Topic: Doesn't matter who you vote for as long as it's for the right reasons!

[Sangria]

Not sure any faction can claim it really. It has been parts of the soft left pushing the idea of focusing much more locally over recent years though. I associate it with Nandy, Compass, and CLES mainly because they were the ones holding the meetings on/about it and organising towards it over the past few years. What I would associate with the Brownite part of the party, such as it is these days, is that the membership need to subordinate their demands to those of the voters. Anna Turley is a useful pointer on that today if you dig out what she's writing. edit: found it, https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19290325.anna-turley-labour-must-understand-aspiration-embody-local-pride-celebrate-success/

Compass are the soft left who critiqued Blair and Brown as having run out of ideas and wanted to reshape where the party was heading back in the early 2000s and have kept going from there. Mattinson is a polling and focus group professional, she used to check the homework of Mandelson and Gould for Gordon Brown, who's taken to writing about the north of England. Currently parts of the hard left are convinced her being appointed to Starmer's team means Mandy's under the bed, cos everyone's a Blairite or something. There's a nice interview with her here: https://audioboom.com/posts/7735975-beyond-the-red-wall-interview-with-deborah-mattinson

I must assert that I am not Anna Turley. Even though we are writing exactly the same things from the same conclusions.

[Nobby Reserve]

Not sure any faction can claim it really. It has been parts of the soft left pushing the idea of focusing much more locally over recent years though. I associate it with Nandy, Compass, and CLES mainly because they were the ones holding the meetings on/about it and organising towards it over the past few years. What I would associate with the Brownite part of the party, such as it is these days, is that the membership need to subordinate their demands to those of the voters. Anna Turley is a useful pointer on that today if you dig out what she's writing. edit: found it, https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19290325.anna-turley-labour-must-understand-aspiration-embody-local-pride-celebrate-success/

The very first comment starts with:

"I vote for the party that allows me , as an Englishman the freedom to fly the cross of St. George."

And the next several generally agree with the shitstain (the rising vomit in my throat prevented me reading more)


Let's be clear - no party bans people flying the English cross flag thing.

[Zeb]

The very first comment starts with:

"I vote for the party that allows me , as an Englishman the freedom to fly the cross of St. George."

And the next several generally agree with the shitstain (the rising vomit in my throat prevented me reading more)


Let's be clear - no party bans people flying the English cross flag thing.

Don't think Anna Turley, or Sangria, wrote the comments. But seriously, perception to it, isn't it? You hear Mattinson in that interview I posted making the same points (interview was late last year) where voters were telling her that it wasn't that they were against something, they just couldn't understand why it was all Labour seemed to be talking about. As Anna Turley points out, if the images coming from the party are everyone waving a Palestinian flag while cringeing every time the party leader is next to a union jack then perceptions of the party will be shaped by that. And not in ways which will be favorable to getting elected across a wide part of the country. Doesn't mean you have to ditch wanting Palestinians having their own state etc. Does mean considering that it might be a bit niche as an offer to the electorate.

[Welshred]

One of the worst things about the last 5 or 6 years is this dickhead feeling like what he says is now legitimate and representative of the left. How long can you sink when you're literally having a go at someone for eating some fucking fish.

[Elmo!]

One of the worst things about the last 5 or 6 years is this dickhead feeling like what he says is now legitimate and representative of the left. How long can you sink when you're literally having a go at someone for eating some fucking fish.

He's wrong as well going by the replies. Apparently Starmer has always openly been a pescatarian.

It is depressing reading all the replies from people claiming all vegetarians eat fish though....

[Jiminy Cricket]

He's wrong as well going by the replies. Apparently Starmer has always openly been a pescatarian.

It is depressing reading all the replies from people claiming all vegetarians eat fish though....

Maybe we need a new party which appeals across the traditional political decide. Anyone for joining up with the 'Not Shit for Brains Party'?

