- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Britain - The Official Thread
- Thread starter Ross
- 13,174 comments
- 579,126 views
- 23,847
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
The whole point of a Goodwill Ambassador is to publicise a cause to a wider audience. Using a well educated, good communicator with a high public profile is the best way of spreading that word. Unless, of course, you can get some oink to write a disparaging piece on the subject in a trashy yet popular newspaper - in which case you can publicise your cause to a even wider audience for free!!!
- 29,065
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Ironically, I think this result just reinforces the case against Corbyn - almost 40% of Labour members (with a higher proportion of long-term members) don't want him as leader, and most Labour MPs are still opposed to him. Corbyn now has to work very hard to get a very large (and significant) section of his own party to get behind him - if he can't manage to make seriosu in-roads into that large swathe of voters, then Labour will have no chance in 2020.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Good. The odor of Tony Blair still permeates, and Labor needs many years of penance in the wilderness.
- 1,433
- Northern Ireland
He got a higher margin of the vote but then again he was only against one candidate this year instead of three last year, so there would have been less splitting of the vote. Just splitting hairs though - it's clear the support he gained last year still remains.
Whilst the unelectable stuff is a tad overblown, winning the support of 300,000 Labour members doesn't prove he can (or can't) get 12 million-odd votes amongst the public.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
DLR_Mysterion
(Banned)
- 365
- United Kingdom
Yes this is exactly what the results of the GE show, that to win Labour has to go even more to the Left 
- 86,389
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
If they occupy the same political compass position as the Conservatives, they are not an alternative to the Conservatives - they're just Conservatives with a red badge instead of a blue one, as they were when Blair won in 1997.Yes this is exactly what the results of the GE show, that to win Labour has to go even more to the Left
- 23,847
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
Whilst Corbyn is divisive even within his own party, the recent Brexit vote has shown that a great deal of people are politically unhappy with how things are in the country right now. The current right-leaning, middle of the road (or small 'c' conservatism) stance from both the red and blue corners that we've endured since Thatcher, that's always felt like a safe bet on polling day, isn't what an increasingly restless population appear to want any more. It's no different in The US or France or even Germany. All of whom have elections coming in the next six months or so.
- 1,433
- Northern Ireland
I'm not so sure - whilst there are signs the country is moving away from centre-ground politics I don't think we can conclusively say that is the case, not yet anyway. As per my previous point the fact that the Labour membership backing a more radical option does not necessarily indicate the country as a whole is similarly charged - on the contrary, Corbyn personally has one of the worst national approval ratings of the main party leaders at the moment (although a lot of other factors have probably contributed to that).
Bear in mind as well that only last year the country gave most votes to a centre-right party - enough to form a majority, just. A somewhat 'conventional' result despite expectations at the time. (Although again, plenty of other factors at play there too). Even the 'unconventional' result of the Brexit vote is arguably less so when viewed in the context of the UK's past history of euroscepticism, to some degree, over the years.
To be clear I'm not saying the public is definitely still happy to pick between blue conservatism or red conservatism-lite, I'm just not 100% convinced they've wholly rejected that brand of politics yet. If the next PM in 2020 ends up being Jeremy Corbyn or Jacob Rees-Mogg, then I'll reconsider..........
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Yes this is exactly what the results of the GE show, that to win Labour has to go even more to the Left
If they're anything like our Labor party (which was in part inspired by them, but also the American Labor movement, hence the American spelling of the name), then they should be positioning themselves as the party for the working classes; the blue collar party while the Tories are for the blue bloods. Granted, the social classes probably aren't as relevant today as they were fifty years ago, but it would give them latitude in setting policy; for instance, they could be fiscally conservative and socially progressive rather than being forced to be conservative or progressive on every issue.
That's the problem with politics in the twenty-first century; an ideological identity for a party might be nice, but it's too restrictive. The only people with an as rigidly-defined ideological identity are the hard left and the hard right; everyone else falls in the centre and tends to be variously conservative or progressive on issues, which means that a party with a rigidly-defined ideological identity is incompatible with their needs.
- 4,722
- United Kingdom
Imagine PMQ'S. It would be unmissable.
