitable of them were already calling for him to go merely for writing an article in the Daily Heil. But leaving aside those types, the two main means of persuading them are perhaps policies - and these are formed by the party rather than the leader, so it will take time, but the things he included in his kind of pitch for the leadership election were (IMO) likely to do that - they're not much different to what labour's been proposing for a good while. And secondly for all that they're fleeting snapshots, opinion polls reflecting well on him will give assurance that he's (and by implication, Labour) are on the right track. So far his personal ratings have been good, but Labour as a party lags a way behind. Lots of folk might know who he is and be approving, but far fewer even know who else is in the Labour team. And there's a bigger problem. Starmer might not frighten the horses, but fear of "the ones I don't know" will linger, until or unless they show themselves to be acceptable not just to committed Labour members etc, but to normal voters who take far less of an interest.

[HanoiVillan]

38 minutes ago, blandy said:

And secondly for all that they're fleeting snapshots, opinion polls reflecting well on him will give assurance that he's (and by implication, Labour) are on the right track. So far his personal ratings have been good, but Labour as a party lags a way behind. Lots of folk might know who he is and be approving, but far fewer even know who else is in the Labour team. And there's a bigger problem. Starmer might not frighten the horses, but fear of "the ones I don't know" will linger, until or unless they show themselves to be acceptable not just to committed Labour members etc, but to normal voters who take far less of an interest.

One danger for Starmer is that he could be 'doing an Obama', by which I mean building his personal brand but leaving the party no better off.

[blandy]

On 20/08/2020 at 13:46, HanoiVillan said:

One danger for Starmer is that he could be 'doing an Obama', by which I mean building his personal brand but leaving the party no better off.

He could be - and our elections seem to be getting more about leader personality, rather than party, maybe? Cameron, Johnson kind of got elected on that, and maybe the Clegg thing too. But May wasn't (she appeared not to have one (other than mean-spirited, home counties, immigrant hater) I dunno.

It depend on having capable people around him, I think - if there are talented, amenable (to the public) people brought into the more public limelight, he'll (or Labour) will avoid that. I also don't detect him being like Obama, personality wise. Do the labour front bench types have the appeal, or could they, to interest the general public in what they have to say. I don't know who many of them are tbh. I know a lot of Corbyn's picks didn't appeal at all to me. I understand that a lot didn't want to "serve" under him, so he was restricted there. That seems less of an issue for Starmer?

[bickster]

Corbyn Aide, Andrew Murray in the Times explaining why Corbyn had a problem with Antisemitism. Well if that really is the reason its pretty much nailed on as anti-Semitic. British Jews are all relatively prosperous, the old jews and money trope in full view there.

 

[Chindie]

It is the case that, if you are Jewish in the UK, you are much more likely to be of above average wealth. It's not anti-Semitic to acknowledge this.

[HanoiVillan]

Nevertheless, that's a very stupid thing for Andrew Murray to have said, and he should probably shut the **** up rather than putting potentially offensive words into other people's mouths.

[Chindie]

Also true.

[bickster]

7 minutes ago, Chindie said:

It is the case that, if you are Jewish in the UK, you are much more likely to be of above average wealth. It's not anti-Semitic to acknowledge this.

That really isn't what he said though is it. You can't take the final sentence in that quote in isolation

Also whether it's true or not (I have no idea - are there any stats to back that up?), it is not a reason to ignore bigotry in their direction.

It's anti-Semitic to say that all Jewish people are rich, it plays to that well known trope.

Are all Jewish people in the UK rich? no. Is it right to ignore bigotry towards Jewish people because some of them are rich?