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

[WhoHe]

Regarding Dowden and Johnsons needless meddling in ECBs decision to suspend historical racist tweets of Robinson citing 'it was years ago, when he was young', why does that same justification extend to Shamima Begum when she was 15?

What's she tweeted now ?

[Gerry Attrick]

Regarding Dowden and Johnsons needless meddling in ECBs decision to suspend historical racist tweets of Robinson citing 'it was years ago, when he was young', why does that same justification extend to Shamima Begum when she was 15?

There's a slight difference between some racist tweets and joining Islamic State, but I'm sure you were aware of that. Now, I don't give a shit whether she's ever allowed back or not, but that's an incredible comparison to be trying to make.

[Yorkykopite]

There's a slight difference between some racist tweets and joining Islamic State...

[Machae]

The point being that if you were applying those reasons why ECB shouldn't have suspended Robinson, then you can also apply the same logic to Shamina being young and stupid

Besides, she didnt join to fight, but rather groomed to be a bride. I think theres a difference  and her mental capacity wasnt mature enough to make an informed decision.

Take her back and deal with her through de-radicalisation programmes and let her pay for her crimes, as per the normal process

I think you missed the point, in that you cant use someone being young to not punish someone like Dowden did. I agree with ECB that he should be dealt with, in much the same way as Shamima should

[Welshred]

Especially on the day they're announcing a month-long delay to the easing of restrictions due to government incompetence.

You honestly expect that to make any difference to Johnson's ratings when nothing has so far?


"Let the bodies pile high" equalled "Tories +4"

[Snail]

"Let the bodies pile high" equalled "Tories +4"

After Labour helpfully diverted focus away from that by doing jokey photo ops in the wallpaper section of John Lewis. If you're saying there's no point in so much as attempting to hold the government to account then fair enough, Labour is the party for you.

[Machae]

Tories have really played the culture wars theme well and will take seismic effort from traditional non voters to make a difference. In much the same way as a large proportion of blacks helped Georgia get rid of Trump and Republican senators.

Problem is now that Labour are competing with the Greens which may dilute their overall lead whereas Tories seem to have a free run from UKIP

[Welshred]

After Labour helpfully diverted focus away from that by doing jokey photo ops in the wallpaper section of John Lewis. If you're saying there's no point in so much as attempting to hold the government to account then fair enough, Labour is the party for you.

Yes because one picture on Twitter is all that you ever need to distract someone, despite various comments from Starmer on Twitter itself, in the commons and on the news holding him to account as well as other members of the Labour party. Nothing actually gets through, but you're right its because Starmer held some wallpaper up in John Lewis and that's why they increased their lead in the opinion polls.

I do actually wonder what some people feel an opposition leader needs to do to hold someone to account, so maybe you could tell me what your expectations are?

[ShakaHislop]

Sunak's in-laws facing a tax bill and multiple competition investigations in relation to a joint venture with Amazon in India.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/14/rishi-sunaks-billionaire-in-laws-hit-with-55m-bill-in-amazon-india-tax-dispute

[Nick110581]

Johnson delayed closing the borders so it’s all on him.

[Wild Romany Boy]

Ah, well, nevertheless.

https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1404355427484291072?s=20

Another own goal.

[Zeb]

Logged into twitter and then laughed a lot at the hours of fume from the permanently enraged.

Most useful comment around that Jon Stone tweet is by Jack Bailey btw. Is there a vaccine effect? How would we know? And is optimism about the economy a better proxy?

[Commie Bobbie]

Ah, well, nevertheless.

https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1404355427484291072?s=20

What's the fucking point of even pretending.

They really think we're just going to go back to them and vote for them when they're pandering to pondscum.

And ditch that phone in with that absolute fascist.

[Wild Romany Boy]

Logged into twitter and then laughed a lot at the hours of fume from the permanently enraged.

Most useful comment around that Jon Stone tweet is by Jack Bailey btw. Is there a vaccine effect? How would we know? And is optimism about the economy a better proxy?

The problem with using the 'vaccine effect' to cover everything is that Starmer's personal ratings are not doing well.

If you mean the Jack Bailey data guy, then he does make very good points, but his belief that Starmer should say this anyway, because it makes him look better, isn't something I am on board with. To me it has the opposite effect.

[Zeb]

The problem with using the 'vaccine effect' to cover everything is that Starmer's personal ratings are not doing well.

If you mean the Jack Bailey data guy, then he does make very good points, but his belief that Starmer should say this anyway, because it makes him look better, isn't something I am on board with. To me it has the opposite effect.