DLR_Mysterion
(Banned)
- 365
- United Kingdom
And that's where the spectre of UKIP come in. Labour under Corbyn is not for the working class. *
*At least not how it used to be.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I don't think that you can make the generalisation that UKIP represent the interests of the working classes. The working classes are a significant part of their voter base, but their mantra of "Britain for the Britons" holds appeal for the right-wing voters as well.
- 4,722
- United Kingdom
I'm not aware of any UKIP policies that particularly benefit the working classes.
Granted, I haven't read their manifesto.
- 86,389
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
UKIP doesn't even slightly represent the "working class". UKIP is a single-issue offshoot of the Conservatives. It was founded by, it's funded by and its leading figures are Eurosceptic Conservatives.
But their position on the political compass is little different than any of the other parties that, in England at least, actually returned MPs. They are all broadly authoritarian and conservative, with UKIP the most of both, the Libdems as the least authoritarian and Labour as the least conservative. There is so little to choose between them that fervent support or dislike basically comes down to which uses your favourite colour - it makes so little difference to the country which has the most MPs that it's little more than flag-waving for your team.
The parties are all there with good reason. Most people are slightly conservative and authoritarian too. They think that wealthy people are lazy and should be taxed for their excessive lifestyles that they win off the back of exploiting workers, poor people are lazy and workshy and shouldn't be given handouts, while hard-working people like themselves shouldn't be taxed because they keep the country running. They think that regulations should be in place to stop stupid (poor) people from hurting themselves and to stop the excesses of rich people, but rules and laws shouldn't apply to normal people like themselves as they know what they're doing and it should be their own choice. Basically the commonest mindset of the Western middle class (which is most of us) is that everyone else should be stopped, but they should be helped because they're a special case - and that's exactly what the parties pander to because it gets the most votes...
The Libdems have been more liberal in the recent past, offering at the very least a social spectrum alternative, but Labour has been solidly conservative since New Labour. Corbyn represents a return to the days before Blair and his brood of bridge-burning toffs, so it's little surprise that he's so popular amongst traditionally socialist members and trade unions, but not amongst the MPs who see him as a threat to their boys' club lifestyle.
This is a good thing for all of us. We don't need four parties that are the same thing with different ties. We need choices and options - we need the tempering effect each party has in opposition to the one that is in power. We need liberals debating fascists. We need capitalists debating socialists. We don't need 600 hooray Henries back-slapping each other (only disagreeing on fox-hunting*) in a palace.
I disagree with Corbyn on every level, and just about every time he opens his mouth he says something so idiotic that I can't believe he's able to function without supervision, but at least he's creating an alternative to the current 27 year unbroken run of authoritarian-conservative governance.
What is it about fox-hunting that made it such a priority for Blair to ban and Cameron to review the ban? How many of us actually care about it over any other social or economic issue or policy? Seriously.
But their position on the political compass is little different than any of the other parties that, in England at least, actually returned MPs. They are all broadly authoritarian and conservative, with UKIP the most of both, the Libdems as the least authoritarian and Labour as the least conservative. There is so little to choose between them that fervent support or dislike basically comes down to which uses your favourite colour - it makes so little difference to the country which has the most MPs that it's little more than flag-waving for your team.
The parties are all there with good reason. Most people are slightly conservative and authoritarian too. They think that wealthy people are lazy and should be taxed for their excessive lifestyles that they win off the back of exploiting workers, poor people are lazy and workshy and shouldn't be given handouts, while hard-working people like themselves shouldn't be taxed because they keep the country running. They think that regulations should be in place to stop stupid (poor) people from hurting themselves and to stop the excesses of rich people, but rules and laws shouldn't apply to normal people like themselves as they know what they're doing and it should be their own choice. Basically the commonest mindset of the Western middle class (which is most of us) is that everyone else should be stopped, but they should be helped because they're a special case - and that's exactly what the parties pander to because it gets the most votes...
The Libdems have been more liberal in the recent past, offering at the very least a social spectrum alternative, but Labour has been solidly conservative since New Labour. Corbyn represents a return to the days before Blair and his brood of bridge-burning toffs, so it's little surprise that he's so popular amongst traditionally socialist members and trade unions, but not amongst the MPs who see him as a threat to their boys' club lifestyle.