But there is, actually, a serious point to my silly comment above. If stupidity continues to be rewarded (on the right and the left), maybe the only solution (in the longer run) will be for the formation of a party which is just pragmatic and wants to get on with governing in an effective manner. Because I am far from convinced the present situation of rampant identity politics is going to go away in the foreseeable future - I fear it is here for the long haul.

[Welshred]

He's wrong as well going by the replies. Apparently Starmer has always openly been a pescatarian.

It is depressing reading all the replies from people claiming all vegetarians eat fish though....

The majority of the replies are pointing that out but there are a few smatterings of "Well it just goes to show he doesn't have any principles doesn't it?" and "he's not even touch it, its a photo op the weirdo" type posts. I just hate that Bastani feels like he's got a position where he can gain traction by saying it.

[Yorkykopite]

As Anna Turley points out, if the images coming from the party are everyone waving a Palestinian flag while cringeing every time the party leader is next to a union jack then perceptions of the party will be shaped by that.

I think she may have got that from this fab article.  https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-923X.12992

And that's the way it should be.

[Nobby Reserve]

Don't think Anna Turley, or Sangria, wrote the comments. But seriously, perception to it, isn't it? You hear Mattinson in that interview I posted making the same points (interview was late last year) where voters were telling her that it wasn't that they were against something, they just couldn't understand why it was all Labour seemed to be talking about. As Anna Turley points out, if the images coming from the party are everyone waving a Palestinian flag while cringeing every time the party leader is next to a union jack then perceptions of the party will be shaped by that. And not in ways which will be favorable to getting elected across a wide part of the country. Doesn't mean you have to ditch wanting Palestinians having their own state etc. Does mean considering that it might be a bit niche as an offer to the electorate.

Perception, as you say - but I don't remember seeing 'everyone waving a Palestinian flag'. Saying that, I do take the point you're making.

We can't fall into the trap of having too narrow a focus on the problems, though.

If we look back over the electoral history of Hartlepool since the late 90's, there is a pattern of increasing combined support for the Tories/UKIP* broadly from 2010.

In 97, Labour had 60.7% of the vote compared to 25.2% Tory/UKIP. Was similar in 2001.

By 2005, the Labour share had fallen to 51.5%, but it was the LD's benefitting - they'd been around the 14% mark since 1983, but leaped to 30.4%. The Tory/UKIP combined was just 15%

After that the trend was generally one-way.

2010 - Labour 42.5%  /  Tory/UKIP 35.2%
2015 - Labour 35.6%  /  Tory/UKIP 49.9%

None of those elections had Labour people waving Palestinian flags, and Corbyn was still just an obscure, natty backbencher from the hard-left.

In fact, in 2017, the trend was temporality reversed. Labour got 52.5% to the Tory/UKIP 45.7%

That's a fantastic swing in anyone's book.

Sadly, it was very temporary. By 2019, the Labour share had dropped to 37.7% to the combined Tory/UKIP 54.7%, and only got re-elected due to the split of the Tory/UKIP vote.

And, of course, the further Labour vote share slump this year to 28.7% (interestingly, the Tory/UKIP(ReformUK) share also fell slightly to 53.1%.


I'm not arguing that the Corbyn tenure didn't damage Labour to some people.

I'm arguing that the issues leading to the Labour Party's demise in a growing number of traditional heartlands began well before his time as leader, and are much wider than him and his time in charge.

If Labour fail to realise this, they will never learn the lessons that have to be learned.



* and all other forms

[Elmo!]

The majority of the replies are pointing that out but there are a few smatterings of "Well it just goes to show he doesn't have any principles doesn't it?" and "he's not even touch it, its a photo op the weirdo" type posts. I just hate that Bastani feels like he's got a position where he can gain traction by saying it.

Just idiots all round in the Twitter replies, as always (and the original Tweeter in this case).

