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

[P.D.]

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.



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.

I think he wins but I agree he's definitely a chancer, stops being an MP during the bleak opposition years then just wants to swoon back in when there's a chance to be PM. If Starmer was more popular or the Tories were still in no way he's be clamoring to come back.

I'm not sure why he's considered the savior, he's already lost 2 leadership elections and didn't seem like a master planner when he botched his takeover at the last Labour conference.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

I think he wins but I agree he's definitely a chancer, stops being an MP during the bleak opposition years then just wants to swoon back in when there's a chance to be PM. If Starmer was more popular or the Tories were still in no way he's be clamoring to come back.

TBF he was encouraged by Labour at the time to run for Mayor

 

[glasgowspur]

Honestly? I don’t think anything does. Because I think they can’t grasp that the problems in their lives aren’t rooted in the existence of others.

Let’s just say for a second that they get what it SEEMS like they want (and I am potentially misrepresenting here but trying to be open about that).

Let’s say Reform ‘stop’ immigration (they can’t) but let’s say in this ideal world of a lot of people at this march, there is no more immigration, perhaps even large numbers of people are deported.

I think what would happen is that these people would realise that actually things haven’t got better, they still don’t have the money in their pockets they thought they would have, and they still don’t have great access to services such as the NHS, or housing.

So what do I think they would do next? I think they would blame someone else. Immigrants would be gone so I reckon it would be women, or people on benefits, or “the left wing” …but I don’t think they would ever sit there and say “we might have been lied to here you know”. There will always be a group to blame.

Whatever they think their end goal is, I don’t think it’s something that can happen, and therefore I think they are now in a never ending cycle of “it’s someone else’s fault”.

What happens now next, that's easy, they blame someone else, because it can never be their fault.

 

[thfcsteff]

That's exactly my point, and is my underlying response to @SissokoWasGood (BoL) & @thfcsteff (both brilliant replies - thank you both).

In the information age we all have access to those skills in our pocket.
It's a choice not to do so - but all life choices come down to values and, more pertinently, what we are prepared to lose; that can loss of face, loss of social circles, loss of argument etc etc.

All of those people have made a choice to continue on their path and a choice not to explore an alternative, despite having the tools to do so. To do so is hard - it's hard and scary to be vulnerable and challenge one self; but to not do so makes you a coward.

We can point to upbringing, education, social media algorithms all we want - but they are all just noise and excuses for the decisions we make, and we all make them.
(Would any of us give up enough of our comfortable western lives created by the crimes of empire to help people poorer countries have similar living standards? No, we wouldn't. We'll make changes and reductions, but no one would go far enough)

Those people have made value judgements and have to own them. If you are on a far right rally you either know what it means and agree with it and promote it, or you haven't bothered to understand it but you are still promoting it for a reason positive to your life.
I'd argue the latter is worse than the former; at least the former is truthful.
Both require full ownership, and there are no excuses based on circumstances, only choices based upon circumstances.

I think circumstances and context are vital before evaluating the choices people make. I think your conclusions with regards to choice and personal responsibilities are far too binary. And this comes from someone who believes very much in the concept of personal responsibility and ownership.
You are IMO too casually dismissing desperation, manipulation, and a lack of education.

 

[parj]

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??

The problem is the Labour PR machine. It's fcuking brick. They don't highlight anything they doing. The battle isn't in parliament, it's on social media. That's where the nonsense is winning.

Labour have to win the social media battle. And take Farage on

 

[monkeybarry]

I think circumstances and context are vital before evaluating the choices people make. I think your conclusions with regards to choice and personal responsibilities are far too binary. And this comes from someone who believes very much in the concept of personal responsibility and ownership.
You are IMO too casually dismissing desperation, manipulation, and a lack of education.

I'm not dismissing them, I'm saying they are surmountable/influencable and we have agency over them.
How we act within that agency is choice.

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

The problem is the Labour PR machine. It's fcuking brick. They don't highlight anything they doing. The battle isn't in parliament, it's on social media. That's where the nonsense is winning.

Labour have to win the social media battle. And take Farage on

Agreed. I think the original thought was to be steady and calm and ‘let the results speak for themselves’ and centre left parties haven’t wanted to be like Trump, or like Farage. I think unfortunately for them those days are gone. It’s not about being like Trump, it’s that he was one of the first to really understand the power of the attention economy, and anyone that wants to succeed in this world probably has to figure out a way to do well with it. Polanski has shown how much impact he’s been able to make by just making a brick load of noise. And being absolutely everywhere, and all of a sudden the Greens have a few more points in the polls, and more than they’ve ever had. Meanwhile Corbyn is running an old playbook and is nowhere.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I do wonder how many of this mob have step foot in a church recently

Well not to use a food bank in one, judging by the average BMI on display

 

[thfcsteff]

I'm not dismissing them, I'm saying they are surmountable/influencable and we have agency over them.
How we act within that agency is choice.

The levels of surmountability are hard to gauge when someone is desperate. I accept the ethic of what you're saying; the practical reality is a little harder to state as fact IMO. I think for your perspective to be universal fact there has to be the exact same starting point. Sadly that is not the case.

 

[monkeybarry]

The levels of surmountability are hard to gauge when someone is desperate. I accept the ethic of what you're saying; the practical reality is a little harder to state as fact IMO. I think for your perspective to be universal fact there has to be the exact same starting point. Sadly that is not the case.

The levels of surmountability are proportionate to the desperation.
Of course the more desperate you are, or the more sold to you are, or the more you have riding on your position, the harder the journey is. That's exactly the point I've been making about vulnerability and what level of loss those people are prepared to accept.
The tools are there for change. The opportunity is there for change. The cost is £0, some time, and the same subjective social loss.
So no, desperation is not an excuse to join those marches - that's a cop out. You can be desperate and not a racist.

I nearly went down that road in my early 20s. I avoided it and changed the influences in my life. It was hard, and lonely. But it was right. That's was early 2000s, before smart phones, before the plethora of information we have these days.

I'm also going to posit that the loss most of the 80k people would have had would have the loss of a day out with like minded people. But on the plus side, it wouldn't have cost a train fare and beers - neither of which are cheap.

 

[DTA]

Since the squeeze (via various means) on private or 'amateur' landlords has played out over the last few years, we are already well down the path of mass ownership of residential property via big commercial landlords as the tax rules and regulations now favour them.
So, an opportunity arises for the government (any) to regulate this sector (rent caps, rises, repairs etc) that will clearly develop into a modern version of Lords and peasants.
The renting sector is not shrinking anytime soon, and this transition to mega landlords should make governing the sector easier as their business model is not hard to analyze.

If you think that massive corporations being in charge of the rental sector is going to be good for renters, then i have not just one, but multiple bridges to sell you.