UK election INCOMING

[holzz]

fuck Corbyn.
the red flag will be flying LOW come 12th December.

as a life-long Tory, I'm confident we can secure a Brexit deal, and get an absolute majority. nor more DUPers to back us up, we'll be on our own. :wiggle::wiggle:

Farage has no chance. He is single issue. Once Brexit happens, and it will soon, what then? That was his issue with UKIP.

[mrtrebus]

Fuck the Tories. Evil party. EVIL!

[Jericho]

Fuck Halloween.
From now on in the UK, the 31st of October will be known as Dead In A Ditch day, in celebration of yet another glorious defeat for our lying Crime Minister!

what's the score now against the bloated bloviator13-2?

Doesn't matter whether it's flying high or low, come the 13th of December, The Red Flag will be flying over 10 Downing Street!


fuck Corbyn.
the red flag will be flying LOW come 12th December.

[broncofan]

I can't find any polling information. Do we know anything about how the voting is projected to go?

[Jericho]

I can't find any polling information. Do we know anything about how the voting is projected to go?

Depends which polls you're willing to be influenced by, but. at the moment pretty much same as the last election (Though with a lower predicted turnout because it's going to be held in December - apparently, one snowflake falls and the entire south becomes housebound)!

Of course. Johnson isn't dead in a ditch, we're not out of the EU, and the country hasn't exploded because of it, so I wouldn't give a pinch of dogshit for any of the polls at the moment.

[Stavros]

I can't find any polling information. Do we know anything about how the voting is projected to go?

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/10/31/2019-general-election-demographics-dividing-britai

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/only-the-biggest-general-election-victory-will-do-for-boris-johnson-n6n2njhn0

https://twitter.com/whatukthinks?lang=en

[holzz]

Fuck the Tories. Evil party. EVIL!

no Jew hate. one of the best PMs ever was Jewish.

[Stavros]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10761635/Britains-first-Jewish-PM-does-Disraeli-have-the-title.html

[Jericho]

Sometimes, even I'm speechless!

https://twitter.com/i/status/1190952807756632069

[Jericho]

no Jew hate. one of the best PMs ever was Jewish.

Anything a bit more recent...Last hundred years would do.

[Stavros]

Most relevant point: it would be easy for a Jew to become Prime Minister; for a Roman Catholic, impossible.

[broncofan]

no Jew hate. one of the best PMs ever was Jewish.
https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-record-sexist-homophobic-and-racist-comments-bumboys-piccaninnies-2019-6

You're voting for this guy?

[Laphroaig]

Voting Tory means voting for utter cunts like Jacob Rees-Mogg.

https://twitter.com/davidschneider/status/1191682815722762240

[Jericho]

as a life-long Tory, I'm confident we can secure a Brexit deal, and get an absolute majority. nor more DUPers to back us up, we'll be on our own. :wiggle::wiggle:
.


Rough day?

[broncofan]

Depends which polls you're willing to be influenced by, but. at the moment pretty much same as the last election .
https://twitter.com/RobJoyce156/status/1186913931945754624

[Jericho]

https://twitter.com/RobJoyce156/status/1186913931945754624

At least Kay wasn't interviewing an empty chair.
Their you go, another one you can thumb down!

[broncofan]

At least Kay wasn't interviewing an empty chair.
Their you go, another one you can thumb down!
Do you have any policies you're interested in or want to see enacted or is it just resentment through and through?

[Jericho]

Do you have any policies you're interested in or want to see enacted or is it just resentment through and through?

Policies?
Yeah, I'd like to see a few enacted.

First and foremost. proper funding for the NHS
(I'm not going to go into personal details here, but that's more than just a battle cry to me)!
End to homelessness.
End to in-work poverty,
End to child poverty.
End to the need for foodbanks. (All a fucking disgrace to our country, the so-called 5th richest nation on earth).
Decent funding for youth services
End to tuition fees.
Re-nationalization of utilities, rail, bus and postal services.
Proper funding for the emergency services - Not trying to catch up with the services they've already cut.

And if I sound resentful, it's because i resent what they've down to us, I resent the MSM pissing down my back and telling me it's raining. I resent them aiding and abetting them, allowing them to get away with it.

