U.S. Presidential Election

[danbailey80]

3 hours ago, mattiloy said:

 

Yawn. Nothing more tedious. See also, "Starmer is just as bad as Boris". 

Edited December 4, 2020 by danbailey80

[stuartbert two hats]

5 minutes ago, danbailey80 said:

Yawn. Nothing more tedious. See also, "Starmer is just as bad a Boris". 

And New Labour was just as bad as Thatcher.

[mattiloy]

The perception of the magnitude of distance depends on how far away you are. From my point of view there is little difference.

If you’re happy to tolerate war criminals, increased inequality, financial crises, housing bubble, flat wage growth in exchange for.... sure start. Then cool.

Try judging politicians on what they do rather than how unpalatable you find their public persona.

[Homer]

3 hours ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

Out of upvotes but would echo all of this. 

In general I was really critical of the whole Bush-Blair era of politics at the time (and there were definitely some good reasons to be), but I am almost nostalgic for those days now. Wars aside obviously!

You know who I miss? Charlie Kennedy.

Agreed - funny to think I actually used to vote Lib Dem back in the day (opposing Iraq, extra penny on income tax, wanted to put trams into Bristol).

[danbailey80]

25 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

The perception of the magnitude of distance depends on how far away you are. From my point of view there is little difference.

If you’re happy to tolerate war criminals, increased inequality, financial crises, housing bubble, flat wage growth in exchange for.... sure start. Then cool.

Try judging politicians on what they do rather than how unpalatable you find their public persona.

I agree with judging politicians on what they do. I hold Jeremy Corbyn responsible for Brexit. What is it that Starmer has done so far that is so bad? What policies of his are so different to Corbyn's? 

[Homer]

26 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

The perception of the magnitude of distance depends on how far away you are. From my point of view there is little difference.

If you’re happy to tolerate war criminals, increased inequality, financial crises, housing bubble, flat wage growth in exchange for.... sure start. Then cool.

Try judging politicians on what they do rather than how unpalatable you find their public persona.

What's your solution? I'm gonna carry on voting Labour I reckon.

[eFestivals]

45 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

If you’re happy to tolerate war criminals, increased inequality, financial crises, housing bubble, flat wage growth in exchange for.... sure start. Then cool.

Who says any bad things have to be tolerated?

 

45 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Try judging politicians on what they do rather than how unpalatable you find their public persona.

Exactly. 

And while evil Blairites might be yuour list of bad things, there's also better things which they do which the tories don't.

So why not take your own advice of judging on what they do, rather than wrongly claiming them as the same?

We can all give a list of our perfect but when not enough others share it exactly, it's worth nothing towards better govt without compromise.

I want the better shit that you're too blind to see, because it's better shit than tory shit - and that makes a *REAL* difference to people's lives, which an idiot belief in self-perfection never can.

Edited December 4, 2020 by eFestivals

[mattiloy]

35 minutes ago, Homer said:

What's your solution? I'm gonna carry on voting Labour I reckon.

I’ll always vote for the party with the slate which presents the policies which I agree with most. I also voted lib dem in 2010.

But the one thing I learned in doing so was how quickly phonies will sell their manifesto and all those who voted for them down the river. So trust is a big part of it. I’m sorry to say that I don’t trust Keir Starmer to implement a positive progressive manifesto. Then you get a government which is marginally more tolerable than the tories who end up making labour so detestable that they are kept out of office for another generation. Taking one step forward and two back is taking one step back and i won’t vote for that.

Its documented somewhere on these very forums that i was open minded about starmer and voted nandy but he lost my trust. Its there to be rewon but I don’t think he will. I don’t think he’ll survive the AS palava, the truth will out and show that he has behaved like a tyrant. A split is almost inevitable.
 

 

[steviewevie]

yay, lets argue about what a horrible old antisemite corbyn is.

[mattiloy]

14 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

yay, lets argue about what a horrible old antisemite corbyn is.

U r

[Zoo Music Girl]

2 hours ago, Homer said:

Agreed - funny to think I actually used to vote Lib Dem back in the day (opposing Iraq, extra penny on income tax, wanted to put trams into Bristol).

Me too! Voted Lib Dem for years actually.

[Homer]

1 hour ago, mattiloy said:

Then you get a government which is marginally more tolerable than the tories who end up making labour so detestable that they are kept out of office for another generation. 

 

So, when was the last 'non-destable' government that kept the tories out? 1979?

The problem is, I'm as up for a bit of socialism as the next person - but I can't see us getting any any time... ever.

[steviewevie]

 

[maelzoid]

5 hours ago, Homer said:

So, when was the last 'non-destable' government that kept the tories out? 1979?

The problem is, I'm as up for a bit of socialism as the next person - but I can't see us getting any any time... ever.

I've been making this same point to friends. There is only one person who has won a general election who is not a Tory in the last 40 years (11 elections): Tony Blair. 

