What is the point of Labour ?

[Theyellowbox]

17 hours ago, Detective Jimmy McNulty said:

6 more weeks of this.

He's already been found out to have misled on the Rayner thing and that the event was preplanned, that's what the tories will focus on. You think Johnson is going to magically fall on his sword ?

Johnson will never fall on his sword, but by offering to resign, Starmer forces the tories to either demand the same of Johnson if Starmer resigns or be seen by their constituents to be allowing one rule for one etc. If, as is likely, starmer is not fined, then he can really go after Johnson and again, the Tory MP's will get it in the neck from constituents.

From a Labour party perspective, they can continue to regain some of the credibility over internal divisions that have plagued them surrounding Momentum and Corbyn for a long time. Starmer in or Starmer out probably matters not too much to the electability of Labour. Johnson in or Johnson out continues to harm the tories.

P.S, using the daily mail as any gauge on public mood regarding politics is as useful as asking an Eskimo about sandcastles. 

[Detournement]

1 hour ago, scottsdad said:

Here's what I don't get. The media had the knives out for Corbyn in 2017. But people were enthused by his left-wing policies. In 2019 the press still had the knives out for him. He still had left-wing policies. So...what changed? 

My thinking is that 2017 was just an oddity/outlier following the carnage of the referendum and 2019 was back to normal. Happy to be proven wrong though. 

The press coverage in 2019 was like nothing we had ever seen before. BBC1 was pretty much rolling news all year with stuff like Labour resignations and TIG, various Brexit votes in the Commons, the No Confidence votes, the Tory leadership election, court challenges, the summer People's Vote rallies, the Labour Conference going crazy about a second referendum, Parliament getting prorouged then the election. And all these events that had wall to wall coverage also inevitably featured anti semitism in the Labour Party accustaions.

The deliberate affect of it all was to delude Remain supporters (many victims on here), enrage Brexit  supporters and smear Corbyn so he was unable to put forward any positive message or control the Labour position on Brexit.

Then we had the crazily biased election coverage itself. 

The electoral results were inevitable. 

 

 

Edited May 10, 2022 by Detournement

[D Angelo Barksdale]

The media will always go after the Labour leader. The problem here is that Starmer has folded like a cheap deckchair when he hasn't yet received a fraction of the shite that was thrown at Brown and Miliband, never mind Corbyn.

At least those 3 pushed back a bit, Starmer's brought a knife to gun fight and threatened to stab himself.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

Of course everybody on this forum is smart enough to not get swayed by media smear attempts, I'm wondering to what level people believe the general population are susceptible?

[Granny Danger]

34 minutes ago, Detective Jimmy McNulty said:

The media will always go after the Labour leader. The problem here is that Starmer has folded like a cheap deckchair when he hasn't yet received a fraction of the shite that was thrown at Brown and Miliband, never mind Corbyn.

At least those 3 pushed back a bit, Starmer's brought a knife to gun fight and threatened to stab himself.

Some will see it like that; others will see it as a clever, tactically sound move.

[Dunning1874]

7 hours ago, williemillersmoustache said:

2017 was a catastrophe. Corbyn lost to the worst PM (at the time) who fought the worst campaign in history. And rather than f**k off sheepishly into the sunset having failed to beat May, unbelievably he took this as a sign to keep going. 

It was the highest share of the vote the Tories had won since 1983 and Labour's own vote share and seats won was a considerable improvement on where they had been in 2010 and 2015, which is why up to about two weeks before the election the received wisdom was that the Tories were going to romp home by about 20 points with a majority of over 100.

What changed in 2019 was that the election became primarily about Brexit. There were of course multiple other issues around Corbyn personally and Labour in general, while Labour ending up in the position they did on Brexit was largely down to Corbyn's own incompetence & weakness in dealing with his own party, but without Labour committing a second referendum while the Tories were able to run on "get Brexit done" their vote wouldn't have collapsed the same way.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

16 hours ago, scottsdad said:

Here's what I don't get. The media had the knives out for Corbyn in 2017. But people were enthused by his left-wing policies. In 2019 the press still had the knives out for him. He still had left-wing policies. So...what changed? 

My thinking is that 2017 was just an oddity/outlier following the carnage of the referendum and 2019 was back to normal. Happy to be proven wrong though. 

Three things for me:

1. May was gone and she was, as previously posted by many, probably the worst campaigner we'll ever see,

2. The engagement of a large portion of the electorate, the vision presented by the policies within that manifesto, and the resultant gains by Corbyn's Labour scared the living shite out of those who benefit greatly from the status quo, leading them to believe

3. It was time to unleash maverick, cheeky chappie, one-of-us-really Waldo "Boris" and go full populist. The sustained personal attacks on Corbyn were also the most vicious (and fabricated) I've seen in my time on this earth.