[Yorkykopite]

Perception, as you say - but I don't remember seeing 'everyone waving a Palestinian flag'. Saying that, I do take the point you're making

Just to jog the old memory: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45634379

[Robinred]

Don't think Anna Turley, or Sangria, wrote the comments. But seriously, perception to it, isn't it? You hear Mattinson in that interview I posted making the same points (interview was late last year) where voters were telling her that it wasn't that they were against something, they just couldn't understand why it was all Labour seemed to be talking about. As Anna Turley points out, if the images coming from the party are everyone waving a Palestinian flag while cringeing every time the party leader is next to a union jack then perceptions of the party will be shaped by that. And not in ways which will be favorable to getting elected across a wide part of the country. Doesn't mean you have to ditch wanting Palestinians having their own state etc. Does mean considering that it might be a bit niche as an offer to the electorate.

Apropos of which; a fishing acquaintance shared a post on FB last week; this is the post:

”Let the U.S.A honour their own. Manchester hang your head in shame. You turned your back on a  local lad serving in his own Regiment.

Manchester Labour councillors sanctioned a George Floyd memorial in preference to a memorial for Lee Rigby.

It’s OK to pay respects to a career criminal, but not a British soldier who was brutally murdered by a terrorist.

Welcome to the Labour Party!”

As you both acknowledge, perceptions are vitally important.

[Zeb]

I'm not arguing that the Corbyn tenure didn't damage Labour to some people.

I'm arguing that the issues leading to the Labour Party's demise in a growing number of traditional heartlands began well before his time as leader, and are much wider than him and his time in charge.

If Labour fail to realise this, they will never learn the lessons that have to be learned.



* and all other forms

Can look back further than Blair to be honest. Have a look back at Hartlepool results since its creation as a constituency. Measuring from 97 is measuring from a high point. Don't think anyone is arguing against there being a longer term trend, or anyone who is is wrong, what Corbyn did was turbocharge it between 2016 and 2019 and push Labour even further away from addressing it by, effectively, narrowing the pool of voters who would vote Labour. I know everyone likes to compare to 2017 but 2017 didn't reverse the trend, it mitigated it by pulling support from parts of the electorate who hadn't been voting Labour before. (Would source but have one of those wonderful evening meetings in a few, but Paula Surridge's work using BES is good on this.) Just a general point on any constituency, for what it's worth, there's an argument that the LDs were at one point the place where people put a 'none of the above' vote, which then turned to UKIP, and has now consolidated into the Tory vote. For Hartlepool in particular, it's of interest that non-voters rose significantly this by-election. You're right in the point that 'no Corbyn' doesn't mean 'no problem'. But the issues added need addressing as much as the underlying tensions around educational attainment and social attitudes. In fact, I'd argue that Corbyn/ism is a consequence of them...

[OOS]

One thing to look out for, is how the Thatcherite backbenchers and members are gonna react to Johnsons agenda. Cameron dragged the party to a more socially liberal position to squeeze floating lib dem and Labour in the Midlands and South, which droves plenty of Tory members away from the party. However, Osborne was very fiscally Conservative with his austerity drive which kept them onside with advoacating a small state and no substancial tax increases. Now we have a Tory Goverment, spending money like no tomorrow and promising billions to 'level up'. Tories are gaining votes North, but this election has shown not everything is good in the south east for them. It will be difficult to keep all camps happy. Not everything while be hunky-dory, this honeymoon won't last long.

[Sangria]

One thing to look out for, is how the Thatcherite backbenchers and members are gonna react to Johnsons agenda. Cameron dragged the party to a more socially liberal position to squeeze floating lib dem and Labour in the Midlands and South, which droves plenty of Tory members away from the party. However, Osborne was very fiscally Conservative with his austerity drive which kept them onside with advoacating a small state and no substancial tax increases. Now we have a Tory Goverment, spending money like no tomorrow and promising billions to 'level up'. Tories are gaining votes North, but this election has shown not everything is good in the south east for them. It will be difficult to keep all camps happy. Not everything while be hunky-dory, this honeymoon won't last long.

The spending will turn off the small state fanatics, but it is more than compensated by the fact that they are winning. Winning excuses everything.

[OOS]

The spending will turn off the small state fanatics, but it is more than compensated by the fact that they are winning. Winning excuses everything.