I don't think that's Jack Bailey's point, is it? (edit: will check again if he did say that, genuinely missed it if he did.) It was more that Starmer is saying something which on face value is very logical and could well be true but is actually very difficult to support from the evidence at the moment. If you caught the conversations between the academics there, they bring up the Falklands War effect as something similar where the evidence for it is very weak. To be fair to Starmer, it's off into the weeds and I wonder what answer would work for those criticising the one he gave. I suspect there isn't one short of him resigning. Whether they've thought that one through or not is a question for another day.

As for Starmer, yeah, his personal ratings have fallen a lot. It's directly across to Johnson's rising too. A more extreme version of it was seen in 2017 where Corbyn came close to not being net negative as May's very high ratings collapsed. The underlying factors are still pretty positive for Starmer to be fair, and even more so if you're looking at changing perceptions of the Labour party itself, and there is some evidence in recent polling that Labour is starting to close the gap again. It's going to be a long summer but I'll take my chuckles at those who can't credit something good still in denial about why people wouldn't listen about all the bad shite. Lesson lot of us on the left have to learn, I had to take my lumps on it at the start of austerity on why being right isn't a substitute for being listened to.

[Wild Romany Boy]

I don't think that's Jack Bailey's point, is it? (edit: will check again if he did say that, genuinely missed it if he did.) It was more that Starmer is saying something which on face value is very logical and could well be true but is actually very difficult to support from the evidence at the moment. If you caught the conversations between the academics there, they bring up the Falklands War effect as something similar where the evidence for it is very weak. To be fair to Starmer, it's off into the weeds and I wonder what answer would work for those criticising the one he gave. I suspect there isn't one short of him resigning. Whether they've thought that one through or not is a question for another day.

As for Starmer, yeah, his personal ratings have fallen a lot. It's directly across to Johnson's rising too. A more extreme version of it was seen in 2017 where Corbyn came close to not being net negative as May's very high ratings collapsed. The underlying factors are still pretty positive for Starmer to be fair, and even more so if you're looking at changing perceptions of the Labour party itself, and there is some evidence in recent polling that Labour is starting to close the gap again. It's going to be a long summer but I'll take my chuckles at those who can't credit something good still in denial about why people wouldn't listen about all the bad shite. Lesson lot of us on the left have to learn, I had to take my lumps on it at the start of austerity on why being right isn't a substitute for being listened to.

No, it's not Bailey's main point. It's exactly that there may be no vaccine bounce but he also notes later that he'd probably give the same answer as Starmer gave himself because people believe it to be so. I think it's the opposite; most people hear that and think 'getting your excuses in'. I don't think either Starmer or Corbyn give the best answers when they can afford to be a little reflective to be honest.

That said, it's not solely that people want him to resign, there are people out there who think he has done a really, really bad job and isn't really engaging with why. That's perfectly fair. Let's just say that you're more optimistic than I am about those positive underlying factors.

[Nobby Reserve]

There's a slight difference between some racist tweets and joining Islamic State, but I'm sure you were aware of that. Now, I don't give a shit whether she's ever allowed back or not, but that's an incredible comparison to be trying to make.

You do know how grooming works, yes?

[rob1966]

"I'm only doing so badly because the other side are so good!" 

I get what he is saying, but there's no need to keep highlighting the good things about the government when there are so many bad things to use.

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson could take a shit in his hand, then offer it to the Queen and he'd get away with it by using the "we're leading the world in vaccinations" get out of Jail card. The British public are thick as pig shit.

[Zeb]

No, it's not Bailey's main point. It's exactly that there may be no vaccine bounce but he also notes later that he'd probably give the same answer as Starmer gave himself because people believe it to be so. I think it's the opposite; most people hear that and think 'getting your excuses in'. I don't think either Starmer or Corbyn give the best answers when they can afford to be a little reflective to be honest.

That said, it's not solely that people want him to resign, there are people out there who think he has done a really, really bad job and isn't really engaging with why. That's perfectly fair. Let's just say that you're more optimistic than I am about those positive underlying factors.

I'm just guided by the evidence. The Labour Party is in recovery, have posted summaries by likes of Anthony Wells (Yougov) and Chris Curtis (Survation) at 'what's going wrong' themed events on here before. It's a slow process and I think there also has to be a willingness to acknowledge that for all the improvements, and for me not broadcasting on a narrowband to the already converted is a huge improvement regardless of where it starts to fail, only three Leaders of the Opposition have become Prime Minister since Thatcher got her election in 79 and all of them after major economic shocks of some sort. So it is uphill. Why I thought the Michael Howard comparisons with Starmer were quite interesting. The slow move to something different but still playing the same tunes from the same grubby party the electorate were rejecting. See whether the Fabians can come up with something with their reviews of this and that.

Don't know on replies. I didn't think that was a particularly bad one in any sense, so I'd agree with what you say Bailey had conceded about it. Yeah, it's an excuse but the alternative answers are even worse and feed into the problems of how the party is perceived that Starmer is slowly unpicking. There's times when Starmer's lack of experience as a politician does come through, honestly not particularly fussed with this one over, say, not clocking he was chatting to a fascist where you wonder whether he's picking up on the nuances at all or whether he's thought 'Gordon Brown moment' and ducked it. If his answer had been "If you're all going to vote Tory, we're going to treat you like Tories" etc etc, I'd be far more worried. Regression into primarily talking to parts of the Labour membership isn't an option.

[TSC]

Speaker criticises Number 10 (so PM then) for not telling MPs first about the delay in further easing of Covid measures.

[Wild Romany Boy]

I'm just guided by the evidence. The Labour Party is in recovery, have posted summaries by likes of Anthony Wells (Yougov) and Chris Curtis (Survation) at 'what's going wrong' themed events on here before. It's a slow process and I think there also has to be a willingness to acknowledge that for all the improvements, and for me not broadcasting on a narrowband to the already converted is a huge improvement regardless of where it starts to fail, only three Leaders of the Opposition have become Prime Minister since Thatcher got her election in 79 and all of them after major economic shocks of some sort. So it is uphill. Why I thought the Michael Howard comparisons with Starmer were quite interesting. The slow move to something different but still playing the same tunes from the same grubby party the electorate were rejecting. See whether the Fabians can come up with something with their reviews of this and that.

Don't know on replies. I didn't think that was a particularly bad one in any sense, so I'd agree with what you say Bailey had conceded about it. Yeah, it's an excuse but the alternative answers are even worse and feed into the problems of how the party is perceived that Starmer is slowly unpicking. There's times when Starmer's lack of experience as a politician does come through, honestly not particularly fussed with this one over, say, not clocking he was chatting to a fascist where you wonder whether he's picking up on the nuances at all or whether he's thought 'Gordon Brown moment' and ducked it. If his answer had been "If you're all going to vote Tory, we're going to treat you like Tories" etc etc, I'd be far more worried. Regression into primarily talking to parts of the Labour membership isn't an option.

Interesting analysis. I think our instincts are different to be honest, but it's always interesting to hear others.

I don't think anyone is saying that they should primarily talk to parts of the Labour membership, but I think they are saying that you have to acknowledge the parts of the membership that are there. Yes, there will be some who will not take to Starmer, but he led his campaign in a very specific way for very specific reasons, and if he does not do enough to keep them then he will lose.

BTW, there is an alternative reason that is not 'worse' exactly, just inconvenient. That reason is that Starmer isn't good enough. It won't be the left of the party that, given the opportunity, take that as a fact, it will be the right. Right now it is just conjecture.

[TheShanklyGates]

Speaker criticises Number 10 (so PM then) for not telling MPs first about the delay in further easing of Covid measures.

It's the zillionth time the speaker has done that, it's not going to change without any formal mechanism to force Johnson to do so.

[Zeb]

Interesting analysis. I think our instincts are different to be honest, but it's always interesting to hear others.

I don't think anyone is saying that they should primarily talk to parts of the Labour membership, but I think they are saying that you have to acknowledge the parts of the membership that are there. Yes, there will be some who will not take to Starmer, but he led his campaign in a very specific way for very specific reasons, and if he does not do enough to keep them then he will lose.

BTW, there is an alternative reason that is not 'worse' exactly, just inconvenient. That reason is that Starmer isn't good enough. It won't be the left of the party that, given the opportunity, take that as a fact, it will be the right. Right now it is just conjecture.

Not sure of your last point there. Do you mean a reason for Starmer to give? "I'm shit". That's back to resignation being the only answer some will take. Whether it's the truth of it, who knows short of a general election on the current evidence? He's an improvement, which is what was needed as the minimum. Whether there was a better candidate, well, possibly one. I voted for her.

Don't know about instincts meaning much the sore end of an arse kicking from the electorate. There is a weird problem for a Labour leader of needing to balance members concerns against the electorate's. That old argument over whether MPs are delegates etc., which is why the consequences are less direct than some seem to imagine.

Personally, I'd say any rectifying back to something more towards the electorate from trying to bypass entirely any but the most favorable of coverage was never going to be anything less than a downgrade for those used to getting their instant social media fix tailored to their precise positions. As I said at the time, Starmer's 'unity' ideal was nice but was going to fall on its face as soon as the EHRC landed. You don't get 'unity' with people who define their socialism by their freedom to find a minority to be bigoted about, nor with their supporters. And that's just the foundation work going in on changes needed. Painful for some, I can appreciate that.

