• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

LutonSpurs said:
As much as a like Burnham I do think his brand is a lot better than he actually might be. It's hard to tell. But is he more likely to steady the nerves than Kier? Yes.
Click to expand...
I agree with that. He is likely a better fit for the party but not so much for the parties floating voters.

There is plenty left in the manifesto to be implemented and the bond markets which are already talking loudly, will dictate the viability of giveaways.
 
johnola said:
I agree with that. He is likely a better fit for the party but not so much for the parties floating voters.

There is plenty left in the manifesto to be implemented and the bond markets which are already talking loudly, will dictate the viability of giveaways.
Click to expand...

Personally I think Burnham has to be radical to get anywhere. Moving a bit left and being a bit nice is not enough. But it is the only move Labour have left. Or they become the new Lib Dems.
 
LutonSpurs said:
Personally I think Burnham has to be radical to get anywhere. Moving a bit left and being a bit nice is not enough. But it is the only move Labour have left. Or they become the new Lib Dems.
Click to expand...

Cards on the table, I tend to vote Lab / at least sympathise most of the time with a centre left view of the world. But if Burnham comes in and proposes being way more radical than Starmer the opposition parties will call for a GE and I’d say they would be absolutely correct. Burnham wouldn’t have the mandate to do that, and in the same way the Tories allowed 70,000 or so people to vote for Truss and to inflict her on the country, Labour would be doing the same thing. They called for a GE then and were right, and if Burnham offers up a different manifesto essentially, he should seek his own mandate.

I think the issue of Labour’s ratings is essentially that it hasn’t been sufficiently understood that the bond markets, after Truss, are driving everything. She tried to be radical, and tried to do to too quickly, and messed up. So now those bond markets are watching the UK like a hawk. A big part of the Starmer project is that stability is change. He’s invested more in public services, he’s done some things on child poverty, he’s actually made good progress on immigration. But the real radical stuff won’t happen, because it can’t. The only way to improve the foundations for normal people long term, the only way out is through. Show that the UK is stable, that it is growing, that companies can invest here.

Starmer has been a bad communicator. But also explaining something complex like the bond markets to normal voters and transforming that into a compelling vision…that’s hard. If the idea is that Burnham is better placed to do that and keeps to the manifesto, I’d get it. It’s just that he genuinely believes that it’s ’time to get over this thing of being in hock to the bond markets’….so who knows.
 
MartyFunkhouser said:
Well I think you can only take people on what they have done, so in part yes but also by default, Labour are getting behind him which bodes well for them following him.

I think he has more about him being a PM on what he has achieved in Manchester than what Farage has achieved in Clacton.

Ultimately he will be a better "leader" and people will buy into what he is saying more than Starmer, I feel sorry for Starmer but he is falling on a modern sword in that he can never divert of script and his PR is dreadful, it shouldn't matter but it does.
Click to expand...

I do agree with this. Burnham has definitely achieved more than Farage. And I do think Starmer has tried to make a virtue of not being Boris Johnson, of not over promising, and being willing to be unpopular short term if it meant long term pay off. Unfortunately it just hasn’t worked, you do need to take people with you in politics be it voters or MPs and his lack of desire / ability to do this has done for him.
 
glasgowspur said:
Too many believe all the problems can fixed with no negative impact on them, that they can have everything and have lower taxes, we're a very selfish and impatient society.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think the media also have something to do with this. We have a highly fragmented political system now. We have algorithmic timeliness. So everyone just gets to read what they want. There’s little nuance, there’s no real thinking about trade offs or compromise. And the BBC is always ‘holding politicians to account’ and it means Labour are always scrutinised, but never able to sell their achievements (also because they haven’t adapted well enough to the media environment). And then you get vox pops of voters who will say things like ‘we’ve tried the Tories and they’ve been no good, same with Labour, it’s time for something else’ despite the fact that the Tories had 14 years and Labour less than two.
 
Baleforce said:
Burnham is playing a dangerous game.
Click to expand...

I think he’ll lose the by-election and that will be the end of his political career, which will be no bad thing imo. I don’t trust him at all. It’s always appeared to me that his main interest is Andy Burnham.

Lost Mango said:
32% voter turnout last week, 59% in last general election.

Not sure we can read that much into what happened last week.

Hopefully Reform's overall vote share will continue to decline as it did in the last 12 months.
Click to expand...

John Curtice said this week that the ‘decline’ in the Reform vote overall needs to be treated with caution as the vast majority of seats up for grabs in the council elections were in areas which are traditionally Labour, whereas in the previous election the results are being compared to this wasn’t the case.
 
SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
I’m sure this is the case.

I think Starmer is the most irrationally hated politician in history. The fact that he polls more unfavourably than Liz Truss is just ridiculous, completely preposterous. But clearly the public didn’t like the removal of the WFA, and his ratings plummeted. They’ve also blamed him for not solving every massive problem in less than 2 years, which is ridiculous. Starmer’s challenge though is that he has tried to be a Prime Minister that isn’t a politician. He doesn’t do media gimmicks. He doesn’t do factionalism. He doesn’t really have arguments. And the result of that is people think he is just rudderless and without a vision. And he hasn’t effectively told the story of what Labour is doing. If they couldn’t be radical and make massive changes quickly, explain why. Don’t just blame the Tories because they blamed Labour in 2010. Make a better argument.

I think Starmer is actually broadly where the public is on policy. The public though just has absolutely no idea that this is the case. And I think he’s completely misunderstood by the public and his own party. The left will call him an evil right wing bastard. The right will accuse him of being a lily livered lawyer. I feel like I can see what he’s tried to do - to not really care about factionalism, to not make short term promises that can never be fulfilled like Boris Johnson. And you’d think the public would appreciate it. But they just haven’t. He’s quite right wing on immigration, he’s a bit left on energy, on child poverty, he’s been super pragmatic on foreign policy and simultaneously been close and apart from Trump depending on how he judges the situation. Essentially very hard to place. And if things were going well, everyone would project their positive vibes on to him. Because it’s hard in the country, everyone projects their negative views. He absorbs everyone’s misery.

