General politics thread: | Page 70 | Vital Football

General politics thread:

Status
Not open for further replies.
in_the_top_one said:
John Curtice.

"Labour, on 29%, were as much as seven points behind the Conservatives. That might be less than the 12 point deficit at the 2019 general election, but still leaves the party's standing looking very similar to many a lacklustre performance under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. "

I dunno, cutting Corbyn's 12pt deficit to 7pts certainly isn't a big victory or anything for them to celebrate but it isn't to be sniffed at either in a relatively short time.
You have been very critical of Drakeford on here but he is looking at a record equalling result for Labour in Wales.
They should have done better but this was a hard time for Labour to face elections. The vaccine bounce has been good for encumbants. I think Hartlepool being quite so brexity and an unsuitable Labour candidate have skewed the national narrative a bit. It certainly won't make any difference to the Westminster mathematics.
Click to expand...

Keep dreaming chaps. Starmer won’t cut it as leader. David Milliband back is probably your only hope. The only time Labour won power is with Blair since 1979. This is a conservative (with a little c ) country.
 
Calvin Plummer said:
It's not regardless because to effectively communicate and lay out a vision for people to buy into you first have to listen and secondly understand. You're talking a language nobody but middle class academics can relate to.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking to the working class though, I'm taking to you (a champagne socialist as you once described yourself) and I don't make policy I just pontificate on a football forum.

Still someone needs to give the socialist viewpoint on here, there is far too much centrist guff spoken as fact and loudmouths like the "good" pope love to shout down anyone who disagrees with his watered down tory recieved wisdom.

The chant of "Elitist!" Is just too easy a tool for the right to use against any left winger actually seeking to understand / explain the impacts of class dynamics.

1- "there is no working class! " they say.
Then:
2- "the working class are too stupid to understand what you are saying anyway"
Then to the working class:
3- "don't listen to them they are elitists!"

And by the working class I mean anyone who has to go to get up and go to work on a Monday morning in order to keep a roof over their heads.
 
InvincibleBrianMan said:
I'm not talking to the working class though, I'm taking to you (a champagne socialist as you once described yourself) and I don't make policy I just pontificate on a football forum.

Still someone needs to give the socialist viewpoint on here, there is far too much centrist guff spoken as fact and loudmouths like the "good" pope love to shout down anyone who disagrees with his watered down tory recieved wisdom.

The chant of "Elitist!" Is just too easy a tool for the right to use against any left winger actually seeking to understand / explain the impacts of class dynamics.

1- "there is no working class! " they say.
Then:
2- "the working class are too stupid to understand what you are saying anyway"
Then to the working class:
3- "don't listen to them they are elitists!"

And by the working class I mean anyone who has to go to get up and go to work on a Monday morning in order to keep a roof over their heads.
Click to expand...

I like the old Benn (I think) quote when challenged if he'd remove first class carriages from trains, he replied "nope, I'd remove everything else because I think all people are first class".

Class reductionism has it's place, my concerns are twofold, firstly as I suggested very few of those you'd consider working class do themselves anymore. Certainly not as an homogeneous group. I don't think any ethos that puts reductionism front and centre has any possible chance of success. People simply won't respond to it in any type of numbers that would be required to win a GE.

Secondly it simplifies a very complex society by ignoring or minimising gender, race etc. It's broadbrush thinking that's not been particularly relevant for 50 years.
 
Calvin Plummer said:
I like the old Benn (I think) quote when challenged if he'd remove first class carriages from trains, he replied "nope, I'd remove everything else because I think all people are first class".

Class reductionism has it's place, my concerns are twofold, firstly as I suggested very few of those you'd consider working class do themselves anymore. Certainly not as an homogeneous group. I don't think any ethos that puts reductionism front and centre has any possible chance of success. People simply won't respond to it in any type of numbers that would be required to win a GE.

Secondly it simplifies a very complex society by ignoring or minimising gender, race etc. It's broadbrush thinking that's not been particularly relevant for 50 years.
Click to expand...
Well, class reductionism is basically a term used to dismiss the beliefs of socialists (or Social Democrats like Bernie Sanders and others) and I was using it ironically. Centrists use it as a wedge (in my opinion) to seperate social justice issues, like race, gender etc from economic justice issues in order to divide and rule.

I was also using Cultural Marxist ironically as that is a dog whistle term used by the extreme right when they mean Jews.

My point is that intersectionality and "woke" theories like critical race theory are less threatening to the economic elites when a dividing line can be drawn between the causes they highlight and any actual substantial economic reforms that are ( in my opinion) needed in order to actually mend society.

Class war has been fought and won by the capitalists over the past 50 years. Union membership levels have been slashed, why do right wing governments, billionaires and multinational corporations fight so hard against unions? Because they are the single most powerful force available to increase and maintain wages for the working people.

Why do right wing governments, billionaires, and multinational companies work so hard to reduce corporate tax rates and create tax loopholes that allow billionaires and multinational companies to avoid paying their taxes and drastically slash tax rates for the richest less than one percent of the population? Why have top rate taxes been slashed so much over the last 50 years? Well it's not for the good of the average worker is it?

Why have wages stagnated or fallen so drastically over the last 50 years (depending on how you measure it?) You could easily buy or rent a decent family home on one wage 50 years ago can you now? ( In either the UK or Canada for that matter?)