This country is more right wing than many people here would like it to be, me included. I think if Labour want to lead this country, they have to lean to the centre. Candidates as far to the left as Corbyn simply will not get elected.

[Radiochicken]

56 minutes ago, maelzoid said:

I've been making this same point to friends. There is only one person who has won a general election who is not a Tory in the last 40 years (11 elections): Tony Blair. 

This country is more right wing than many people here would like it to be, me included. I think if Labour want to lead this country, they have to lean to the centre. Candidates as far to the left as Corbyn simply will not get elected.

Stop talking sense, fantasy is easier to stomach.

[ShakeyCrash]

2 hours ago, maelzoid said:

I've been making this same point to friends. There is only one person who has won a general election who is not a Tory in the last 40 years (11 elections): Tony Blair. 

This country is more right wing than many people here would like it to be, me included. I think if Labour want to lead this country, they have to lean to the centre.

So then not be the Labour party i believe in so i should still vote for them why?

1 hour ago, Radiochicken said:

Stop talking sense, fantasy is easier to stomach.

It’s not fantasy. It’s called principles and not changing them because you get knocked back. I’m guessing the left just shut up so Newer Labour can get in power? 

[eFestivals]

16 hours ago, Homer said:

The problem is, I'm as up for a bit of socialism as the next person - but I can't see us getting any any time... ever.

Ha! The problem there is, that the next person is unlikely to up for a bit of socialism (which you do recognise).

Like you, I think there's no point holding out for something the electorate don't want. The best there is to be had is what the electorate will accept.

[eFestivals]

7 hours ago, ShakeyCrash said:

So then not be the Labour party i believe in so i should still vote for them why?

because it's better than the alternative of a tory govt.

An election isn't about what you want when it comes to winning. It's about what the electorate will accept.

[eFestivals]

7 hours ago, ShakeyCrash said:

It’s not fantasy. It’s called principles and not changing them because you get knocked back. I’m guessing the left just shut up so Newer Labour can get in power? 

Principles are a fantasy until they're delivered. So your principles will forever be that fantasy because no one agrees with another person 100% of the time.

But no one is asking you to abandon your principles.

All that is being suggested is that you recognise the reality of the world we live within, where you're not happy to have someone of the raving right fulfil their principles, anymore than that person would be happy for yours to be fulfilled. 

Which means the only options are war, or compromise.

[Homer]

8 hours ago, ShakeyCrash said:

So then not be the Labour party i believe in so i should still vote for them why?

It’s not fantasy. It’s called principles and not changing them because you get knocked back. I’m guessing the left just shut up so Newer Labour can get in power? 

I am making an assumption that that form of Labour party would be preferable to you than the tories yet again. Or am I wrong there?

If not vote Labour ... what is your solution?

[Ozanne]

I agree, isn’t the alternative more years of Tory rule? 

Edited December 5, 2020 by Ozanne

[mcshed]

20 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

war, or compromise

I believe in standard Marxist theory it's termed revolution rather than war. Even your momentum types don't talk about revolution any more so compromise it is.

As the Brexit vote proved you can convince the public to do pretty drastic things if you can sell them a story they believe. If the left want radical change then we need to be better creating a narrative that leads to support for that change, which means focusing on one clear idea at a time rather than the muddled 2019 manifesto of everything for everybody. 

[Ozanne]

What would get votes then, free cake?

[mcshed]

19 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

What would get votes then, free cake?

I don't know, but as I say it isn't so much about the specific policy it's about getting people to buy into the story. The current story that Starmer is trying to sell is that he is the only grownup in the room and anyone tired of childish nonsense from Boris's bufoonery to Williamson's "we're the best" should vote for him.  It helps that playing this angle also helps with restablising Labour and dealing with perceived "competency" issues that have dogged the party since "ending boom and bust" so I'm not criticising it. It's similar stories the left of the party need to be able to tell.

One rule for them and another for us has got a lot of traction during the pandemic, I could see that being used to say increase capital gains tax so it was more in line with income tax. After all why should the wealthy's assets earn money without paying as much tax as our labour?

[DeanoL]

13 hours ago, maelzoid said:

I've been making this same point to friends. There is only one person who has won a general election who is not a Tory in the last 40 years (11 elections): Tony Blair. 

This country is more right wing than many people here would like it to be, me included. I think if Labour want to lead this country, they have to lean to the centre. Candidates as far to the left as Corbyn simply will not get elected.

Out of interest, do you think the country is actually as right wing as the current Tory government though? 
Because to me UKIP and Brexit are proof that you can be a small party with no MPs and still exert inordinate pressure on a government and convince the public that you’re right.

The notion that we need to move more to the centre to win votes seems flawed when the current government is far from centrist.

I feel like the country needs a viable left wing alternative to make the arguments that need to made. That party will not win an election, it may never even win a seat, but it can then exert pressure on a more centrist Labour Party to be more progressive in government.