[Stavros]

Linked below, the FT poll of polls, updated on the 23rd November.
My view, for what it's worth, is that while the polls give the Conservatives a comfortable lead over Labour, this is also what they showed in 2017 when the result was a hung Parliament with the two main parties both polling around 40%. This time around there are bound to be startling results in individual constituencies, because of the controversies in Labour over anti-Semitism, and with the Conservative Party because of their internal haemorrhage of Remain MPs or 'disloyal' MPs expelled from the Party, men and women who are seeking election as Independent MPs, most notably former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, and Justice Secretary David Gauke.
Expect Labour and the Conservatives to either lose all, or most of their seats in Scotland. Labour looks set to lose votes in the North-East and the Midlands, while the Conservatives appear to be losing votes in constituencies in the formerly safe South-East and the Greater London area.
In other words, we don't yet know if the loss of votes for both main parties will result in a loss of seats.
I suspect that formerly safe seats may become marginals at this election.
So far, Corbyn has put Labour at the front of most election coverage, in part because the Party released its 'Manifesto' generating a lot of publicity, in part because the Tories have not. The Conservatives appear to be using Boris Johnson as their 'banker' on the basis that he connects with 'the people' and has more enthusiasm and energy than the other party leaders. It is also a weakness in the sense that Boris Johnson is unpredictable, frequently fails to answer questions truthfully if at all, and with more scrutiny is as untrustworthy as Jeremy Corbyn.
One is depicted as an anti-Semitic, terrorist supporting socialist, the other as a maverick whose party is soaked in Russian cash while the leader is under investigation for not one, but two cases of improper behaviour with women who may have benefited financially and politically when Johnson was Mayor of London, though only one of the two women managed to produce another Johnson baby -the full count of his offspring has not been made.

The Ft poll of polls is here-
https://www.ft.com/content/263615ca-d873-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17

[Madsteve_9]

Tony Blair was Catholic. Okay, he only officially converted after he left office. But still.

[holzz]

https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-record-sexist-homophobic-and-racist-comments-bumboys-piccaninnies-2019-6

You're voting for this guy?

Yes, I will.
rather that than anti-Semites.

[Jericho]

Yes, I will.
rather that than anti-Semites.


Ahem

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-candidate-suspended-amjad-bashir-antisemitism-leeds-election-a9210591.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/19/tory-aberdeen-candidate-ryan-houghton-suspended-holocaust-tweets

STILL want to play this game, HOLZ?
And where's the report into Islamophobia that was promised...And then shelved?
And while we're on the subject, just what is in that Russia Report?

Labour may have their problems, but at least we're trying to deal with them.

[Jericho]

Linked below, the FT poll of polls, updated on the 23rd November.

The Ft poll of polls is here-
https://www.ft.com/content/263615ca-d873-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17

There's a poll missing from that poll of polls.
The one the BBC didn't hold after the Leaders debate.
Though, given their latest bit of jiggery pokery, editing out the audience openly laughing at Johnson, in the clips they released, why am I not surprised?

[broncofan]

Yes, I will.
rather that than anti-Semites.
I'm Jewish and have followed almost every accusation of anti-Semitism, from those that had merit to those that were a stretch to those that were unfair. I don't speak as an authority on the subject, but I would vote Labour if I had to choose between the two. Anti-semitism is not more immoral than other forms of bigotry, though it sometimes carries more stigma because of its recent history in Europe. The Conservative party has let Islamophobia and xenophobia fester within its ranks and is not free of anti-Semitism either.

