UK Politics Thread III: Thready McThreadface (+ Jo Cox)

[Olivaero]

she is only "moderate" and "electable" when compared to the magical centre because it has moved so far right precisely because we kept electing people that would chase the tories instead of actually opposing them

So do you honestly feel that Corbyn is a more electable candidate for the Labour Party compared to someone like Liz Kendall? I'll be honest with you, as a left-wing socialist I agree with a lot, in fact the overwhelming majority, of what Corbyn supports, but do you really feel that following his direction would actually make the Labour Party more electable in the future, compared to a moderate candidate?

Liz Kendall would be completely unacceptable to the base which we need to actually get out as well to win elections.

[Divitaen]

So do you honestly feel that Corbyn is a more electable candidate for the Labour Party compared to someone like Liz Kendall? I'll be honest with you, as a left-wing socialist I agree with a lot, in fact the overwhelming majority, of what Corbyn supports, but do you really feel that following his direction would actually make the Labour Party more electable in the future, compared to a moderate candidate?

what have our "moderate" candidates got us, exactly? all that has happened is that we have moved further to the right. the glorious liz kendall, like many other right-wing candidates, does nothing to combat the tory narratives of austerity and scroungers. they have let labour be blamed for a global recession and admitted the tories are the party of economic competence (*brexit*) and we need to follow in their footsteps, becoming more "moderate" (read: right-wing). it's a farce.

the point is to present a real alternative to tory and tory-lite "moderates" and make him electable. the tories just fucking blew the country up and we can't capitalize on it because these pricks can't stab trying to backstab corbyn at every single turn. imagine what it could be like if we said "no that's bullshit" instead of "yeah you're right but can we go a bit slower?".

Owen Smith gave a speech blasting Cameron for cutting welfare benefits. Angela Eagle when she was in the Shadow Cabinet asked many blistering questions during PMQs to George Osborne and Cameron about similar cuts. Eagle and Smith aren't exactly Blairites. They are just as capable of fighting against terrible Tory austerity measures.

EDIT: Eagle's questions to Osborne were specifically over tax evasion policies

[Souseiseki]

Labour doesn't have to chase the Tories though, it doesn't have to try and be conservative.

>liz kendall

I mean Jeremy Corbyn supports complete unilateral denuclearisatio

i am aware that we have become a stupid pseudo-presidental system but who gives a fuck corbyn is not going to become god king of the UL

He wants to renationalise all British energy companies.

(consistently supported by the majority of the electorate in almost every poll taken)

and has said that Hamas and Hezbollah should be included in peace negotiations with Israel.

of course they should. they have to be. you can't have a peace negotiation without involving the principal fighting parties. is this a joke?

[Imperializt Russia]

We're at a bit of a political turning point. We can accept that the Labour party is a socialist party and turn to the left it is supposed to represent, or we can spend another decade chasing the Tories and failing, because there's already a Tory party, it's called the Tory party.

Labour doesn't have to chase the Tories though, it doesn't have to try and be conservative. It just doesn't need to be so radical that it turns off the average voter. I'm just looking at it from the perspective of political pragmatism here. I mean Jeremy Corbyn supports complete unilateral denuclearisation, has compared Israel's current policy to apartheid and has said that Hamas and Hezbollah should be included in peace negotiations with Israel. He wants to renationalise all British energy companies. Now I agree with all of that, but I'm pragmatic enough to realise that's very far from what the average British voter is comfortable with, and the Corbynite takeover represents a lurch to the left that hurts Labour's electability.

And yet the electorate, in no small part due to the Tories continually gaming the system in their favour, continually vote in the Tories despite their austerity hard line.

So austerity-lite and outright centrism clearly aren't going to go very far at all, otherwise Blair's vote share wouldn't have continually declined and Labour wouldn't have lost in 2010 or 2015.

[Divitaen]

Labour doesn't have to chase the Tories though, it doesn't have to try and be conservative.

>liz kendall

I mean Jeremy Corbyn supports complete unilateral denuclearisatio

i am aware that we have become a stupid pseudo-presidental system but who gives a fuck corbyn is not going to become god king of the UL

He wants to renationalise all British energy companies.

(consistently supported by the majority of the electorate in almost every poll taken)

and has said that Hamas and Hezbollah should be included in peace negotiations with Israel.

of course they should. they have to be. you can't have a peace negotiation without involving the principal fighting parties. is this a joke?

You're not arguing with me. I think Hamas and Hezbollah should be included too. But clearly the average British voter is easily swayed because he sees these groups as terrorist groups, so pragmatically having a candidate who supported including Hamas and Hezbollah is simply political suicide.