And this brings me to Burnham. I think it’s kind of ridiculous that because he’s popular as the mayor of Manchester, this equates to being able to run the country, and this suggests he will be just as popular if he has Starmer’s role. I think there’s an anti incumbent feeling, and there’s also the fact that in a fragmented system with 5-7 parties now that any PM is going to poll unfavourably. Right now Starmer gets all the scrutiny, and him receiving a gift of glasses is treated as more of a scandal than Farage taking a £5m donation. But also no credit or attention on the policies they’ve gotten through and plan to.

Burnham, if he can win the by election, will become PM. And I bet his approval ratings plummet in weeks. Once people realise that he too cannot solve everything with a click of the finger. That there aren’t single policies that solve everything for everyone with no trade offs. And I feel like he’s also just a bit of a lame relic of the New Labour era. He’s running, so of course the next day he GOES FOR A RUN in ridiculous shorts and is just not subtle at all. I think this passes for cut through in 2005. I’m not sure it equips him for being better that Starmer in tackling the challenges the UK faces in 2026x

Starmer’s probably done, although I’d rather us not change PMs less than every 2 years. Especially because I don’t think Starmer has done anything to justify being hated to the level that he is. But if he’s genuinely such a drag, I can see why it’s happening, I’m just not convinced Burnham has any genuine answers. He may be a better communicator. I would have thought that the country would have been interested in someone that didn’t do factions or political wings and didn’t try to blind people with vision statements. Just getting on with the job and doing the right thing for where the public is on a particular issue. But I guess not!

Very intrigued to see if Burnham will actually win the by election, or will Reform cause an upset. And then what happens??
Click to expand...
The problem you have BofL...is you post in the style of a rational human being.
 
LutonSpurs said:
Personally I think Burnham has to be radical to get anywhere. Moving a bit left and being a bit nice is not enough. But it is the only move Labour have left. Or they become the new Lib Dems.
Click to expand...
There are some radical things that are fairly neutral too- but for now just getting the tedious sheet through they were elected to do would be a start.

The
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
The problem you have BofL...is you post in the style of a rational human being.
Click to expand...

Ha…I do think the country has gone a bit mad and especially Labour MPs. But I guess if you’re a politician you can’t act as you wish the country to be, but must act as it is.

I guess the logic behind Starmer’s approach was to be a canvas which anyone could project their ideals on to. People of left and right could vote for him, or at least hold their nose as a palatable alternative to Farage. And that if you give him a term, people would start to feel the benefits of his decisions. Although I'm learning this season with Spurs to stop assuming people in power have some great strategy. Maybe they just made bad decisions and the world changed around them. And maybe Starmer just isn’t very good at grabbing attention and communicating in the way you need to in the modern attention economy. I think it was also the same logic of Biden vs Trump. It was let Trump be ridiculous while you stay steady. But it just didn’t work.

Interestingly it’s come out today that Harris wanted to be on the Joe Rogan podcast. Her team understands the modern attention economy and how important it is, but the Dems just haven’t build an attention ecosystem in the way the GOP has yet.

As it relates to the UK, I think Streeting is probably the best placed to carry the Labour message forward. I don’t much like how he’s resigned, but if there’s going to be a new leader, if thinking about who suits best this modern attention economy, I’d prefer Streeting to Burnham. He is an excellent speaker, extremely eloquent and yet quick on his feet. He can grab attention and seem relatable and authentic in the media environments outside of BBC News. And he can make arguments and bring people along.

Will he be as pragmatic as Starmer and as steady on the world stage? GHod knows. But as a party leader to grab attention in this modern environment, he’s the best bet if you’re of a Labour persuasion in my view.
 
SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
Ha…I do think the country has gone a bit mad and especially Labour MPs. But I guess if you’re a politician you can’t act as you wish the country to be, but must act as it is.

I guess the logic behind Starmer’s approach was to be a canvas which anyone could project their ideals on to. People of left and right could vote for him, or at least hold their nose as a palatable alternative to Farage. And that if you give him a term, people would start to feel the benefits of his decisions. Although I'm learning this season with Spurs to stop assuming people in power have some great strategy. Maybe they just made bad decisions and the world changed around them. And maybe Starmer just isn’t very good at grabbing attention and communicating in the way you need to in the modern attention economy. I think it was also the same logic of Biden vs Trump. It was let Trump be ridiculous while you stay steady. But it just didn’t work.

Interestingly it’s come out today that Harris wanted to be on the Joe Rogan podcast. Her team understands the modern attention economy and how important it is, but the Dems just haven’t build an attention ecosystem in the way the GOP has yet.

As it relates to the UK, I think Streeting is probably the best placed to carry the Labour message forward. I don’t much like how he’s resigned, but if there’s going to be a new leader, if thinking about who suits best this modern attention economy, I’d prefer Streeting to Burnham. He is an excellent speaker, extremely eloquent and yet quick on his feet. He can grab attention and seem relatable and authentic in the media environments outside of BBC News. And he can make arguments and bring people along.

Will he be as pragmatic as Starmer and as steady on the world stage? GHod knows. But as a party leader to grab attention in this modern environment, he’s the best bet if you’re of a Labour persuasion in my view.
Click to expand...
You've let yourself down there mate, as you're adopting a 'if you can't be them join them' attitude!.

I jest, you're just being a realist.

The problem is, if I condense your posts down, the overarching question is, is any of this good for the human race?:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back