UK General Discussion: 2017 and onwards, Mayhem

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

People calling Jeremy Corbyn an anti Semite:

People still denying that Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-semite:

[ViaActiva]

As for Cat Smith, don't know much about her, but David Cameron once commented she made an intelligent question and suggested she run for Labour leader, although maybe that was tongue and cheek.  As for the names mentioned, just pointing out they are quite left wing.  Now to be fair maybe there is a market for that, after all there is no shortage of countries including the US have leaders that most would consider too far right to be electable (In Europe you have Poland and Hungary) so more just an observation.

Miles, please listen: the public don't care about left or right or centre. That is the domain of the political anorak.

Again, is this really true? I always thought ideology did matter in the UK, more than say America. Liverpool tends to vote Labour, and Surrey Tory.

Yes there are strong tribal loyalties in British politics - a lot of people will vote Labour/Tory because ‘that’s what our family always does’ - this acts as a barrier to the success of a third party as it was to the SDP/Liberals in the 1980s. The extent to which people vote on different degrees of politics (hard-left/centre-left) is a slightly more nuanced point but I think still true.

Many hard-left positions are not popular: huge public borrowing (the most effective post-crash Conservative argument), hostility to business and the private economy in which the majority of people work (e.g. Corbyn faced a lot of criticism for proposing to raise taxes on small businesses), weakness on national security and defence (in this he is out of step with the majority of working-class people). Now higher public spending and an end to austerity are popular, but this doesn’t look credible if it is based on borrowing as above (When asked if they want more spending on public services the public will always say yes, but asked if they want higher taxes / borrowing they will say no) The Tories failure to make this argument and stress their economic credentials was a key reason why 2017 looked so different to 2015 (that and the Tories’ Brexit culture war as stated earlier).

Perceptions about ideology matter the other way too - many swing voters vote for the Tories e.g. because they think they’ll be better for the economy but still don’t entirely trust the party, viewing it as the ‘nasty party’  of privilege, narrow interests, intolerance towards ethnic minorities etc.

[ViaActiva]

Miles, you're clearly a Sweet Lad and a Good Boy but please take your takes regarding sectarian politics in Labour elsewhere. (Or at the very least condense them into one or two sentences)

Do you ever make any contribution to the discussion apart from trying to shut out those you don’t agree with?

[Blair]

The one take away from everything to happen since 2015 is that politics in Britain is deeply divided. Just look at the Scottish indie referendum, which has managed to virtually flip decade old voting patterns.

The same with Brexit\Corbyn. No leader/party is popular within British politics; 45% of the electorate hate it, the other 45% will love it and then 10% won’t care.

It’s why assertations that higher borrowing or other corbynite polices are unpopular are questionable; all the polling shows that Labour voters e.g now 40% of the electorate support it.

Heck Corbyn said that are foreign policy causes terrorism: a position that made Westminster shriek, but one which what 40% of the public agree with.

[EPG]

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/982549555848925184

Why not explicitly say "it's OK to support anti-Semitic art and members if our poll numbers stay up in one poll"? It would be more courageous than vaguebooking.

[parochial boy]

The one take away from everything to happen since 2015 is that politics in Britain is deeply divided. Just look at the Scottish indie referendum, which has managed to virtually flip decade old voting patterns.

The same with Brexit\Corbyn. No leader/party is popular within British politics; 45% of the electorate hate it, the other 45% will love it and then 10% won’t care.

It’s why assertations that higher borrowing or other corbynite polices are unpopular are questionable; all the polling shows that Labour voters e.g now 40% of the electorate support it.

Heck Corbyn said that are foreign policy causes terrorism: a position that made Westminster shriek, but one which what 40% of the public agree with.

Divided yes, but if 2014-17 has shown us anything, it's also that the electorate is increasingly volatile. More or less the only thing a substantial majority of people agree on is that they are intensely dissatisfied with politics as is, which means they are increasingly willing to vote for riskier options than has historically been the case.