This is a good thing for all of us. We don't need four parties that are the same thing with different ties. We need choices and options - we need the tempering effect each party has in opposition to the one that is in power. We need liberals debating fascists. We need capitalists debating socialists. We don't need 600 hooray Henries back-slapping each other (only disagreeing on fox-hunting*) in a palace.
I disagree with Corbyn on every level, and just about every time he opens his mouth he says something so idiotic that I can't believe he's able to function without supervision, but at least he's creating an alternative to the current 27 year unbroken run of authoritarian-conservative governance.
What is it about fox-hunting that made it such a priority for Blair to ban and Cameron to review the ban? How many of us actually care about it over any other social or economic issue or policy? Seriously.
- 4,722
- United Kingdom
DLR_Mysterion
(Banned)
- 365
- United Kingdom
So I mentioned UKIP based on logic, the GE results and personal experiences not really on where they "officially" stand.
Think about it:
You're white working class and have voted Labour since before you were born because your dad did and his dad did etc. You're scared of immigration because of the immediate effects you perceive it to have on your life and the future effects for your children. Labour embrace multiculturalism and have now turned to the hard-Left with a more socialist platform. What are your options?
You won't vote Conservatives because you will never vote Conservative.
You might vote Labour but this is out of habit rather than any belief they represent you anymore.
You may vote Lib Dem but really they are a non-entity.
You may vote Green if you are a hippy.
Meanwhile, what about this party that promotes anti-immigration rhetoric, a focus on the NHS (at least that's what you thought the bus meant), a return to the "good old days" of Great Britain and someone that sticks two fingers up at the EU (something you never really understood)?
Oh, and you know they're on the rise because 3.8 million other people voted for them.
Is it any wonder Farage said Corbyn becoming leader was great for UKIP....
Think about it:
You're white working class and have voted Labour since before you were born because your dad did and his dad did etc. You're scared of immigration because of the immediate effects you perceive it to have on your life and the future effects for your children. Labour embrace multiculturalism and have now turned to the hard-Left with a more socialist platform. What are your options?
You won't vote Conservatives because you will never vote Conservative.
You might vote Labour but this is out of habit rather than any belief they represent you anymore.
You may vote Lib Dem but really they are a non-entity.
You may vote Green if you are a hippy.
Meanwhile, what about this party that promotes anti-immigration rhetoric, a focus on the NHS (at least that's what you thought the bus meant), a return to the "good old days" of Great Britain and someone that sticks two fingers up at the EU (something you never really understood)?
Oh, and you know they're on the rise because 3.8 million other people voted for them.
Is it any wonder Farage said Corbyn becoming leader was great for UKIP....
- 29,065
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Labour have "clearly" set out their "clear" policy on Trident (UK's nuclear weapons programme)... they are "clear" that it is Labour party policy to renew Trident, while also being "clear" about their ambition of a world without nuclear weapons. So, incase that is not clear enough, Labour want to rid the world of nuclear weapons while committing to renewing the UK's nuclear deterrent. Glad they cleared that up!
- 15,994
- United Kingdom
- haitch40
- Xbox?
That's their ideal but they are reacting to the world as it is. The world as it is requires us to have nuclear weapons.
- 29,065
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Indeed, though it is hard to believe someone is truly committed to total nuclear disarmament while adopting an official policy of renewing their own nuclear weapons arsenal. However, it was the tone and choice of words that I was more interested in... the idea that they are being "clear" while pledging support for two completely opposite points of view (continued nuclear armament and total nuclear disarmament) doesn't make sense, unless one considers the broader context of the speech i.e. the Labour leadership battle and Jeremy Corbyn's status as Labour leader - Corbyn is not in favour of renewing Trident while leading a party whose 'official policy' is the renewal of Trident. I suspect the true intent was to portray themselves as united (while they are in fact bitterly divided), and so they have to come out with oddly incoherent statements like this one on nuclear weapons which appears to advocate for two implacably opposed policies. I reckon that we will see a lot more of this kind of 'clarity' from Labour in the coming months...
Last edited:
