[Politics] Sir Keir Starmer’s route to Number 10

[Hugo Rune]

Tbf Labour have to beat both the right wing press *and* FPTP, the odds are almost always in the Conservatives favour until they f*** up so badly.

When they win, they need to legislate hard against foreign/non-dom owned media. They do not represent the interests of British working people.

They then have to ditch FPTP for a preferential voting system (not PR!).

They need a long term plan to thwart right wing populism for generations. It’s literally turning the planet to shite by ignoring climate change and doing nothing to curb the likes of Putin and the Israeli Government.

It’s almost impossible for Labour to win an election without taking the majority of Scotchland. All the time they are voting SNP, Labour are losing a possible a majority.

However, I do realise that most Scotch will understand the vote SNP-get Tory Government campaign that will be unleashed when the election is called. The SNP will surely be massacred due to this and their scandals of late.

 

[abc]

All I can say is wait until the manifesto is finalized and released.

Fair enough and I will. But my original comment was about the tweet from Jim Pickard which is saying the policies (zillions of them) are there now but people aren’t bothering to read them, not wait until we publish.


“when punters say Labour doesn’t have enough/much policy it suggests they haven’t even read the party’s NPF document from last autumn (the de facto manifesto) which is groaning with zillions of policies”

 

[abc]

And of course a manifesto is largely a list of aspirations. The idea of unbreakable promises actually concerns me, partly because of 'events' changing the landscape, and partly because it reduces politics to a game of 'promise keeping/breaking' top trumps.

I really aree with this. Similarly with so called U turns. Oppposition MPs or campaigners try to persuade a gov to change their mind, then when they do they are lambasted as weak or incompetent for doing it.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I really aree with this. Similarly with so called U turns. Oppposition MPs or campaigners try to persuade a gov to change their mind, then when they do they are lambasted as weak or incompetent for doing it.

U turn if you want to........(you can fill out the rest yourselves).

Gosh, party politics really has been unpleasant since the mid 70s. Was it as bad before that? I don't recall there being much between Wilson and Heath. Back then of course we had so much nationalized industry, where the tax payer was seemingly paying the wages, it was difficult for either party to do differently when dealing with the unions, whether they were invited to tea and sandwiches at number ten or not.

The Thatcher revolution rode on the back of weaponizing concepts (with the help of Saatchi and Saatchi). Perhaps it had to do so to succeed. (And I don't recall the Sun being rabidly anti-labour when I did my paper round in 1972, albeit I was probably only looking at the pictures. Ahem). I think we have all become the poorer for the simplicity and relentlessness of this black-and-white-ism.

We even have an equivalent of political attack journalism in sports reporting. There's no need to ask managers such dick-ish questions (like "how disappointed were you with the defeat and the apparent way your players failed to follow your match plan?"), and outbursts by the likes of Strachan (very funny) Fergie (very scary), Maureen (f***ing rude) and so on all the way to the 'what do you think?' from RDZ are understandable when you think about it. The world of the sound bite.

(It is normally at this point that I say "we get the politicians we deserve". I could add "and journalists, and media outlets". I am sure that Young People might add "and Twitter, etc.").

 

[BLOCK F]

That's a rather partial take on what, I agree, became a too nuanced law. You need to recall the extreme push back against this, and for large swathes on the right, opposition to a hunting ban became a standard to bear in the war against the nanny state, which later morphed into the 'anti-woke' agenda. Blair was attacked for 'gesture politics' and wasting parliamentary time when there were important issues, such a crime and immigration and our relationship with the EU that needed sorting. The nascent ERG had found a new high horse to ride on. Blair, ever reasonable and consensual, tried to take on board the concerns of those who argued that 'townies' who know nothing about the countryside were destroying traditions and a way of life that was 'in balance'. The tories were unsure whether to weaponize this, because there was widespread support for a ban (in the urban population). However, they opposed it, and the whole thing did Blair lasting damage.

I personally wanted to see The Unspeakable barred from cavorting around in their red coats, with their doe-eyed 'followers' (working class rural tories) doing so-called pest control using dogs, perverting the 'drag hunt' so they 'accidentally' ended up chasing a real fox; I regard them as a load of cretinous entitled tossers. But my view is not shared by much of the centre-right, and my view would be labeled as 'typical labour class-war bollocks' by many.

Hunting Act 2004 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So in the end Blair tried to tread a thin line but the loopholes, and lack of interest in pursuit of criminality in many rural communities by the police, and active flagrant flouting of the law with entire communities conspiring in this has resulted in persistent illegal activity:

Figures show the scale of fox hunting carnage

Nearly 1,000 incidents of fox hunts wreaking havoc in the countryside or involved in suspected illegal hunting have been recorded by leading animal welfare charity the League Against Cruel Sports during the last hunting season.

www.league.org.uk

Despite my views about foxhunting, this was not a pivotal reason for voting labour. And I would also suggest that, especially today, there is a case to be made for selecting how to vote by viewing the whole piece rather than focusing on one or two manifesto items. In fact, single issue 'deal breakers' can be particularly dangerous, because they can draw the light away from a party's other (main) agenda.

For example, a pal of mine, centre politics, own business, voted Conservative for the single reason that he wanted us to leave the EU. And having achieved his goal, he has found that the red tape that drove his imperative has got worse, and he now realizes that rather than betting all-in on one colour in virtual roulette, he had instead put all him money on one number, a one in 36 bet rather than 50:50, if you see what I mean. He feels he was conned and cheated now.

And of course a manifesto is largely a list of aspirations. The idea of unbreakable promises actually concerns me, partly because of 'events' changing the landscape, and partly because it reduces politics to a game of 'promise keeping/breaking' top trumps.

Well, this centre-right fellow shares your views re fox hunting and also stag hunting. It is abhorrent and cannot be defended in this day and age. I would like to think that decent people of all political persuasion would consider it a matter of civilised behaviour towards animals rather than Labour Party class-war bollocks.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

U turn if you want to........(you can fill out the rest yourselves).

Gosh, party politics really has been unpleasant since the mid 70s. Was it as bad before that? I don't recall there being much between Wilson and Heath. Back then of course we had so much nationalized industry, where the tax payer was seemingly paying the wages, it was difficult for either party to do differently when dealing with the unions, whether they were invited to tea and sandwiches at number ten or not.

The Thatcher revolution rode on the back of weaponizing concepts (with the help of Saatchi and Saatchi). Perhaps it had to do so to succeed. (And I don't recall the Sun being rabidly anti-labour when I did my paper round in 1972, albeit I was probably only looking at the pictures. Ahem). I think we have all become the poorer for the simplicity and relentlessness of this black-and-white-ism.

We even have an equivalent of political attack journalism in sports reporting. There's no need to ask managers such dick-ish questions (like "how disappointed were you with the defeat and the apparent way your players failed to follow your match plan?"), and outbursts by the likes of Strachan (very funny) Fergie (very scary), Maureen (f***ing rude) and so on all the way to the 'what do you think?' from RDZ are understandable when you think about it. The world of the sound bite.

(It is normally at this point that I say "we get the politicians we deserve". I could add "and journalists, and media outlets". I am sure that Young People might add "and Twitter, etc.").

Wilson and Heath famously hated each other. Although I don't know how much that came across in the press at the time if you didn't happen to actively read articles covering Prime Minister's Questions.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Well, this centre-right fellow shares your views re fox hunting and also stag hunting. It is abhorrent and cannot be defended in this day and age. I would like to think that decent people of all political persuasion would consider it a matter of civilised behaviour towards animals rather than Labour Party class-war bollocks.

I hope you're right. It would please me hugely if we could move away from all this fake black-and-white-ism. Most people, centre right or centre left, evidently share much the same views about most issues, and feel quite uncomfortable being dragged off to the far right or far left by politicians who have a perceived need to create a separate identity for purposes of their own marketing, which paradoxically reduces the likelihood that centrists will give the buggers their vote. But maybe we are beginning to move on from all that. There is still a market out there for dog whistle tropes, but maybe it is a shrinking market. Hopefully

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Wilson and Heath famously hated each other. Although I don't know how much that came across in the press at the time if you didn't happen to actively read articles covering Prime Minister's Questions.