If bigotry is your primary concern voting for the Tories is a tough sell. This isn't the full greatest hits for the Conservative party but a Councilor for the Tories named Vera Waters said famine in Africa is "nature's way of depopulation." There's more if you're interested. Surely this isn't a good substitute for things that have been said by Labour Councilors.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/12/revealed-conservative-councillors-islamophobic-social-media

[Stavros]

At every election the stupid things councillors and candidates say are raised for concern, it becomes a news item, and then dies away.
What we need is the very honesty from the top that is not forthcoming. Both Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson refuse utterly to accept that over the next five years every tax that exists must rise, and new taxes be raised, if the party promises are to be kept, if new policies are to be introduced, if existing commitments are maintained because we may be on the brink of a recession when the UK leaves the EU. Many analysts believe we are heading for a re-run of 2008 because household debt and national debt is soaring beyond anyone's control, at some point, money borrowed must be repaid.
The metaphor is there in the Florida Keys: communities under water for three months and nothing has been done about it. Or maybe the residents should just admit that the last place on earth to buy a home is in those Florida Keys that may disappear for ever over the next ten years.
Florida Keys, Brexit, Recession: so absorbed with the lies of 2010-2019 we can't see what's under our feet.

[Stavros]

The Financial Times Poll Tracker which was updated yesterday.
https://www.ft.com/content/263615ca-d873-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17

There is a general assumption that the Conservatives will be the largest party, but speculation on the size of their majority, with the outside possibility of another hung Parliament. There is an outside chance of a Labour wipe-out as happened to Socialists in France, Netherland and Italy, but the Socialists did well in Spain, so it is still just a possibility.
Spectacular results in individual constituencies will be intresting to watch: Boris Johnson has not bothered to campaign in his own constituency, the fate of Conservatives thrown out of the party and standing as Independents will be interesting, notably former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, and those who became Liberal Democrats such as Sarah Wollaston.
The regions most vulnerable to Labour decline are in the Midlands and the North-East, while the Conservatives are now vulnerable in the Remain voting constituencies of the South and South-East, but disaffected Tory voters may abstain rather than vote for another party. Voter turnout in recent General Elections has hovered between 70-73%, a low turnout is likely, and this is assumed to benefit the Conservatives rather than Labour. However, more than 3 million new voters under the age of 30 may also make a difference.

[Jericho]

I do not/can not believe this country will vote for BritainTrump.
And until the last vote is tallied, I'll spit in the eye of pollsters!

[filghy2]

I recently saw a report that said the two major party leaders were the most unpopular pair since they started doing these polls. I really says something about the failure of party politics in the UK that the memberships of both parties have overwhelmingly voted for leaders who have so little support outside of their committed base.

Unfortunately, it is hard to see what might change this. The more that ordinary people turn off politics, the more the parties fall under the grip of committed minorities who don't represent the wider electorate. The first-past-the-post system in the UK seems to make things worse because it perpetuates the duopoly - if you can maintain enough core support you can still win even though the majority of the electorate is opposed to you.

[Jericho]

The more that ordinary people turn off politics, the more the parties fall under the grip of committed minorities who don't represent the wider electorate.

I think those committed minorities represent nobody but themselves. the 1%


Peter Oborne is certainly no friend of Labour, but I found this quite interesting.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/11/boris-johnson-destroy-britain-conservative-revolutionary-sect?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium=&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1576089179

[filghy2]

I'm not fan of Boris Johnson or his party, but I don't think it's just a problem on one side. Put it this way - given the starting point from the last election result and the complete disarray in the government since then, shouldn't Labour be the overwhelming favourite to win this election? If Labour has been unable to capitalise on this situation, doesn't that point to very serious failings in its leadership? It can't just be due to media bias either, because that was equally present last time.

[Jericho]

You would think so, but who frames the debate?

Corbyn, loved wherever he goes, Johson, literally booed out of a hospital. Yet if I believed the msm, i would think it was the other way round.
I have been Labour my entire life, but If it hadn't been for 'social media', I'd be thinking about voting Plaid Cymru today (I couldn't vote for the SDP...Even tactically).

A recent story, a child treated on a hospital floor because there were no available beds. Within hours, a 'respected' journalist reporting it as 'fake' news (Ok, not that respected, she was from the Telegraph)
Attached to the same story, TWO major tv journalists reporting that a Labour THUG had attacked a Government advisor - Again, total bullshit they had to withdraw once, an only once, social media showed footage proving them wrong.

Over the last 5 years, I have seen things happening in/to the press I would never have believed possible in a so called 1st world country.

And now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to vote...Labour.