[Souseiseki]

>liz kendall



i am aware that we have become a stupid pseudo-presidental system but who gives a fuck corbyn is not going to become god king of the UL



(consistently supported by the majority of the electorate in almost every poll taken)



of course they should. they have to be. you can't have a peace negotiation without involving the principal fighting parties. is this a joke?

You're not arguing with me. I think Hamas and Hezbollah should be included too. But clearly the average British voter is easily swayed because he sees these groups as terrorist groups, so pragmatically having a candidate who supported including Hamas and Hezbollah is simply political suicide.

i think this is where we disagree. if the average british voter is wrong they need to be told so, not coddled.

[Imperializt Russia]

When the opposition (Tory) party, the other major combatant in that conflict (Israel) and that other combatant's supporters ardently don't want peace negotiations, of course there forms a narrative of outrage, overblown and faux, when someone suggests "guys, this has become a bit ridiculous, y'know".

[Olerand]

OK so we still got that.

As the person in this thread with the biggest and hardest of hard-ons for nuclear power - nuclear powerplant doesn't inherently make a warship "better".
Some countries, notably the Russians, are chopping in some of their fleet's reactors for conventional steam plants. The US abandoned reactors for anything but (super)carriers and subs decades ago.

I would argue that CdG has little real need for a reactor plant. I further argue that in service, its reactor plant will demonstrate little practical advantage over QE and its eventual sister ship.

Does Britain not intend on continuing to exert some form of global military power, if not realistically, then at least in principle? The whole point of the nuclear powered carrier is its lessened need for logistical support and refueling, allowing it to engage in -again in principle- far-flung corners of the globe. Does Britain not intend to do that?

[Divitaen]

You're not arguing with me. I think Hamas and Hezbollah should be included too. But clearly the average British voter is easily swayed because he sees these groups as terrorist groups, so pragmatically having a candidate who supported including Hamas and Hezbollah is simply political suicide.

i think this is where we disagree. if the average british voter is wrong they need to be told so, not coddled.

And unfortunately that's the kind of political pragmatism I desire. I wish the British public felt differently but the reality is that they don't, and having Corbyn at the forefront would do untold damage to the ability to re-elect the Labour Party. And as I said earlier, sure you may not like Liz Kendall, but what about now, Owen Smith questioned Cameron about austerity and welfare cuts, Angela Eagle gave a blistering critique of George Osborne during PMQs about austerity and cuts to tax collection and it has worsened tax evasion by the rich and hurt revenue collection. These aren't soul-selling Blairites, they'd do a find job representing the left-wing, anti-austerity position of the Labour Party, without Corbyn's more controversial positions which hurt the party's electability.

[Olerand]

You're not arguing with me. I think Hamas and Hezbollah should be included too. But clearly the average British voter is easily swayed because he sees these groups as terrorist groups, so pragmatically having a candidate who supported including Hamas and Hezbollah is simply political suicide.

i think this is where we disagree. if the average british voter is wrong they need to be told so, not coddled.

... Does it surprise you that the electorate doesn't vote for a party that tells them they are wrong?

[Imperializt Russia]

This was a very important consideration when we lived in a time of fear that our petrochemical plants might by struck in a nuclear attack and force us to ration out what fuel was left between the tanks, the helicopters, and the jets.

It is not the time in which we currently live.
So QE will need refuelling and CdG will not. It won't make a practical difference to their capabilities. Where are the two places either carrier will go? The Med, and the Gulf.

[Olivaero]

i think this is where we disagree. if the average british voter is wrong they need to be told so, not coddled.

And unfortunately that's the kind of political pragmatism I desire. I wish the British public felt differently but the reality is that they don't, and having Corbyn at the forefront would do untold damage to the ability to re-elect the Labour Party. And as I said earlier, sure you may not like Liz Kendall, but what about now, Owen Smith questioned Cameron about austerity and welfare cuts, Angela Eagle gave a blistering critique of George Osborne during PMQs about austerity and cuts to tax collection and it has worsened tax evasion by the rich and hurt revenue collection. These aren't soul-selling Blairites, they'd do a find job representing the left-wing, anti-austerity position of the Labour Party, without Corbyn's more controversial positions which hurt the party's electability.

It's a shame they don't want to contest the leadership in an open and fair ballot of the members against Corbyn. I'm sure a lot more people in the Labour party would be supportive if it seemed more like a contest and less like a coup.