Personal antipathy, and weaponizing lazy tropes are two very different things.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Personal antipathy, and weaponizing lazy tropes are two very different things.

There's a whole pile of quotes I could throw up from over the years to suggest that dismissing the opposition with lazy tropes isn't a new thing (Churchill's claim that Labour's plans for after the war would require some sort of Gestapo comes to mind).

But I don't particularly disagree with your wider point so I'm not going to bother.

As an aside, since Zeberdi mentioned Edmund Burke earlier, if you've ever read Tom Paine's Rights of Man you'll know that about half that book is dedicated to slagging Burke off rather than making any particularly useful point about anything.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Indeed, aside from ignoring local councils on planning and building left, right and centre, there might be tax concessions on manbags.

Will you ever stop? You have done nothing but make tedious and tiresome quips to this thread.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

There's a whole pile of quotes I could throw up from over the years to suggest that dismissing the opposition with lazy tropes isn't a new thing (Churchill's claim that Labour's plans for after the war would require some sort of Gestapo comes to mind).

But I don't particularly disagree with your wider point so I'm not going to bother.

As an aside, since Zeberdi mentioned Edmund Burke earlier, if you've ever read Tom Paine's Rights of Man you'll know that about half that book is dedicated to slagging Burke off rather than making any particularly useful point about anything.

You are a very wise man, and I salute you

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

When they win, they need to legislate hard against foreign/non-dom owned media. They do not represent the interests of British working people.

They then have to ditch FPTP for a preferential voting system (not PR!).

They need a long term plan to thwart right wing populism for generations. It’s literally turning the planet to shite by ignoring climate change and doing nothing to curb the likes of Putin and the Israeli Government.

It’s almost impossible for Labour to win an election without taking the majority of Scotchland. All the time they are voting SNP, Labour are losing a possible a majority.

However, I do realise that most Scotch will understand the vote SNP-get Tory Government campaign that will be unleashed when the election is called. The SNP will surely be massacred due to this and their scandals of late.

What do you class as foreign owned media?

With the rise of Facebook/Twitter/you tube etc etc lots of people get their news information/fake news from these sources, none are owned by UK companies.
Traditional media is dying, certainly newspapers

Banning ownership because you don't like what they are printing doesn't have a place in a democracy either.

 

[Hugo Rune]

What do you class as foreign owned media?

With the rise of Facebook/Twitter/you tube etc etc lots of people get their news information/fake news from these sources, none are owned by UK companies.
Traditional media is dying, certainly newspapers

Banning ownership because you don't like what they are printing doesn't have a place in a democracy either.

Really?

I think we needs some lines in the sand. I’m not interested in banning anything but I’m all for limiting the influence of foreign actors (especially Americans/USA) in our internal (established UK based brands/publications) media through progressive legislation.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Really?

I think we needs some lines in the sand. I’m not interested in banning anything but I’m all for limiting the influence of foreign actors (especially Americans/USA) in our internal (established UK based brands/publications) media through progressive legislation.

Banning owners on those publications will do nothing much given (as pointed out) old ways of getting news/views have been replaced, plus they will just fund new ways of doing it, Talkradio/GB news etc

From your original post, what you actually mean is banning influence on things you don't agree with.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Banning owners on those publications will do nothing much given (as pointed out) old ways of getting news/views have been replaced, plus they will just fund new ways of doing it, Talkradio/GB news etc

From your original post, what you actually mean is banning influence on things you don't agree with.

Please read my response around ‘not banning’. You are purposely misrepresenting my view and taking my point out of context. I assume it’s because you don’t understand it rather than anything nefarious so I will expand on it.