[broncofan]

On social media Corbyn does seem more popular than Johnson. At rallies, Corbyn also seems to do very well. This can be an indication of the fervor with which someone is liked rather than how broad their appeal is, though it generally bodes well.

I do think Labour will do better than the polls indicate, though I have no way to know. I'm basing this somewhat on the last election, which tightened up at the end.

One thing I think Labour should consider is trying to find a way to unite people across the left. That doesn't mean ceding everything to people who don't want the kind of radical change that improves lives but finding a balance among the viewpoints that exist and building consensus.

The idea that someone who is not within the nuclear core of Corbyn's movement cannot offer constructive criticism is damaging to the party's ability to unite people around common causes.

Anyhow, I have been critical of Labour but if Labour wins then I will be really happy for the ways in which its policies can improve people's lives (see Jericho's post on the last page). If they are not successful, I will take no joy in it but do think it is an indication that there must be a way to unite factions and that some responsibility lies with Corbyn's most ardent supporters.

[Jericho]

I don't totally disagree, but, I wish it was just the divisions in the left that need uniting, It's the entire country.
I've tried writing a bunch of stuff down but it just turns into a bigger ramble than usual.
Suffice to say, if Labour lose, I'll be devastated.
Tomorrow will either be a red day or a black day in this country's history.

Anyway, I'm fried....Been watching the impeachment hearings for some light relief!!!

[filghy2]

The exit poll is suggesting a Tory landslide, unfortunately. One of the clear lessons of recent years is that there is far more support out there for nationalist/xenophopic views than might be apparent to people like us. Promoting division as a political strategy and seeking some 'other' to blame is clearly dominating over promoting unity and seeking comment ground.

I'm sure it will swing the other way eventually, but I fear that won't happen until the Trumps and mini-Trumps have led us into some kind of disaster that will take a long time to recover from. I've spent most of my life in the comfortable assumption that I would never have to face the sort of crises that our parents and grandparents experienced because we had learned how to avoid them. I'm increasingly less confident about that. If people forget the lessons of history we are doomed to repeat it.

[filghy2]

I don't want to diminish the role of poor leadership, but I wonder how much of the outcome is a product of Brexit fatigue. The Tories had a much simpler line on Brexit and I guess many people may have thought that this was the only way to end the uncertainty. That may be illusory, but it seems to be the perception.

I couldn't help noticing that the abbreviation for the Conservative Party on the BBC is "CON".
1208593

[Jericho]

I don't believe it.
We have elected a right wing, lying, racist, sociopath...Ring any bells?
Gutted!

[Stavros]

I don't believe it.
We have elected a right wing, lying, racist, sociopath...Ring any bells?
Gutted!

How can you be surprised?
-Where was Jeremy Corbyn during the 2016 Referendum Campaign, giving leadership to a clearly stated position, leave or remain? He was almost invisible, too embarrassed to point out that other than the Worker's Rights contained in the Social Chapter of the Single Market Act, he has campaigned against the UK's membership of the EU for most of his political life.
-When Jeremy Corbyn and his Cabinet said they would honour the result of the Referendum, did this not make Labour a Leave party? What other position could it take?
-And Labour en masse voted for the two key Acts of Parliament that enable the UK to leave the EU.
-But when Theresa May almost lost the election in 2017 Labour smelled the blood of a victim, and devised their 'six tests' on Brexit they knew Theresa May could not meet, so this Leave party in Parliament voted at every opportunity not to leave the EU.
-When Labour offered online membership at £3 a pop, over 500,000 members appeared from social media, without any vetting. How many of these people have the slightest idea what Labour stands for, what its traditions are, and how many joined in the same way they might join an online streaming service -and how many joined just to make themselves a nuisance?
-Jeremy Corbyn is not anti-Semitic, but because he doesn't believe there are so many in his party, he was not energized to fight it when it emerged to be a real problem. His leadership on the issue was pathetic, weak, all over the place. Compare Corbyn on the anti-semites -with Kinnock booting out Militant after 1983.
-Again and again, the people were confused. The Leave party that Labour was by 2019 had been transformed itself into a Leave/Remain party as if the glaring contradiction could not be seen. The 'internal logic' of a leader remaining neutral was lost on the general public. Corbyn came across again as a weak leader, lacking in clear positions on crucial issues like Brexit, utterly incapable of sustaining internal party criticism and maintaining a full throttle drive toward the proverbial brick wall.