Never underestimate the typical tory crank is all I'm saying. 

[Sangria]

Never underestimate the typical tory crank is all I'm saying. 

The problem is that the typical Tory crank will be voting Tory no matter what, and unlike the vibrant population the left dream of, will actually be casting a ballot rather than giving it a miss. And the fact that the Tories are winning will encourage people to vote Tory to continue to win. The age old fact that the Conservatives are the natural party of government encourages people to vote thusly.

And yeah, the above is bollocks. It's a winning argument though.

[Ashburton]

One thing to look out for, is how the Thatcherite backbenchers and members are gonna react to Johnsons agenda. Cameron dragged the party to a more socially liberal position to squeeze floating lib dem and Labour in the Midlands and South, which droves plenty of Tory members away from the party. However, Osborne was very fiscally Conservative with his austerity drive which kept them onside with advoacating a small state and no substancial tax increases. Now we have a Tory Goverment, spending money like no tomorrow and promising billions to 'level up'. Tories are gaining votes North, but this election has shown not everything is good in the south east for them. It will be difficult to keep all camps happy. Not everything while be hunky-dory, this honeymoon won't last long.

Certainly but we're talking about a 15-20 year timeframe here before these factors filter through.  We're likely to see a bit of a boom period as people draw down spending from the pandemic, and like it or not the furlough scheme was perhaps the strongest Conservative step towards a minimum level of state support akin to UBI without actually going that far.   It leaves Labour with few obvious lines of attack and you can see why Keir is pivoting to the older voters, as he knows Boris has to avoid economic scarring (which he appears to have put the policies in place to do) but then needs to move to start to pay some of this pile of debt down.  Perhaps Boris thinks it's somebody elses problem, but it certainly constrains some of the policy ideas Labour might have to attract voters as there just isn't the pot there was to implement it.

More broadly think Labour need to realise that economic policy and health are hugely powerful voting factors and they need to get a cohesive message and policies which reverberate with the public.  The country doesn't care about trans rights, doesn't care about BLM and taking the knee, so try and pivot to your most powerful message with the broadest impact, and then sustain that message until you make it a narrative Johnson can't get away from.

[OOS]

The problem is that the typical Tory crank will be voting Tory no matter what, and unlike the vibrant population the left dream of, will actually be casting a ballot rather than giving it a miss. And the fact that the Tories are winning will encourage people to vote Tory to continue to win. The age old fact that the Conservatives are the natural party of government encourages people to vote thusly.

And yeah, the above is bollocks. It's a winning argument though.

Was talking about the rank n file member, but I fully agree with your tories value winning above anything.

[So… Howard Philips]

A lot of talk across various channels about that vox pop with the two fellas in Hartlepool blaming the state of the hospital / police on the council. And yes, fair enough, when I watched that clip it made my blood pressure rise as well.

The thing is, rather than just laughing at them and calling them stupid, is it not Labour's responsibility to challenge these myths? At local, national level. If your voters are blaming the consequences of government cuts on the Labour Party, shouldn't the Labour Party be making an effort to explain why that isn't the case? I'm not just talking about Hartlepool, but Labour-ran councils across the country. It's not enough to just shrug your shoulders and say "ah well, how can we possibly argue with that", really, is it?

Or we can just call them stupid. Much easier, I guess.

That trend started when Gordon Brown muttered about 'that bigoted woman' back in 2010? rather than engaging with her concerns about EU workers.

[Elmo!]

This is just bloody weird from Labour... a fake hand written letter from John Smiths widow. Of course no mention of the fact the job their MP left for was to become their MSP. Hardly "walking away when needed the most".

[Sangria]

This is just bloody weird from Labour... a fake hand written letter from John Smiths widow. Of course no mention of the fact the job their MP left for was to become their MSP. Hardly "walking away when needed the most".

Where are you getting these from?

[ShakaHislop]

Where are you getting these from?

https://twitter.com/lesmit/status/1391830700198871041

https://twitter.com/DeanMcKeown/status/1391470171705937921

[Elmo!]

Where are you getting these from?