It’s not about things I agree with or not. It’s about foreign agendas. So in the case of GB News, I’m more than happy with the ownership of Sir Paul Marshall, he is British but not Legatum. Both have views I dislike but the New Zealand businessman based in Dubai can do one if he expects people to believe he has the best interests of OUR (not his) country at heart.

 

[pocketseagull]

Facebook/Twitter etc can be corrosive but they don't set the news agenda.

 

[abc]

U turn if you want to........(you can fill out the rest yourselves).

Gosh, party politics really has been unpleasant since the mid 70s. Was it as bad before that? I don't recall there being much between Wilson and Heath. Back then of course we had so much nationalized industry, where the tax payer was seemingly paying the wages, it was difficult for either party to do differently when dealing with the unions, whether they were invited to tea and sandwiches at number ten or not.

The Thatcher revolution rode on the back of weaponizing concepts (with the help of Saatchi and Saatchi). Perhaps it had to do so to succeed. (And I don't recall the Sun being rabidly anti-labour when I did my paper round in 1972, albeit I was probably only looking at the pictures. Ahem). I think we have all become the poorer for the simplicity and relentlessness of this black-and-white-ism.

We even have an equivalent of political attack journalism in sports reporting. There's no need to ask managers such dick-ish questions (like "how disappointed were you with the defeat and the apparent way your players failed to follow your match plan?"), and outbursts by the likes of Strachan (very funny) Fergie (very scary), Maureen (f***ing rude) and so on all the way to the 'what do you think?' from RDZ are understandable when you think about it. The world of the sound bite.

(It is normally at this point that I say "we get the politicians we deserve". I could add "and journalists, and media outlets". I am sure that Young People might add "and Twitter, etc.").

Bit too young for Heath and Wilson. Whether you loved or loathed Mrs T, she was honest and straight. I think the downhill journey started with Blair and Mandelsson though I think Blair was honest and straight until Iraq.
I don’t trust any politicians or media owners or commentators any more and totally agree ‘we get the politicians we deserve’.
Bit shit really!

 

[beorhthelm]

Facebook/Twitter etc can be corrosive but they don't set the news agenda.

always seeing the same tropes and messaging flow from accounts on Twitter out to others. its certainly used as a channel for groups to amplify their agenda.

and there's not a thing we can do about this in the UK, other than ban it. controlling media is a dangerous path, the government of the day will seize that power to their benefit. those opposed to foreign ownership should focus on why there are not more domestic alternatives, its a competitive but relatively open market to move into.

 

[Machiavelli]

The proof is in the pudding. The pudding being the elections under left wing candidates and doctrine that Labour have consistently failed with for a century.

You can blame the right wing press, the Tories, the stupid electorate… nothing changes the fact that the public as a whole - not a very vocal minority which left wingers hear in echo - don’t want a true left wing government.

Labour are only going to win the next election because they’ve ditched the loony left from the party.

It is possible to introduce left wing policies under a centre-right leadership. Blair consistently did it: record spending on the NHS, minimum wage, longest sustained rise in living standards…

We aren’t going to see a revolution under Starmer due to the shit show financially he is inheriting, but we will see a slow and steady shift back to the middle which is exactly what the polls are saying the public wants.

You're of the view that you know what the middle or centre is. Politics moves all the time. Attlee's two governments instigated a significant shift to the left, which set the postwar consensus which lasted for decades. Then Thatcher came along in 1979, and moved things significantly to the neoliberal right. What we've had to endure over the past decade is Tories moving things to different parts of the right to that.
And yet amongst all of that here you and all the other extremists and loons of the centre and middle content in the certainty that you know where and what that is. Also factor in that, given all we're ever allowed to have according to extremists of the centre is either the right or the centre, your entire analysis is constantly shifting things to the right.

 

[ClemFandango]

Facebook/Twitter etc can be corrosive but they don't set the news agenda.

You're wrong I'm afraid. Google and Facebook control 98% of global media advertising, which is why social media rules and traditional newspapers and televison companies are dying on their arse. The main source of news for under 20s is TikTok. Anyone banging on about the malign influence of 'right-wing papers' etc is years out of date