He failed his party, he failed his country.

It was never about policy, of course people want more money spent on the NHS and Education. Do most people want something done to tackle rough sleepers, universal credit and poverty? Of course we do. On a range of social and economic issues, this election went begging for an alternative that Labour could not convince the people they had, so the people voted for the very party that has deprived them of what they wanted, but they voted for a simple slogan they believe in, rather than an opportunity to march into a foggy tunnel.

Of course I expect Boris Johnson to sign anything the EU puts in front of him, of course Brexit as it evolves next year will not be what the Nationalists want, but who now is going to stop Boris Johnson? And how will Labour re-invent itself as a party that people want to vote for, that has credible people at the top, and credible policies? And how long will it take? For every day Johnson, the first immigrant to become Prime Minister, is in office, the damages escalate, for all but his rich friends.

Labour either needs root and branch reform, or the UK needs a new left of centre party. We cannot go on like this.

[Jericho]

After nine years of austerity, we've voted for selfishness and xenophobia.
Surprised?...YEAH, kinda, but no, not really!

[filghy2]

After nine years of austerity, we've voted for selfishness and xenophobia.
Surprised?...YEAH, kinda, but no, not really!

I know you are flattened by the result, but are you seriously unwilling to engage in self-examination even after a disaster of this scale? If the majority of Labour members are going to circle the wagons and direct the blame everywhere else than the party then I'm afraid you are likely to be in the same position in 5 years time. What does it say about your party than the only election wins in the past 40 years came under a leader you regard as anathema?

One question I'm pondering is whether Boris Johnson is really a hard-right nationalist or whether he's just an opportunist who does whatever he thinks will advance his political interests. His pre-Brexit history didn't seem to suggest he was particularly right-wing and he did win two terms as mayor of London. The Brexit deal he agreed with the EU also suggests he may be more of a pragmatist than his recent rhetoric would suggest. I guess we'll find out over the coming period.

[filghy2]

How can you be surprised?

Perhaps you should be Stavros. In the Brexit thread less than 3 months ago you predicted confidently that Boris Johnson's days were numbered.

[Stavros]

Perhaps you should be Stavros. In the Brexit thread less than 3 months ago you predicted confidently that Boris Johnson's days were numbered.

You make a fair point, but there was a time when it was argued that Johnson was so unpopular in the Parliamentary Party that he would never make it to the ballot in a leadership election, and as is often the case, I allowed my wishes to determine my claims.
So I was wrong at the time, but I am wrong on many issues.

With regard to your earlier point, Johnson is an opportunist. He was enraged when David Cameron became leader of the party because at Eton Johnson regarded Cameron as an irritating twerp, and thus made his decision to back the Leave campaign out of spite and for political one-upmanship. He now owns the Brexit he has never really thought about, and in my view when the honeymoon is over in his party, he will discover that the Conservatives remain as divided on Brexit as they always have been. The fault-line for him is now defined by the manner in which the UK exits the EU, and the possibility that the EU will force Johnson into 'interim arrangements' on trade which for some of his backbenchers will be 'Brexit in Name Only' until the full details of the Uk-EU trade deal are signed, which could and probably will take years.
Johnson doesn't want Brexit to be a major issue in British politics once the UK has left the EU in a legal sense, but he cannot in fact avoid it becoming a constant prick to the flesh because it is so wrapped up in jobs and the economy. He may have a large majority, but Johnson is a maverick politician with a short-temper and like the wind-up monkey in the White House prone to impulsive decisions that may yet weaken his position in the party he now leads.

But I have been wrong before, and I admit, I loathe and detest him so always think the worst.

[Jericho]

I know you are flattened by the result, but are you seriously unwilling to engage in self-examination even after a disaster of this scale? If the majority of Labour members are going to circle the wagons and direct the blame everywhere else than the party then I'm afraid you are likely to be in the same position in 5 years time.