And it worked, God help us. I fucking despair at the state of this country and the refusal to face reality of the stupid bigoted racists who enable the slightly brighter bigoted racists to shred every last piece of freedom remaining to us.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

14 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

Some will see it like that; others will see it as a clever, tactically sound move.

I see it as what you'd expect from someone who is working from the Bliar blueprint. He's no more a Labour leader than Umunna would have been.

[scottsdad]

8 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

It was the highest share of the vote the Tories had won since 1983 and Labour's own vote share and seats won was a considerable improvement on where they had been in 2010 and 2015

Ukip were pulling in 4 million votes before the referendum. These were split by Labour and the Tories in 2017. This is why I don't think you could say either side did particularly well - it was one of a number of circumstances that made this an oddity of an election. They inherited loads of votes but I don't take this as much of an endorsement 

[Fullerene]

18 hours ago, scottsdad said:

He did himself no favours with that one - though what choice did he really have? Come out as a Remainer, get vilified and accused of being anti-democratic and working against his own beliefs? Come out as a Brexiter and abandon the 48% of the electorate who voted remain? In the end he chose neither which was worse than both other options as it made him seem indecisive. 

I don't think any labour leader would have done well there. 

His problem with the second referendum was a direct result of his stance on the first one.  Corbyn was never a fan of the EU, was fairly lukewarm about staying in, offered no strong leadership on the issue and I suspect he quietly hoped the issue would fade and he could then talk about other things.

[Antlion]

5 minutes ago, Fullerene said:

His problem with the second referendum was a direct result of his stance on the first one.  Corbyn was never a fan of the EU, was fairly lukewarm about staying in, offered no strong leadership on the issue and I suspect he quietly hoped the issue would fade and he could then talk about other things.

This was always the problem with Corbyn. He was a great campaigner on issues he really cared about - but he all but ignored things that didn’t enthuse him. Not only the EU but Scotland were things about which he said what he told to say, but about which he muster up no hint of enthusiasm; he was content to delegate on these issues or weakly parrot the ongoing party line. The problem was that these were pretty big issues at that election.

[Clown Job]

 

[Albus Bulbasaur]

10 minutes ago, Clown Job said:

 

Brilliant news. 

[doulikefish]

6 hours ago, Clown Job said:

 

Less than a week since Sarwar was telling us there would be no deals with other parties to take charge of councils

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I'm not sure what the SNP's point is here.
What they are advertising is that they can't work with anyone to form a coalition themselves and prevent this from happening.
Maybe they should focus on their own failings in that regard. Why won't they work with anyone at all?

It's not just the SNP but the opinion of Chris McCall depute editor of that bastion of independence, the Daily Record.

Labour are so obsessed with the SNP in some areas they would rather work with anyone but the SNP.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

I'm sure they are but this specific thing is about the SNP complaining that Labour are working with other parties.

In no other walk of life would anyone be criticising someone for working with others.

It's utterly bizarre behaviour and makes the SNP look like idiots.

The problem with people not working together in these environments is that the public end up paying the price in disruption.

Literal Nationalists are upset because Labour have aligned themselves with a party with "Britain" in their name. I mean I'd get it if it was like SFP, UKIP or the SDL...

[D Angelo Barksdale]

Are the British Unionist Party not opposed to Holyrood/devolution ?

Maybe that's why it's grinding some people's gears ?

[GNU_Linux]

Are the British Unionist Party not opposed to Holyrood/devolution ?
Maybe that's why it's grinding some people's gears ?

Aye it's the mob formerly known as A Better Britain - Unionist Party.

[Antlion]

24 minutes ago, Detective Jimmy McNulty said:

Are the British Unionist Party not opposed to Holyrood/devolution ?

Maybe that's why it's grinding some people's gears ?

Are they also opposed to the name “Scotland”, the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, the National Library of Scotland, Scots Law, and the Scottish Kirk? I mean, these are just filthy nationalist (the bad kind, because it’s not British) institutions.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

30 minutes ago, Detective Jimmy McNulty said:

Are the British Unionist Party not opposed to Holyrood/devolution ?

Maybe that's why it's grinding some people's gears ?

Even if they are I don't think that's where the disdain is coming from... As a Labour supporting Unionist it's not surprising I would support this council being formed. It's really not the story that some would like it to be.