[Imperializt Russia]

i think this is where we disagree. if the average british voter is wrong they need to be told so, not coddled.

... Does it surprise you that the electorate doesn't vote for a party that tells them they are wrong?

Obviously, as we learned especially during Brexit, we don't achieve this by going "wrong lol, next question".

People need to be told they are wrong, but it has to be clearly explained. They have to be sold on what they disagree with, when they are wrong.
How can you placate an opinion that is simply wrong? What message does that send about policymaking?

[Divitaen]

And unfortunately that's the kind of political pragmatism I desire. I wish the British public felt differently but the reality is that they don't, and having Corbyn at the forefront would do untold damage to the ability to re-elect the Labour Party. And as I said earlier, sure you may not like Liz Kendall, but what about now, Owen Smith questioned Cameron about austerity and welfare cuts, Angela Eagle gave a blistering critique of George Osborne during PMQs about austerity and cuts to tax collection and it has worsened tax evasion by the rich and hurt revenue collection. These aren't soul-selling Blairites, they'd do a find job representing the left-wing, anti-austerity position of the Labour Party, without Corbyn's more controversial positions which hurt the party's electability.

It's a shame they don't want to contest the leadership in an open and fair ballot of the members against Corbyn. I'm sure a lot more people in the Labour party would be supportive if it seemed more like a contest and less like a coup.

Well to be fair its a vote of no confidence because its a reflection that the PLP has lost confidence in Corbyn's leadership after his failure in the Remain campaign which can be attributed to his very mixed views about EU membership hurting Labour turnout and energising the Labour Leave campaign.

[Divitaen]

... Does it surprise you that the electorate doesn't vote for a party that tells them they are wrong?

Obviously, as we learned especially during Brexit, we don't achieve this by going "wrong lol, next question".

People need to be told they are wrong, but it has to be clearly explained. They have to be sold on what they disagree with, when they are wrong.
How can you placate an opinion that is simply wrong? What message does that send about policymaking?

How would you explain to Islamophobic, pro-Israel British voters that actually Hamas and Hezbollah should be included in peace negotiations when, reflexively, most British voters see them as anti-Semitic terrorist groups and see anyone who legitimises them, like Corbyn, as similarly anti-Semitic? Corbyn already had to handle accusations that he was anti-Semitic at a recent rally...

Look like I said I agree Hamas and Hezbollah need to be included in discussions but your argument is not with me. Why would you want someone like that leading the Labour Party knowing what a political liability it is to hold such extreme views (extreme relative to the British public)?

[Souseiseki]

i think this is where we disagree. if the average british voter is wrong they need to be told so, not coddled.

... Does it surprise you that the electorate doesn't vote for a party that tells them they are wrong?

not being able to accept you may be wrong on some things and getting mad and refusing to accept you could ever be wrong and throwing a tantrum when told so is the characteristic of a child

do you think we should accept that your country are a bunch of arrogant skivers who love to surrender because god forbid we offend the british electorate by telling them they're wrong?

And unfortunately that's the kind of political pragmatism I desire. I wish the British public felt differently but the reality is that they don't, and having Corbyn at the forefront would do untold damage to the ability to re-elect the Labour Party. And as I said earlier, sure you may not like Liz Kendall, but what about now, Owen Smith questioned Cameron about austerity and welfare cuts, Angela Eagle gave a blistering critique of George Osborne during PMQs about austerity and cuts to tax collection and it has worsened tax evasion by the rich and hurt revenue collection. These aren't soul-selling Blairites, they'd do a find job representing the left-wing, anti-austerity position of the Labour Party, without Corbyn's more controversial positions which hurt the party's electability.

what makes you think they are more electable or palpable to the blairites?

[Souseiseki]

... Does it surprise you that the electorate doesn't vote for a party that tells them they are wrong?

Obviously, as we learned especially during Brexit, we don't achieve this by going "wrong lol, next question".

People need to be told they are wrong, but it has to be clearly explained. They have to be sold on what they disagree with, when they are wrong.
How can you placate an opinion that is simply wrong? What message does that send about policymaking?

if only we had a political culture and media that favoured reasoned debate and nuance instead of soundbites and coddling

[Imperializt Russia]

Obviously, as we learned especially during Brexit, we don't achieve this by going "wrong lol, next question".

People need to be told they are wrong, but it has to be clearly explained. They have to be sold on what they disagree with, when they are wrong.
How can you placate an opinion that is simply wrong? What message does that send about policymaking?