Flattened...doesn't even come close.
Even my home town, with it's queues outside the foodbank, crumbling hospital, and tent city, turned blue.

It might be naive (I've been called worse), but we have missed the opportunity of a lifetime. Corbyn would have been the Atlee of our generation! (That should get Stav reaching for his pills :):p:tongue: ).

But you're right, it's time for introspection and change. Corbyn's one true flaw was he thought you could change people's minds by reasoning with them, but how do you reason with something like this?


a story today of someone saying they voted Tories cause "Labour aren't funding the NHS" and "The Tories will end the bedroom tax".

I don't know where the party's going to go from here, but, if it needs a ruthless cunt like Blair to win an election, it's not a party I'd want to be a part of. I might poke Stavros about his age sometimes, but maybe it's me that's the anachronism.

Maybe the Scots have the right idea, I dunno. I'm not big on independence but, Plaid Cymru have some good social policies.

As for Johnson, if he believes one tenth of the shite he spouts, I'd be majorly surprised.

[filghy2]

Corbyn would have been the Atlee of our generation!

As for Johnson, if he believes one tenth of the shite he spouts, I'd be majorly surprised.

I think Corbyn is more like the Michael Foot of our generation, and the Labour party has just gone round in a circle over the past 36 years. I doubt that he's as virtuous as you claim, but even if he was that's not sufficient - a leader needs to be politically savvy as well.

Johnson clearly does not believe most of what he says. As I understand it, the withdrawal agreement he made with the EU is essentially on the same terms that he and the hard-liners declared to be unacceptable under Theresa May. Yet now he is being hailed as a genius for breaking the deadlock on Brexit! I think Stavros is right - the difficulties have just been kicked down the road to the end of next year.

[broncofan]

Just to analogize I recall after John Kerry was defeated by George Bush in 2004 I was crushed. Obnoxious bigmouth Andrew Sullivan got on Bill Maher and told us the election was a referendum on basically everything we believed in. His message was self-serving since he never wanted anything anyone on the left wants and it was transparent.

So there will be some of that from people who didn't support Corbyn and just want to say "I told you so." My criticism is that the right-wing does blind tribalism better than the left. Many of Corbyn's policies were overshadowed by the manner in which they were advocated for by new media. A small group of very committed socialists advocated hard for his policies, were unable to ever brook dissent, and could be verbally abusive to those who were not far enough left. This can only work if there are enough people in your hardcore camp.

With the rise of blogs and other independent outlets does come the risk that people exploit a movement for their own popularity. Politics isn't sport, it can be entertaining but that's not the main object, and what's good for ratings and likes on social media doesn't always play in the election.

As for Corbyn, I always thought he was neither as good as his supporters thought nor as bad as his detractors claimed. My take is that he's basically honest, tries to do right, but is not especially charismatic nor good at articulating policies. Would he be the person you'd nominate to explain a comprehensive program that could improve people's lives? If we're fair I think not. Is he the person who you would trust to say or do the right thing in a difficult situation because he's a clear-thinker and decisive actor? Again, I don't think so.

[filghy2]

My criticism is that the right-wing does blind tribalism better than the left. Many of Corbyn's policies were overshadowed by the manner in which they were advocated for by new media. A small group of very committed socialists advocated hard for his policies, were unable to ever brook dissent, and could be verbally abusive to those who were not far enough left. This can only work if there are enough people in your hardcore camp.

That may be true, but I doubt that willingness to brook dissent has been any greater on the right. That's most obvious in relation to the Trump Republican party, but I think it's also true of the Conservative party since Johnson became leader - the pro-EU people seem to have been either pushed out or intimidated into silence. The right has been more effective in stifling internal dissent, and I think the main reason is the existence of a right-wing media apparatus that is able to feed disinformation to supporters and intimidate anyone who steps out of line. There is nothing equivalent on the left because it doesn't have ultra-rich backers like Murdoch and the Mercers who are willing to fund propaganda machines.