^ What Shaka said.

[Yorkykopite]

The ex-SNP MP is now the Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead apparently. Sounds nice.

[Elmo!]

The ex-SNP MP is now the Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead apparently. Sounds nice.

And Elisabeth Smith is Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill. She left that title of her letter.

Are you aware of what his title represents?

[jillcwhomever]

I am not sure where to put this little gem, but it seems as good as anywhere else. David Baddiel is doing a show where he confronts those who on social media deny the holocaust ever happened. It is certainly a show that needs doing as far too many ignorant people believe the horrific campaign, being staged on twitter. Incredibly the BBC received a number of complaints to say he was inappropriate in hosting this show! What does that tell you about certain people in our country? They think a Jewish man is inappropriate to host a show about the holocaust denial! It really makes you wonder about some people. 

[TepidT2O]

If you haven’t read his book “Jews don’t count” then it’s well worth it.

An eye opener for those who deny discrimination from the left is rampant

[jillcwhomever]

If you haven’t read his book “Jews don’t count” then it’s well worth it.

An eye opener for those who deny discrimination from the left is rampant

I haven't but will have a look at it.

[Kenny's Jacket]

I am not sure where to put this little gem, but it seems as good as anywhere else. David Baddiel is doing a show where he confronts those who on social media deny the holocaust ever happened. It is certainly a show that needs doing as far too many ignorant people believe the horrific campaign, being staged on twitter. Incredibly the BBC received a number of complaints to say he was inappropriate in hosting this show! What does that tell you about certain people in our country? They think a Jewish man is inappropriate to host a show about the holocaust denial! It really makes you wonder about some people. 

not seen the comments  so guessing

it might be dee to him blacking up to ridicule a black man specifically targeting his afro

[Ashburton]

If you haven’t read his book “Jews don’t count” then it’s well worth it.

An eye opener for those who deny discrimination from the left is rampant

It's an interesting belief that the left isn't discriminatory or somehow has a moral superiority over the Tories in some degree.

I actually think a significant factor in Trump and Johnson's successes come from embracing these imperfections, these hypocrisies.  We're seeing it play out in exactly the same way for both of them with Trump deciding to spend his weekends golfing at his own resorts, whilst Johnson decides to get his mates to pay for his Downing Street flat redesign.  However some of the voter base seem to recognise this imperfection, and seem to accept that holding their nose and voting for what they always expected from a politician is better than voting for someone who talks down to them.  At least, to those voting for Brexit and the Tories, there is no hypocrisy - there are no repeated tweets on their professionally managed twitter accounts where they perfect a seamless political veneer.  A totally manicured existence whilst they quietly work behind the scenes to help line up their speaking circuit or sign their book deal, they just do it out of plain sight.  Johnson's success is that he doesn't do this, he doesn't embrace this position of hypocrisy; instead he wears his hair all over the place, he probably has far too many kids he doesn't keep in touch with, he clearly has business conflicts all over the place.  There is a degree of honesty about his dishonesty there which makes him quite relatable, and I'm sure many of us recognise our own imperfect lives but also still expect to be able to crow whenever politicians show their own imperfect lives to us.  Politicians should be expected to do better, you hear some say.  But why?  Politicians have never been moral exemplars, indeed 'honest politician' jokes are about as common as 'honest lawyer' ones.

The difficulty is the hypocrisy from the left seems to be perpetuating, likely due to social media and the siloing effect which makes you part of one large echo chamber and never actually having to run into any voters of opposite factions - even if some of the broader viewpoints might be similar.  The metropolitan snobbery which doesn't recognise itself as such because a better educated and more informed voter base 'cannot be snobbish', so they believe, they just believe they are right.  The problem at the moment is that this group of educated leftists believe truly in this superiority over the Brexit masses, the 'gammon' conservative voters - and this hypocrisy turns into cruelty, a contempt for these people - calling Hartlepool a dump with idle people with do-nothing lives who deserve what they get as they're too thick to see the world in the same way; over a deeper analysis as to why they believe the Labour party no longer speaks for them.  Labour picking Keir Starmer, a polished lawyer, is almost seeing this moralistic component play out at the other end of the scale to the rather garish Johnson - that people do not like being told what to do, especially in moral terms by a lawyer, when in front of the cameras he makes the right noises yet behind the scenes he appears to  "take responsibility" by throwing his team under the bus.  Rules for themselves and rules for others in public.

