UK Politics Thread XI: Boris' Big Bombastic Brexit Bash

[The Blaatschapen]

Long-Bailey is an excellent choice for those Labour supporters who believe that the party works best as a campaigning opposition to a Tory government.

Long-Bailey would be a catastrophic choice for any Labour supporters who believe that the party might actually want to exercise power by governing.

I'm not a Labour voter, so I'm conscious of the possibility - the probability - that I'm going to come across as hectoring from the sidelines (with a little side dash of hypocrisy for good measure given who I do vote for), but those of you who do consider yourselves Labour supporters have a decision to make. What's more important to you? Ideological purity or government? If you value the former, then I'm sure you'll be very happy with a leader who rates Jeremy Corbyn's leadership as a 10 out of 10; what could possibly go wrong? If you value the latter, it's not inconceivable that you may choose to look elsewhere.

But where would they look?

Besides abroad, that doesn't count

[Farnhamia]

Long-Bailey is an excellent choice for those Labour supporters who believe that the party works best as a campaigning opposition to a Tory government.

Long-Bailey would be a catastrophic choice for any Labour supporters who believe that the party might actually want to exercise power by governing.

I'm not a Labour voter, so I'm conscious of the possibility - the probability - that I'm going to come across as hectoring from the sidelines (with a little side dash of hypocrisy for good measure given who I do vote for), but those of you who do consider yourselves Labour supporters have a decision to make. What's more important to you? Ideological purity or government? If you value the former, then I'm sure you'll be very happy with a leader who rates Jeremy Corbyn's leadership as a 10 out of 10; what could possibly go wrong? If you value the latter, it's not inconceivable that you may choose to look elsewhere.

But where would they look?

Besides abroad, that doesn't count

I can think of a solution but it involves you sleeping on Sedge's couch and filling out a lot of paperwork.

[Fartsniffage]

But where would they look?

Besides abroad, that doesn't count

I can think of a solution but it involves you sleeping on Sedge's couch and filling out a lot of paperwork.

I once had Blaat sleeping in my library. But there was no paperwork. Should I have made him sign things?

[The Blaatschapen]

But where would they look?

Besides abroad, that doesn't count

I can think of a solution but it involves you sleeping on Sedge's couch and filling out a lot of paperwork.

I am not sure which is less likely, me becoming British or me becoming a fan of Labour parties

[Souseiseki]

scottish parliamentary corporate body trying to take down the EU flag at holyrood on brexit day. SNP and greens considering trying to pass a law keeping it up.

i hope that they do pass the law to keep it up, because when "brexit day" comes i want it to be absolutely clear in the most uncertain terms that we do not accept this bullshit and we will not be "moving on".

[Chan Island]

scottish parliamentary corporate body trying to take down the EU flag at holyrood on brexit day. SNP and greens considering trying to pass a law keeping it up.

i hope that they do pass the law to keep it up, because when "brexit day" comes i want it to be absolutely clear in the most uncertain terms that we do not accept this bullshit and we will not be "moving on".

They'd probably fly it at half-mast on the 31st if they do keep it up.

[The New California Republic]

scottish parliamentary corporate body trying to take down the EU flag at holyrood on brexit day. SNP and greens considering trying to pass a law keeping it up.

i hope that they do pass the law to keep it up, because when "brexit day" comes i want it to be absolutely clear in the most uncertain terms that we do not accept this bullshit and we will not be "moving on".

Tbh even if the EU flag was not on the pole then I'm sure a third party would stick it up outside somewhere.

[Ostroeuropa]

Long-Bailey is an excellent choice for those Labour supporters who believe that the party works best as a campaigning opposition to a Tory government.

Long-Bailey would be a catastrophic choice for any Labour supporters who believe that the party might actually want to exercise power by governing.

I'm not a Labour voter, so I'm conscious of the possibility - the probability - that I'm going to come across as hectoring from the sidelines (with a little side dash of hypocrisy for good measure given who I do vote for), but those of you who do consider yourselves Labour supporters have a decision to make. What's more important to you? Ideological purity or government? If you value the former, then I'm sure you'll be very happy with a leader who rates Jeremy Corbyn's leadership as a 10 out of 10; what could possibly go wrong? If you value the latter, it's not inconceivable that you may choose to look elsewhere.

https://twitter.com/HichamYezza/status/ ... 21218?s=20

Labour Majority in Bishop Aukland: 1997: 21,064 2001: 13,926 2005: 10,047 2010: 5,218 2015: 3,508 2017: 502 2019: Lost It's convenient & politically-lucrative for many to scapegoat Corbyn. It won't change the fact many of Labour's #GE2019 losses have been decades in the making.