I mean, between them, probably 80%of the population votef for the "radical" option in either Brexit or Corbyn (which is a simplistic analysis, but underlines the general point)

[ViaActiva]

The one take away from everything to happen since 2015 is that politics in Britain is deeply divided. Just look at the Scottish indie referendum, which has managed to virtually flip decade old voting patterns.

The same with Brexit\Corbyn. No leader/party is popular within British politics; 45% of the electorate hate it, the other 45% will love it and then 10% won’t care.

It’s why assertations that higher borrowing or other corbynite polices are unpopular are questionable; all the polling shows that Labour voters e.g now 40% of the electorate support it.

Heck Corbyn said that are foreign policy causes terrorism: a position that made Westminster shriek, but one which what 40% of the public agree with.

Agree that politics in the UK is increasingly polarised but as I mentioned before there was hardly any scrutiny of Corbyn's actual policies during the election as no-one expected him to win (there was the whole Tory attack line of a 'coalition of chaos' which I thought was entirely misjudged as it detracted from the toxic substance of his policies). It was almost entirely a referendum on May's leadership that catastrophically backfired in the same way as it did when Heath called an election on his leadership in '74 (despite the unpopularity of the Labour Party at the time). It's not that I don't think Corbyn has a chance of winning next time, I think he has, but I think he'll come under a lot more fire now that it's clear that he could be Prime Minister.

[Helsinkian]

So what are the chances of this moderate hero party being actually formed?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/07/new-political-party-break-mould-westminster-uk-brexit

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

So what are the chances of this moderate hero party being actually formed?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/07/new-political-party-break-mould-westminster-uk-brexit

I'm not sure, but it feels like it might be more like Kadima than anything - a party formed from a wing within a party to achieve a specific political goal - allow the Gaza pullout to go through in Israel, and prevent Corbyn from getting a majority in the UK. Those can get formed and even have brief electoral success, but they're never sustainable long-term.

[Blair]

There is absolutely no appetite among Labour supporters for 'The Democrats' or whatever this latest grift will be called, but obviously it would be awesome if Garrard and Franks waste a fortune on it.

Reading the article it's hilariously vague; they're not going to seek Labour MP's to defect, and they're going to look for non-ideological people to run in 2022. Almost seems similar to 'No Labels' or one of these groups that provides funding, from the looks of it. But yeah stories where they say 'up to £50 million could be provided' are often bogus.

The ultimate problem that can't be fixed is that a new party needs 40+ Labour MP's to defect, and equally needs to appeal to people like George Osborne/Nick Clegg etc. If the new party tries to only take one of these groups it will fail.

A group of Labour MP's forming their own 'Real Labour' (or whatever they call it) will appear to be extremely dated whilst only consisting of backbench MP's from the 2010, or 2015 intake. The SDP had Roy Jenkins, David Owen and Shirley Williams, who all represented different branches of the right in Labour, and who were all 'big beasts' to term that awful phrase. The creation of a New labour would just die in the next election; even if it gets 10% of the vote. The easiest way to change Labour party policy, as this group want to do, is to stay in the party. Both the Right, and Left have shown over the last 40 year

If you try and form this new 'Democrats' party it will have to be explicitly anti-Brexit (it's worth noting that some of the most anti-Corbyn MPs are hardly rabid remoaners- Woodcock, Flint, Kinnock etc) This would shut them out of 52% of the electorate, and would allow them to be easily parried away. On top of this they need to work out what their anti-Brexit stance is; do they oppose leaving all together because it's awful, or do they want referendum on leaving in the hope we come to our senses. Ignoring this, the party without the Labour MPs would have no real power base, beyond being the Liberal Democrats with a new name. They might get a 1-2 Tory MPs, and a handful from Labour, plus the Liberals gives them what 20 MPs.

These two halfs need to go together, but the moment they go together it's like trying to force the same poles of magnets together. Besides if the reason for this new party is Brexit, then you've only got 2-3 years before we leave, and then the sole purpose of the party is dead. If the sole reason is this idea of 'ideas above party' 'common-sense solutions' then you're just going to have the bastard child of the Cameron-Clegg years.