Boris benefits from this from his whole atypical politician thing, the bumbling buffoonery which contrasts so vividly with the manicured speeches of other politicians - after all, we almost expect most politicians to have unpaid directorships quietly squirreled away, maybe a mistress or lover.  When these things come out it's entirely not surprising to anyone, yet we somehow at the same time want politicians to exhibit no moral vices whatsoever.  This seems to be what works for Boris (as it did for Trump, except turned up to 11 in a very American way) - and by that I mean that people expect this kind of thing so when it's confirmed it's no surprised, but at least it's in plain sight.  Nobody is saying it's good, just that it's tolerated and we have to live with it - and that we'd rather have a politician with their vices in plain sight than a hypocrite who seems to talk down to us.  To some degree I believe this is exactly what happened with Trump vs Clinton.  Standing around with progressives doing photo ops for wealth redistribution and fair taxation.. whilst she takes home a near seven figure sum for each speech to Goldman Sachs she makes.  Boris getting his 10-grand wallpaper paid for by some Tory mates does have a seedy undercurrent to it, but honestly did we expect any better; and more importantly if we got an offer to cover out 10-grand home renovations would we really instantly turn that away in a pique of moral virtue or would we seriously consider it.   Maybe that's part of the appeal of unconventional politics in a sea of political correctness.

[Sangria]

It's an interesting belief that the left isn't discriminatory or somehow has a moral superiority over the Tories in some degree.

I actually think a significant factor in Trump and Johnson's successes come from embracing these imperfections, these hypocrisies.  We're seeing it play out in exactly the same way for both of them with Trump deciding to spend his weekends golfing at his own resorts, whilst Johnson decides to get his mates to pay for his Downing Street flat redesign.  However some of the voter base seem to recognise this imperfection, and seem to accept that holding their nose and voting for what they always expected from a politician is better than voting for someone who talks down to them.  At least, to those voting for Brexit and the Tories, there is no hypocrisy - there are no repeated tweets on their professionally managed twitter accounts where they perfect a seamless political veneer.  A totally manicured existence whilst they quietly work behind the scenes to help line up their speaking circuit or sign their book deal, they just do it out of plain sight.  Johnson's success is that he doesn't do this, he doesn't embrace this position of hypocrisy; instead he wears his hair all over the place, he probably has far too many kids he doesn't keep in touch with, he clearly has business conflicts all over the place.  There is a degree of honesty about his dishonesty there which makes him quite relatable, and I'm sure many of us recognise our own imperfect lives but also still expect to be able to crow whenever politicians show their own imperfect lives to us.  Politicians should be expected to do better, you hear some say.  But why?  Politicians have never been moral exemplars, indeed 'honest politician' jokes are about as common as 'honest lawyer' ones.

The difficulty is the hypocrisy from the left seems to be perpetuating, likely due to social media and the siloing effect which makes you part of one large echo chamber and never actually having to run into any voters of opposite factions - even if some of the broader viewpoints might be similar.  The metropolitan snobbery which doesn't recognise itself as such because a better educated and more informed voter base 'cannot be snobbish', so they believe, they just believe they are right.  The problem at the moment is that this group of educated leftists believe truly in this superiority over the Brexit masses, the 'gammon' conservative voters - and this hypocrisy turns into cruelty, a contempt for these people - calling Hartlepool a dump with idle people with do-nothing lives who deserve what they get as they're too thick to see the world in the same way; over a deeper analysis as to why they believe the Labour party no longer speaks for them.  Labour picking Keir Starmer, a polished lawyer, is almost seeing this moralistic component play out at the other end of the scale to the rather garish Johnson - that people do not like being told what to do, especially in moral terms by a lawyer, when in front of the cameras he makes the right noises yet behind the scenes he appears to  "take responsibility" by throwing his team under the bus.  Rules for themselves and rules for others in public.