There are massive economic losses that have been made by the workers over the last 50 years. They have lost job security, decent unionized Jobe, and have seen economic inequality spiral out of control.

Dividing off race, sexuality, gender issues from the underlying pillaging and pickpocketing of the worker that has been done by the multimillionaire and billionaire classes during that 50 years and pretending that pointing out the flooring mess society is in now is a return to some kind of regressive 1970s politics is just rehashing tired old post-thatcherite excuses. (In my opinion)
 
in_the_top_one said:
Prepare for another hypocrisy avalanche.
Those freedom living brits who don't want vaccine passports, or any other restrictions on our liberties are going to be just fine with voter suppression in the form of photo IDs at the polling stations. Even those who won't accept, err, ID cards.
Click to expand...
Ironically, the shifting political demographics and the Tories triumphant capturing of "working class interests" mean that in the medium to long term, this may well end up hitting their new conservative voters.
 
Dianne Abbot is in the Guardian talking about Burnham for leader if Starmer loses byelections.
Don't know what to think about it tbh.
I wonder if Rayner has anything to do with this, or whether its just Abbott just talking.
 
i am a tree said:
Dianne Abbot is in the Guardian talking about Burnham for leader if Starmer loses byelections.
Don't know what to think about it tbh.
I wonder if Rayner has anything to do with this, or whether its just Abbott just talking.
Click to expand...

Do wonder if Burnham had beaten Corbyn how things might have been...
 
Calvin Plummer said:
Do wonder if Burnham had beaten Corbyn how things might have been...
Click to expand...
Its hard to say. At least Labour wouldn't be in such an utter nightmare situation, but its impossible to know whether they had won power.

Living in Manchester, opinions about Burnham are either love him or hate him. The working class seems to absolutely hate him (in general). On local issues, his words are much better than his actions, and he has overseen the acceleration of gentrification in the areas around the city centre, displacing the poor in favour of wine bar and beauty salon areas with ridiculously expensive blocks of flats going up and forcing the poorer people out into the shitty part of the outskirts.

He is very smart politically though, more so than Starmer I would say, and has the position to maybe be able to unify the party as long as people on both sides are willing to compromise for once. Starmer seems to have never been able to assert himself over public opinion of him, whereas Burnham has a great sense of timing and knows what to say to get people on side.
It could all be just talk from Abbott though.
 
i am a tree said:
Its hard to say. At least Labour wouldn't be in such an utter nightmare situation, but its impossible to know whether they had won power.

Living in Manchester, opinions about Burnham are either love him or hate him. The working class seems to absolutely hate him (in general). On local issues, his words are much better than his actions, and he has overseen the acceleration of gentrification in the areas around the city centre, displacing the poor in favour of wine bar and beauty salon areas with ridiculously expensive blocks of flats going up and forcing the poorer people out into the shitty part of the outskirts.

He is very smart politically though, more so than Starmer I would say, and has the position to maybe be able to unify the party as long as people on both sides are willing to compromise for once. Starmer seems to have never been able to assert himself over public opinion of him, whereas Burnham has a great sense of timing and knows what to say to get people on side.
It could all be just talk from Abbott though.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how he could hold back gentrification, or if he even should. Given how much difficulty high street shops are facing that he can encourage people to open up any is surely to his credit?

Similar better housing when done well also means better housing for those on the margins of society.

He absolutely could not have replaced Corbyn though, Labour needed to detoxify. Another left wing leader wouldn't be able to do that.
 
I like Burnham, seems to have his head screwed on.
Would certainly be a step in the right direction to bring many of us back to Labour.
 
Calvin Plummer said:
I'm not sure how he could hold back gentrification, or if he even should. Given how much difficulty high street shops are facing that he can encourage people to open up any is surely to his credit?

Similar better housing when done well also means better housing for those on the margins of society.

He absolutely could not have replaced Corbyn though, Labour needed to detoxify. Another left wing leader wouldn't be able to do that.
Click to expand...

Is Burnham left wing? His record as an MP and minister would suggest he is pragmatic left of centre in Politics and therefore centre right in Labour Party. About correct balance?
 
Polly 433 said:
Is Burnham left wing? His record as an MP and minister would suggest he is pragmatic left of centre in Politics and therefore centre right in Labour Party. About correct balance?
Click to expand...
Abbott is somehow suggesting he will lead the left of Labour to victory again.
I'm not sure that's how it will work lol.
He's probably smart enough not to immediately burn those bridges like Starmer did though.
 
i am a tree said:
Abbott is somehow suggesting he will lead the left of Labour to victory again.
I'm not sure that's how it will work lol.
He's probably smart enough not to immediately burn those bridges like Starmer did though.
Click to expand...

Starmer was correct to, it wasn't about the Labour party. It was about public perception, dealing with the perceived anti-semitism from the left was crucial.
 
Polly 433 said:
Is Burnham left wing? His record as an MP and minister would suggest he is pragmatic left of centre in Politics and therefore centre right in Labour Party. About correct balance?
Click to expand...

It's always a bit more complicated than purely left or centre but he was favoured by the Trade Unions before he distanced himself during the last election.

I'd put him centre with a left lean in the Labour party...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.