I say all this as someone who would have happily ditched the Socialists in France in 2017, and supported Macron, and someone who considers themselves pretty corbynspectic. The tribal nature of Labour is really difficult to explain to non-UK politicos, or even non Labour folk. The vast majority of people in the party are the children of Labour voters (if not members), the party is shrouded in nostalgia, triumphalism, self-righteousness and the idea of betrayal. Labour members see the party as a force of progress in itself.

TL;DR: A new party wouldn't work.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

https://twitter.com/e_casalicchio/status/983093189790838785

what on earth is happening guys i just don't even what the actual christ you know heeeeeeelp

[warandwar]

I don't think saying that there's violence on all sides in a war is misleading or even newsworthy..

[ViaActiva]

I don't think saying that there's violence on all sides in a war is misleading or even newsworthy..

September 1939: Hitler invades Poland.

Do you think Chamberlain said that 'there was violence on all sides'!?!

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I'm no Assad apologist but that's a ridiculous and borderline offensive comparison. Syria is in a state of civil war where all parties (even relatively cuddly ones like the SDF) have committed violent acts. Obviously the Syrian regime, due to its institutional power, has more blood on its hands than whatever is left of the FSA, but a civil war lasting over half a decade leaves very few untainted parties.

[ViaActiva]

My point is that Corbyn's constant refrain of condemning violence of all sides is a form of moral equivalence that basically absolves the international community of any responsibility (like 'I condemn all forms of racism including antisemitism'). I agree that the situation is perhaps less morally absolute than the Second World War, but there's hardly moral equivalence between each side in Syria when the ruling state has just literally gassed innocent children to death (not for the first time) despite repeated warnings.

There is at least a clear rationale for unequivocally condemning Assad's actions (we can debate the pros and cons of intervention) rather than Corbyn's mealy mouthed language 'they're just as bad as each other' which is basically doing Assad and Russia's job for them.

[Tintrlvr]

I mean, the real answer is surely that Corbyn doesn't care even the tiniest iota about Syria, and speaking the equivalence of a shrug is just a way to deflect and from his perspective hopefully avoid the topic entirely.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I mean, the real answer is surely that Corbyn doesn't care even the tiniest iota about Syria, and speaking the equivalence of a shrug is just a way to deflect and from his perspective hopefully avoid the topic entirely.

He doesn't care about Syria, but he does care very much about which country is taking out its weapons plants.

[kyc0705]

Brexit will be reversed and Chukka Umuna will come back from the dead to lead Very New Labour to a stunning 12 point landslide in 2021

Ok, maybe not, but I reckon narrative and appearance is much more important than ideological triangulation in terms of winning elections, a fact that seems to pass some people by sometimes

I just looked him up and he is quite handsome. Very New Labour endorsed.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So what are the chances of this moderate hero party being actually formed?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/07/new-political-party-break-mould-westminster-uk-brexit

LOL, the Liberal Democrats just had the worse percentage of the vote since 1959.

[EPG]

In Shibboleth news: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/10/labour-minister-barry-gardiner-sorry-good-friday-agreement-shibboleth

[Antonio the Sixth]

OK, I'll say it: Corbyn has to go.

[Angel of Death]

OJ Simpson has been more sincere in finding "the real killers" than the Israeli Labor Party has been "working to advance the cause of peace, reconciliation and a two-state solution" with, you know, all the settlement building they did, even after Oslo. And that was when they were still nominally a "left" party before Gabbay.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

OK, I'll say it: Corbyn has to go.

Because the media is after him for thinking that Palestinians should have rights?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

OK, I'll say it: Corbyn has to go.

Because the media is after him for thinking that Palestinians should have rights?

No, because he's an open, unrepentant, and increasingly extreme anti-semite who poses a clear and present danger to every last Jewish person in the UK.

[TheSaint250]

No, because he's an open, unrepentant, and increasingly extreme anti-semite who poses a clear and present danger to every last Jewish person in the UK.

This.

Cornyn is a degenerate, anti-Semitic-tolerating idiot who should never come close to power.