Boris benefits from this from his whole atypical politician thing, the bumbling buffoonery which contrasts so vividly with the manicured speeches of other politicians - after all, we almost expect most politicians to have unpaid directorships quietly squirreled away, maybe a mistress or lover.  When these things come out it's entirely not surprising to anyone, yet we somehow at the same time want politicians to exhibit no moral vices whatsoever.  This seems to be what works for Boris (as it did for Trump, except turned up to 11 in a very American way) - and by that I mean that people expect this kind of thing so when it's confirmed it's no surprised, but at least it's in plain sight.  Nobody is saying it's good, just that it's tolerated and we have to live with it - and that we'd rather have a politician with their vices in plain sight than a hypocrite who seems to talk down to us.  To some degree I believe this is exactly what happened with Trump vs Clinton.  Standing around with progressives doing photo ops for wealth redistribution and fair taxation.. whilst she takes home a near seven figure sum for each speech to Goldman Sachs she makes.  Boris getting his 10-grand wallpaper paid for by some Tory mates does have a seedy undercurrent to it, but honestly did we expect any better; and more importantly if we got an offer to cover out 10-grand home renovations would we really instantly turn that away in a pique of moral virtue or would we seriously consider it.   Maybe that's part of the appeal of unconventional politics in a sea of political correctness.

And part of why Prescott punching that man actually made him more popular. He wasn't perfect, but he was understandable. To many people, too much of the morally perfect left is not understandable, partly because these paragons make no attempt to understand.

[Yorkykopite]

not seen the comments  so guessing

it might be dee to him blacking up to ridicule a black man specifically targeting his afro

It's probably the Jason Lee sketch from yonks back. Unfortunately there is a certain kind of person, who knows nothing about Treblinka and cares less, who would be outraged to the point of incontinence over a comedy sketch like that. (They probably thought the Waddle one was ok though). 

Thanks for the tips about Baddiel's book and show guys.

[Dr. Beaker]

Starmer throwing people under a bus?!

[Yorkykopite]

This Tory plan to make voting harder in the UK while extending the right to vote to exiles who've lived outside the UK for over 15 years is obviously venal.  But it's persuaded me - and I hope the Labour party - that we ought to extend the vote to 16 and 17 year olds when Labour next gets the chance. I've always thought that would be a bad idea. I still do. But on the question of the franchise, if the Tories are not going to play fair nor should we.

[Welshred]

Starmer throwing people under a bus?!

In what way?

[diggerling!]

Just so much electability.

[Bobsackamano]

Just so much electability.

Whats your take on that?

Starmer and Labour are polling poorly right now. Ashburton above has done (IMO) a very good breakdown of the situation as he/she see's it. What do you think are the fundamental underlying factors behind the poor polling?

[Elmo!]

Severin Carrell
@severincarrell
BREAKING' @CraigMurrayOrg
 jailed for 8 months for contempt of court in Salmond sexual assaults trial; he lodges immediate appeal

What a pity. 

[filopastry]

Don't think Anna Turley, or Sangria, wrote the comments. But seriously, perception to it, isn't it? You hear Mattinson in that interview I posted making the same points (interview was late last year) where voters were telling her that it wasn't that they were against something, they just couldn't understand why it was all Labour seemed to be talking about. As Anna Turley points out, if the images coming from the party are everyone waving a Palestinian flag while cringeing every time the party leader is next to a union jack then perceptions of the party will be shaped by that. And not in ways which will be favorable to getting elected across a wide part of the country. Doesn't mean you have to ditch wanting Palestinians having their own state etc. Does mean considering that it might be a bit niche as an offer to the electorate.

I'm just reading Mattinson's book on the Red Wall from her focus groups of ex-Labour voters, certainly a sobering read in terms of the scale of the task Labour has ahead of it.