[broncofan]

That may be true, but I doubt that willingness to brook dissent has been any greater on the right.
One of the eternal frustrations of politics is that your candidate's adequacy often isn't judged by how they compare to their opponent but to an abstract ideal. When people criticized Hillary, I kept thinking, I agree but how is she worse in any of these aspects than Trump?

The right-wing does have a more powerful media machine, but they also seem to lose fewer people when they run hit campaigns on dissenters. I'm not as versed in political theory as you and some others but I do think when someone goes far enough left, they cross a threshold where they're not open-minded or evidence-based but become tribal and support a revolutionary ends justify the means politics. You get enough of these clowns together and it scares at least some people who want healthcare, a fairer tax system, civil rights.

Just to address an elephant in the room here, I'm sure I can't convince anyone Peejaye is the Labour everyman, but is he an outlier or aberration? In my view, he's the exact kind of abusive hobbyist Labour has attracted to its fold. Among his views:
1. Sadiq Khan is a centre-right Tory
2. George Galloway would make a great PM
3. Russia was not a good suspect for the Skripal poisoning
4. Trump may be better than Hillary (which he said during the 2016 cycle)

The new media I've referred to catered to these sort of views, withheld useful information, and would lambast and demonize anyone with a modicum of reason or sense. It wasn't so much that people were worried about left-leaning newspapers having a corporate filter but that they weren't tribal; they were not designed purely to antagonize political opponents, including people who otherwise would vote Labour.

Was it worse than the right? Probably not, but people on the right have a stronger stomach maybe.

[Stavros]

Broncofan, think of it in terms of a critique of power, where the established elite is rarely challenged, but historically has been by either the left or the extreme right. In reality, the three most significant Labour leaders all maintained the privileges and power and wealth of the establishment, by which in the U.K. we mean the Monarchy, Military, Church, Parliament and the Judiciary.
Labour Prime Minister Ramsay Macdonald abandoned Labour in 1931, forming a 'National Government' with the Tories and a Liberals. Attlee introduced radical social legislation but much of it had emerged from a Labour-Liberal-Tory consensus earlier in the 1940s, and none of the established elites were threatened. Blair, as close to Murdoch as Thatcher, achieved successes in his first term but by the end was viewed as an establishment slave, with the extraordinary friendship with the neo-con US Republican Party.
Radical in tone, how much of a threat was Corbyn when John McDonnell claimed Labour would initiate a 'transformative revolution'? The truth is without power it was all stuff from a pamphlet that had no chance of shaking up the old order.
The tragic irony is that two men viewed as radicals-Boris Johnson and his American friend in the Whit House- are merely outliers of the same old establishment. Made up of billionaires, and old Etonians, they are frisky with the royals, and in the American case too close to weird so-called Christians who think Jews like The Kushners must either convert or be condemned to an eternity in hell. If you want the Johnson connection, his novel 'Seventy Two Virgins' depicts hook-nosed Jews controlling the media and the banks. Eat your heart out, Corbyn!
As Boris Johnson spends his Christmas on a private island in the Caribbean paid for by his billionaire chums, he basks in the votes of people for whom he has nothing but contempt while plotting a Brexit to benefit his backers. As with the American who calls his fellow citizens Human Scum, it is the people who voted for them who will lose the most.
How many more times can the people choose to be fooled? But will the left, so called, ever find the right amount of appeal for obtain power, and for once make real changes to the established bastions of the modern State?

[broncofan]

How many more times can the people choose to be fooled? But will the left, so called, ever find the right amount of appeal for obtain power, and for once make real changes to the established bastions of the modern State?
This is a good post and I do understand what you're saying. Every society should resist entrenched power, including privileges that inhere in being wealthy or powerful or having a certain social standing. To the extent we don't have a society without any wealth or class distinctions, a fair society would increase economic and social mobility so that opportunities exist for everyone and nobody is left out in the cold or playing with a deck stacked against them.

The issue I have with the last question you pose in particular is that I'm not sure the left can obtain power and make the kind of significant changes you call "real changes". One could always say that to the extent they are thwarted it is because people don't know what's in their own best interest or that the powerful have rigged the system, but it could be that people want their changes to be consistent, to avoid shaking up the social order too much, and want a piecemeal package that improves their lives.