How would you explain to Islamophobic, pro-Israel British voters that actually Hamas and Hezbollah should be included in peace negotiations when, reflexively, most British voters see them as anti-Semitic terrorist groups and see anyone who legitimises them, like Corbyn, as similarly anti-Semitic? Corbyn already had to handle accusations that he was anti-Semitic at a recent rally...

Look like I said I agree Hamas and Hezbollah need to be included in discussions but your argument is not with me. Why would you want someone like that leading the Labour Party knowing what a political liability it is to hold such extreme views (extreme relative to the British public)?

Explain to them how the Northern Ireland peace process worked. The IRA attacked the UK, to the point of attempted assassinations against sitting members of parliament and indeed the cabinet, until we eventually brought them to the negotiating table.

Hell even bring up Afghanistan, because a couple years ago, even there peace was within grasp.

[Olerand]

This was a very important consideration when we lived in a time of fear that our petrochemical plants might by struck in a nuclear attack and force us to ration out what fuel was left between the tanks, the helicopters, and the jets.

It is not the time in which we currently live.
So QE will need refuelling and CdG will not. It won't make a practical difference to their capabilities. Where are the two places either carrier will go? The Med, and the Gulf.

Yes, realistically, that is true.
But to claim to be a great power, which Britain supposedly would still like to be, you need to be able, not necessarily to actually do so, but you need to be able to claim global military capabilities. Not all around the globe all at the same time, of course, no one is America with its 11 carriers; but to be able to act in a specific area that is far from your national base.

[Olivaero]

It's a shame they don't want to contest the leadership in an open and fair ballot of the members against Corbyn. I'm sure a lot more people in the Labour party would be supportive if it seemed more like a contest and less like a coup.

Well to be fair its a vote of no confidence because its a reflection that the PLP has lost confidence in Corbyn's leadership after his failure in the Remain campaign which can be attributed to his very mixed views about EU membership hurting Labour turnout and energising the Labour Leave campaign.

But they need to win over the members as well. There's no point of the members supporting the Labour party, going out canvassing for it, getting out the vote, if the PLP makes it clear that their opinion is not respected. The rift between the members and the MP's needs to be resolved.

[Imperializt Russia]

This was a very important consideration when we lived in a time of fear that our petrochemical plants might by struck in a nuclear attack and force us to ration out what fuel was left between the tanks, the helicopters, and the jets.

It is not the time in which we currently live.
So QE will need refuelling and CdG will not. It won't make a practical difference to their capabilities. Where are the two places either carrier will go? The Med, and the Gulf.

Yes, realistically, that is true.
But to claim to be a great power, which Britain supposedly would still like to be, you need to be able, not necessarily to actually do so, but you need to be able to claim global military capabilities. Not all around the globe all at the same time, of course, no one is America with its 11 carriers; but to be able to act in a specific area that is far from your national base.

QE allegedly has the range to make it literally halfway around the globe.

[Olerand]

... Does it surprise you that the electorate doesn't vote for a party that tells them they are wrong?

Obviously, as we learned especially during Brexit, we don't achieve this by going "wrong lol, next question".

People need to be told they are wrong, but it has to be clearly explained. They have to be sold on what they disagree with, when they are wrong.
How can you placate an opinion that is simply wrong? What message does that send about policymaking?

If something is factually incorrect, politicians and political activists can, and should, take the time to explain the reality of the issue, although considering how "tired of experts" the British people apparently were, I'm not sure that would have mattered much.

But to just run your campaign telling people they are wrong for being 1-stupid, 2-racist, 3-bigoted, 4-ignorant, 5-Little Englanders etc. isn't going to get you votes, and that really shouldn't surprise anyone.

Obviously, as we learned especially during Brexit, we don't achieve this by going "wrong lol, next question".

People need to be told they are wrong, but it has to be clearly explained. They have to be sold on what they disagree with, when they are wrong.
How can you placate an opinion that is simply wrong? What message does that send about policymaking?

How would you explain to Islamophobic, pro-Israel British voters that actually Hamas and Hezbollah should be included in peace negotiations when, reflexively, most British voters see them as anti-Semitic terrorist groups and see anyone who legitimises them, like Corbyn, as similarly anti-Semitic? Corbyn already had to handle accusations that he was anti-Semitic at a recent rally...

Look like I said I agree Hamas and Hezbollah need to be included in discussions but your argument is not with me. Why would you want someone like that leading the Labour Party knowing what a political liability it is to hold such extreme views (extreme relative to the British public)?

Easy, you don't because that is a stupid idea.