Sums it up well.

What about Labour has remained consistent during this period? It hasn't been the economics. Being a "Party of protest" is not a symptom of left wing economics. At least, we do not know it is yet. We have not been shown that it fails to work when tried in conjunction with different social views.

"If you don't change your economic views to ones that also perpetuated a slow decline, there'll be a slow decline!" is not a take that aligns with reality in my opinion. The decline is sourced outside of economic policy firmly in sociocultural issues. On those issues Bailey is an improvement.

https://youtu.be/lpzVc7s-_e8

^

The only thing necessary to parody feminist theory is to have an ordinary person quote it and pretend to be believe in it.

This kind of shit is why we're losing. The notion of progressive policy actually appealing to the working classes is so ridiculous just depicting it is an onion video. It's not the economics doing us in.

[The Archregimancy]

Long-Bailey is an excellent choice for those Labour supporters who believe that the party works best as a campaigning opposition to a Tory government.

Long-Bailey would be a catastrophic choice for any Labour supporters who believe that the party might actually want to exercise power by governing.

I'm not a Labour voter, so I'm conscious of the possibility - the probability - that I'm going to come across as hectoring from the sidelines (with a little side dash of hypocrisy for good measure given who I do vote for), but those of you who do consider yourselves Labour supporters have a decision to make. What's more important to you? Ideological purity or government? If you value the former, then I'm sure you'll be very happy with a leader who rates Jeremy Corbyn's leadership as a 10 out of 10; what could possibly go wrong? If you value the latter, it's not inconceivable that you may choose to look elsewhere.

https://twitter.com/HichamYezza/status/ ... 21218?s=20

Labour Majority in Bishop Aukland: 1997: 21,064 2001: 13,926 2005: 10,047 2010: 5,218 2015: 3,508 2017: 502 2019: Lost It's convenient & politically-lucrative for many to scapegoat Corbyn. It won't change the fact many of Labour's #GE2019 losses have been decades in the making.

Sums it up well.

No it doesn't.

It's either deliberately misleading or historically illiterate. It takes a figure from the peak of the first Blair landslide, and assumes that it represents Labour over time; instead it only represents the slow decline of the Labour vote since Blair returned Labour to power in 1997. It also uses raw vote rather than percentage of majority, which can be misleading due to demographic shifts over time (though from 1997-2019 the eligible electorate - rather than turnout - should remain broadly comparable) Anyone with even a passing knowledge of British political history can demolish this nonsense within minutes.

To put that figure into context, we need to look at Labour majorities in Bishop Auckland since the seat was re-established in 1918 - which is also when Labour first won the seat. To allow for significant demographic changes in the size of the constituency's electorate and turnout, we'll do this by majority percentage rather than raw number of votes. Only general elections will be used (we'll skip the 1929 by-election). For further historical context, the seat was held by Hugh Dalton (Attlee's first post-war Chancellor) from 1929-31 and 1935-59.

1918: 13.3% majority for Labour
1922: 7.4%
1923: 25.5%
1924: 10.2%
1929: 25.7%
1931: Labour lose seat to Liberal Nationals; LibNat majority of 2.8%
1935: 24.6%
1945: 28.3%
1950: 26.3%
1951: 21%
1955: 15.5%
1959: 21.1%
1964: 23.6%
1966: 29.7%
1970: 21.4%
1974a: 14%
1974b: 21.6%
1979: 10.8%
1983: 8.4%
1987: 13.2%
1992: 18.2%
1997: 45.7%
2001: 36.1%
2005: 26.4%
2010: 12.7%
2015: 8.9%
2017: 1.2%
2019: Labour lose seat to Conservatives; Con majority of 17.8%

From the above figures, several patterns can be briefly summarised:

1) Labour's hold on the seat was unstable prior to 1935; this reflects the instability of British politics in that period.

2) From 1935 to 1970, Labour won majorities of over 20% in all but one election. This reflects a combination of post-war working class support for Labour, the lack of a credible third-party option in this period, and - possibly - the personal popularity of Hugh Dalton (though his retirement in 1959 does not seem to have had a significant impact on Labour's majorities. This is the 35-year period when Bishop Auckland was solidly and indisputably an unshakeable Labour seat. But 35 years is not a long time in historical context.

3) From the first 1974 election through 1992, Labour's majorities only exceeded 20% once, falling to a low of 8.4% in 1983, though gradually rising again after that. This reflects a combination of the popularity of Thatcher, the rise of the Liberals/Alliance/LibDems as a third party option, splits in Labour, and the singular (up until Corbyn) unpopularity of Michael Foot as an opposition leader.