It's a bit sad that I post on a thread about British politics and look for parallels to my own country because my references get rather narrow otherwise, but I think it's sort of like the dilemma Obama faced in his first term. When he passed Obamacare, it is a healthcare system that in Britain would have seemed cruel given the commitments you've made to your citizens, but in the U.S. it was a big step. As a result of it, everyone who worked for an employer with 20 or more employees ended up with health insurance. A lot of other aspects of it ended up sucking, but it was the only thing he had the political capital to pass. I look at part of Labour's manifesto and I don't see anything scary, but I do think the people heading the movement lost sight of what they had support for and were self-indulgent. Some of his prominent supporters were saying things like "I am literally a Communist", or "I can't wait to expropriate your wealth", and yes it's easy to say this is someone being glib or that he didn't sign off on the message, but it became unclear at some point whether his movement had consensus and what people would be signing up for if they supported him.

[Stavros]

"The issue I have with the last question you pose in particular is that I'm not sure the left can obtain power and make the kind of significant changes you call "real changes". One could always say that to the extent they are thwarted it is because people don't know what's in their own best interest or that the powerful have rigged the system, but it could be that people want their changes to be consistent, to avoid shaking up the social order too much, and want a piecemeal package that improves their lives."


-John Harris has written an interesting article today that addresses Labour failures, to convince the voters who should be their natural constituency to support them, to articulate a vision that does not reside firmly in the 19th and 20th centuries, that has no credible leaders. It is a crisis for the Left that has seen them lose power in the UK, the Netherlands, France and Italy, while in Germany the SPD is not seen as a spent force, but a party without an identity, as most of its policies were stolen by Angela Merkel, in addition weakening her CDU and giving a voice to more extreme elements on the Nationalist side of German politics.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/27/labour-party-leadership-keir-starmer-rebecca-long-bailey

I think the question is as Lisa Nandy put it when she said Labour must either change, or die. But this, to me suggests that what Labour wants cannot really be organically linked to its past, because the party was not only based on working class communities that have been shredded by the post-industrial wave, it also has a major problem if 'ethnic minorities' are its supporters because many of them have conservative rather than liberal views on marriage, sexuality, abortion, and above all education. I despair of the current situation in the UK where there is an absence of any deep and meaningful debate on what the curriculum for the 21st century should contain so that children in school today can make a success of their lives when they leave it.

The US has the same range of problems, the Democrats having lost so much to a 'populist' wave that, as in the UK has obsessions with immigration and immigrants -pretty incredible in the US given its history, but no less racist than it has always been-but there are significant differences. A Federal system means politics is more diffused in the US than it is in the UK, but may not prevent divisions there, as with the Confederate States re-emerging to repudiate the authority of the US Congress.
A key difference is that religion plays no role in UK politics where it appears to in the US. As I have pointed out before, there was a deep Christian base to the Labour and Socialist movement in the UK, if not before the 17thc Revolution, then emerging more clearly after it. Indeed, some of these non-conformist sects were instrumental in the creation of the US, but where religion has declined to a great extent in the UK, it seems to have grown stronger in the US, but far from being a collectivist movement whose moral foundations is a critique of capitalism and a belief in 'fare shares' through wealth re-distribution, your Christians seem to be moral bigots, more determined to control women's bodies and outlaw same-sex relations, and generally appreciate rather than condemn the violence of the State.
Either way, the left is in crisis because it cannot yet make sense of the way capitalism has changed since the 1970s, and cannot articulate an alternative that is credible and which people want, with leaders they can trust. And, into this, comes Climate Change, a global problem that over-rides party loyalty, but in the US is considered a litmus test of intelligence or stupidity, with science the sacrificial victim of US Government.
You have to wonder how anyone can take seriously the hysterical rant of the President's 'Spiritual adviser' -asking God to make pregnant women miscarry!- and then wonder if in fact people do, because if so, America is in deeper trouble than I thought. But if the Democrats have a credibility problem, how did people like this ever get close to power, and is this their last gasp?

There is a longer version of White's rant here-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2020/01/26/paula-white-miscarry-metaphor/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7UpGF-JQpM