... Does it surprise you that the electorate doesn't vote for a party that tells them they are wrong?

not being able to accept you may be wrong on some things and getting mad and refusing to accept you could ever be wrong and throwing a tantrum when told so is the characteristic of a child

do you think we should accept that your country are a bunch of arrogant skivers who love to surrender because god forbid we offend the british electorate by telling them they're wrong?

And unfortunately that's the kind of political pragmatism I desire. I wish the British public felt differently but the reality is that they don't, and having Corbyn at the forefront would do untold damage to the ability to re-elect the Labour Party. And as I said earlier, sure you may not like Liz Kendall, but what about now, Owen Smith questioned Cameron about austerity and welfare cuts, Angela Eagle gave a blistering critique of George Osborne during PMQs about austerity and cuts to tax collection and it has worsened tax evasion by the rich and hurt revenue collection. These aren't soul-selling Blairites, they'd do a find job representing the left-wing, anti-austerity position of the Labour Party, without Corbyn's more controversial positions which hurt the party's electability.

what makes you think they are more electable or palpable to the blairites?

Mmm... Perhaps, but you're doing it again. Calling the electorate an ignorant child might sound nice to you, provide you and like-minded people a belief to cling to, perhaps a good feeling of superiority, but it won't get you votes. And feeling good, in the opposition, isn't gonna do much, for you, the country, your activists, etc.

[Divitaen]

... Does it surprise you that the electorate doesn't vote for a party that tells them they are wrong?

not being able to accept you may be wrong on some things and getting mad and refusing to accept you could ever be wrong and throwing a tantrum when told so is the characteristic of a child

do you think we should accept that your country are a bunch of arrogant skivers who love to surrender because god forbid we offend the british electorate by telling them they're wrong?

And unfortunately that's the kind of political pragmatism I desire. I wish the British public felt differently but the reality is that they don't, and having Corbyn at the forefront would do untold damage to the ability to re-elect the Labour Party. And as I said earlier, sure you may not like Liz Kendall, but what about now, Owen Smith questioned Cameron about austerity and welfare cuts, Angela Eagle gave a blistering critique of George Osborne during PMQs about austerity and cuts to tax collection and it has worsened tax evasion by the rich and hurt revenue collection. These aren't soul-selling Blairites, they'd do a find job representing the left-wing, anti-austerity position of the Labour Party, without Corbyn's more controversial positions which hurt the party's electability.

what makes you think they are more electable or palpable to the blairites?

Because they don't hold the same "radical" views of Jeremy Corbyn, namely that the Bank of England should print money for spending as opposed to quantitative easing, establishing a "National Education Service", renationalisation of companies, blaming Putin's annexation of Crimea on NATO, supporting including Hamas and Hezbollah, opposition to Trident nuclear policy, opposition to NATO intervention in Libya etc etc...

Again I don't necessarily oppose any of those things, but they are easily caricatured as "socialist" to the average voter and some of them are far left of the British political centre presently

[Olerand]

Yes, realistically, that is true.
But to claim to be a great power, which Britain supposedly would still like to be, you need to be able, not necessarily to actually do so, but you need to be able to claim global military capabilities. Not all around the globe all at the same time, of course, no one is America with its 11 carriers; but to be able to act in a specific area that is far from your national base.

QE allegedly has the range to make it literally halfway around the globe.

Hm... Alright so I guess problem solved.

[Divitaen]

How would you explain to Islamophobic, pro-Israel British voters that actually Hamas and Hezbollah should be included in peace negotiations when, reflexively, most British voters see them as anti-Semitic terrorist groups and see anyone who legitimises them, like Corbyn, as similarly anti-Semitic? Corbyn already had to handle accusations that he was anti-Semitic at a recent rally...

Look like I said I agree Hamas and Hezbollah need to be included in discussions but your argument is not with me. Why would you want someone like that leading the Labour Party knowing what a political liability it is to hold such extreme views (extreme relative to the British public)?

Explain to them how the Northern Ireland peace process worked. The IRA attacked the UK, to the point of attempted assassinations against sitting members of parliament and indeed the cabinet, until we eventually brought them to the negotiating table.

Hell even bring up Afghanistan, because a couple years ago, even there peace was within grasp.

Yes, except like I said, the key words I used were Islamophobic and pro-Zionist, those are two forces very strong in the Western world, including the UK. So reflexively the British public sees Hamas and Hezbollah as suicide-bombing terrorists, that's the kind of political obstacle you are dealing with that is unique to Islamic groups as compared to, say, the IRA.