4) Labour won a victory of unparalled scale in 1997 with no precedent in the seat's history. Using 1997 as a starting point for comparison is therefore deeply and profoundly misleading and/or historically illiterate. Labour's share of the vote went into decline after 1997, certainly, but that's taking an unprecedented landslide as a starting point, and even in 2005 the party was still winning a majority of a scale not previously seen since 1966. Even in 2015, its majority was still above the 1983 post-Falklands/Michael Foot nadir. It was only once Corbyn became leader, and after the Brexit referendum, that Labour's majority fell below that 1983 nadir, and only in 2019 that it lost the seat for the first time since 1931.

So to talk of a 'decades in the making' decline in the Labour vote when taking 1997 as the starting point is idiocy on the part of this Hicham Yezza, whoever he is. Yes, there was a 20-year decline between 1997 and 2019, at least in Bishop Auckland, so the statement is technically true (so long as 'decades' equates to 'two decades') but 1997 is simply not a representative starting point. There are peaks and troughs in the Labour vote between 1918-2019, and it's only under Corbyn - and only after the Brexit referendum - that Labour's majority fell below its previous post-war low point in 1983.

Lesson: Don't use a tweet as the basis of an argument without doing some background research to see if the information in that tweet is accurate.

https://youtu.be/lpzVc7s-_e8

^

The only thing necessary to parody feminist theory is to have an ordinary person quote it and pretend to be believe in it.

Appreciating that I haven't quoted the whole of the rest of the post, in the 17 years I've been on this site, this is the single most surreal counterpoint I have ever seen to any of my posts.

It neither needs nor deserves a response.

[Philjia]

https://youtu.be/lpzVc7s-_e8

^

The only thing necessary to parody feminist theory is to have an ordinary person quote it and pretend to be believe in it.

This kind of shit is why we're losing. The notion of progressive policy actually appealing to the working classes is so ridiculous just depicting it is an onion video. It's not the economics doing us in.

The joke is not that what he is saying is wrong. The joke is that he is regurgitating academic talking points that someone of his socioeconomic status would be unlikely to be aware of or even understand. It is a representation of the left failing to turn their desire to fundamentally improve society for everyone into policies which people will vote for.

[Philjia]

Apparently Rebecca Long Bailey's endorsement by Momentum was the result of the ballot of Momentum members which only gave the option of supporting Rebecca Long Bailey or not supporting anyone. Now, as Momentum is a fairly left wing socialist society and Rebecca Long Bailey is the candidate of the Left in this leadership contest, it was never likely that they would endorse anyone but her. Nonetheless, it is a good illustration of how the leaders of socialist societies and trade unions hold undue influence within the Labour Party. Divesting itself of these influences would make Labour much more transparent and accessible for the average person.

Speaking of which, the big unions have been awfully quiet. UNISON endorsed Starmer, but Unite, GMB, USDAW, and CWU have yet to make any commitment to support a candidate. Jess Phillips and Emily Thornberry can probably be ruled out as choices for any of them, though.

[West Leas Oros 2]

So are we back to "Labour lost because they keep calling casual racism and sexism bad and this clearly alienated the working class" again?

Because honestly this assumption that the working class is somehow inherently racist speaks volumes.

It speaks volumes that you throw around "muh racism/sexism" so casually, and attempt to guilt the working class into hating themselves and their comrades because of the circumstances of their birth.

[Vassenor]

So are we back to "Labour lost because they keep calling casual racism and sexism bad and this clearly alienated the working class" again?

Because honestly this assumption that the working class is somehow inherently racist speaks volumes.

It speaks volumes that you throw around "muh racism/sexism" so casually, and attempt to guilt the working class into hating themselves and their comrades because of the circumstances of their birth.

And how, exactly, have I done that?

[West Leas Oros 2]

It speaks volumes that you throw around "muh racism/sexism" so casually, and attempt to guilt the working class into hating themselves and their comrades because of the circumstances of their birth.

And how, exactly, have I done that?

By labeling Labour's admittedly shit views on social issues (which are more in line with affluent urbanite liberals than legitimate socialist movements) as "calling casual racism and sexism bad", you've shown your willingness to misuse that label. And for that matter, no one is doing what you're saying they're doing either.

[Vassenor]

And how, exactly, have I done that?

By labeling Labour's admittedly shit views on social issues (which are more in line with affluent urbanite liberals than legitimate socialist movements) as "calling casual racism and sexism bad", you've shown your willingness to misuse that label. And for that matter, no one is doing what you're saying they're doing either.

So how have Labour's social views alienated the working class and how did that directly contribute to the election result?

[West Leas Oros 2]

By labeling Labour's admittedly shit views on social issues (which are more in line with affluent urbanite liberals than legitimate socialist movements) as "calling casual racism and sexism bad", you've shown your willingness to misuse that label. And for that matter, no one is doing what you're saying they're doing either.

So how have Labour's social views alienated the working class and how did that directly contribute to the election result?

Well maybe, just maybe, prioritizing the feelings of rich hypocrites with a guilt complex over the economic realities facing the UK and it's workers is a good way to lose those worker's support. And i'm not sure how much it affected the election, but I can imagine losing your main voting demographic (or at least a majorly important one) is a big deal.

[Vassenor]

So how have Labour's social views alienated the working class and how did that directly contribute to the election result?

Well maybe, just maybe, prioritizing the feelings of rich hypocrites with a guilt complex over the economic realities facing the UK and it's workers is a good way to lose those worker's support. And i'm not sure how much it affected the election, but I can imagine losing your main voting demographic (or at least a majorly important one) is a big deal.

And how do multiculturalist views "[prioritise] the feelings of rich hypocrites with a guilt complex over the economic realities facing the UK and it's workers"?

[West Leas Oros 2]

Well maybe, just maybe, prioritizing the feelings of rich hypocrites with a guilt complex over the economic realities facing the UK and it's workers is a good way to lose those worker's support. And i'm not sure how much it affected the election, but I can imagine losing your main voting demographic (or at least a majorly important one) is a big deal.

And how do multiculturalist views "[prioritise] the feelings of rich hypocrites with a guilt complex over the economic realities facing the UK and it's workers"?

"Multicultaralism" (which is not an accurate description of Labour's actions), doesn't put money in people's pockets or food in their stomach.

[Vassenor]

And how do multiculturalist views "[prioritise] the feelings of rich hypocrites with a guilt complex over the economic realities facing the UK and it's workers"?

"Multicultaralism" (which is not an accurate description of Labour's actions), doesn't put money in people's pockets or food in their stomach.

So we should just let the upper classes exploit the working classes while convincing them that the out group is the cause of their problems, not the exploitation?

[West Leas Oros 2]

"Multicultaralism" (which is not an accurate description of Labour's actions), doesn't put money in people's pockets or food in their stomach.

So we should just let the upper classes exploit the working classes while convincing them that the out group is the cause of their problems, not the exploitation?

No, where did I say that? We should fight the upper classes exploitation, and if anyone is convincing the proletariat to turn on themselves, its the rich liberals and their upper class allies.

[Vassenor]

So we should just let the upper classes exploit the working classes while convincing them that the out group is the cause of their problems, not the exploitation?

No, where did I say that? We should fight the upper classes exploitation, and if anyone is convincing the proletariat to turn on themselves, its the rich liberals and their upper class allies.

So where is the idea that immigration is the cause of our economic problems coming from?

[West Leas Oros 2]

No, where did I say that? We should fight the upper classes exploitation, and if anyone is convincing the proletariat to turn on themselves, its the rich liberals and their upper class allies.

So where is the idea that immigration is the cause of our economic problems coming from?

Where did I mention immigration? I never objected to Labour's immigration policy. What I object to is their teaming up with identitarian factions pushing shitty policies.

[Vassenor]

So where is the idea that immigration is the cause of our economic problems coming from?

Where did I mention immigration? I never objected to Labour's immigration policy. What I object to is their teaming up with identitarian factions pushing shitty policies.

And what is commonly cited as the racial issue causing our economic problems?

And I don't see how "all animals are equal" is identarian.

[Novus America]

By labeling Labour's admittedly shit views on social issues (which are more in line with affluent urbanite liberals than legitimate socialist movements) as "calling casual racism and sexism bad", you've shown your willingness to misuse that label. And for that matter, no one is doing what you're saying they're doing either.

So how have Labour's social views alienated the working class and how did that directly contribute to the election result?

So if you are denying Labour’s stance on social issues is a problem why did they lose?
Remember you are the one saying how great Corbyn was. Maybe you might be wrong?

Considering what you supported failed?

[West Leas Oros 2]

Where did I mention immigration? I never objected to Labour's immigration policy. What I object to is their teaming up with identitarian factions pushing shitty policies.

And what is commonly cited as the racial issue causing our economic problems?

And I don't see how "all animals are equal" is identarian.

I didn't say "all animals are equal" is identitarian. "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" is. Those are the sorts of factions I'm referring to.