[Dr. Beaker]

It's the new norm now. The PM barely faces scrutiny. It probably started with Andrew Neil, Channel 4, etc. But parliamentary scrutiny soon followed and now it's the norm.

[Commie Bobbie]

Stormzy Had It Right.

#FuckBoris

[Nobby Reserve]

who knows short of a general election on the current evidence? He's an improvement, which is what was needed as the minimum.

In terms of leadership? Hardly. And Corbyn was shit.

But, as you say, the proof of the pudding will be the next GE.

I'll bet you (name the charity of your choice) that Starmer's Labour get fewer votes that Corbyn's Labour got in 2019.

[TepidT2O]

In terms of leadership? Hardly. And Corbyn was shit.

But, as you say, the proof of the pudding will be the next GE.

I'll bet you (name the charity of your choice) that Starmer's Labour get fewer votes that Corbyn's Labour got in 2019.

What about seats?

[Nobby Reserve]

What about seats?

What about them?

[Zeb]

In terms of leadership? Hardly. And Corbyn was shit.

But, as you say, the proof of the pudding will be the next GE.

I'll bet you (name the charity of your choice) that Starmer's Labour get fewer votes that Corbyn's Labour got in 2019.

Will take bet on equivalent turnout to 2019. The Whitechapel Centre is my choice, name your's and we'll put a small bit to one of them. It does spectacularly miss the point of how FPTP works though, doesn't it? And especially how Labour's vote stacks in certain wards and constituencies and the whole point of Starmer needing to move the party to addressing different audiences. I'd be very confident Starmer will win seats back next election. It's how many which'll be key. No heroic victories in defeat though, just next stage of moving towards winning even more seats which is what matters.

[The Real Rasta]

I can see both arguments, ultimately seats are what matters as that is the route to power and I would agree about voter concentration and reaching different ones. It's often mentioned how toxic and disliked Corbyn was and how Starmer is an improvement just by not being him, which should be reflected in the number of votes then if it's as simple as that. But it's obviously not that simple and there will be other factors to account for.

[Pheel]

It's the zillionth time the speaker has done that, it's not going to change without any formal mechanism to force Johnson to do so.

and... nothing new in the official announcement that was News to anyone..we know about a shooting in America at the same time as Reuters, its the way of the reality now. The speaker and anyone else feigning shock is bollocks.

[Zeb]

I can see both arguments, ultimately seats are what matters as that is the route to power and I would agree about voter concentration and reaching different ones. It's often mentioned how toxic and disliked Corbyn was and how Starmer is an improvement just by not being him, which should be reflected in the number of votes then if it's as simple as that. But it's obviously not that simple and there will be other factors to account for.

2019 crushed Labour's vote across almost every demographic you could care to distinguish. If Labour's current (utterly awful) polling was what had happened in 2019 then Corbyn would have been pushing on 600k more votes and however many seats that would have held onto. (Ignoring pressure on other parties' vote during an election for the counterfactual there.) Why I'll take Nobby's bet, unless he wants to reconsider.

[Wild Romany Boy]

2019 crushed Labour's vote across almost every demographic you could care to distinguish. If Labour's current (utterly awful) polling was what had happened in 2019 then Corbyn would have been pushing on 600k more votes and however many seats that would have held onto. (Ignoring pressure on other parties' vote during an election for the counterfactual there.) Why I'll take Nobby's bet, unless he wants to reconsider.

I'll make the equivalent donation to the Whitechapel centre after anyway, because it's a great organisation made, sadly, more relevant each and every day. I think you'll lose but I'll cover the bet.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Especially on the day they're announcing a month-long delay to the easing of restrictions due to government incompetence.

Are they though?

Aren't they announcing a month-long delay to the easing of restrictions due to a new variant that would otherwise kill tens of thousands of British people?**



**I accept that we are where we are with this due to this government being a shower of bungling knobends, but the delay is the right thing to do

[TepidT2O]

What about them?

Fewer votes?  Maybe be.

Fewer seats?  Maybe not…

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Yes because one picture on Twitter is all that you ever need to distract someone, despite various comments from Starmer on Twitter itself, in the commons and on the news holding him to account as well as other members of the Labour party. Nothing actually gets through, but you're right its because Starmer held some wallpaper up in John Lewis and that's why they increased their lead in the opinion polls.

I do actually wonder what some people feel an opposition leader needs to do to hold someone to account, so maybe you could tell me what your expectations are?

I wouldn't bother mate.

All I ever see from some of my friends on social media are attacks on Starmer.

When they were (rightly) posting stuff where Corbyn was saying "I was amazed to see that I was this evil fella up to everything evil" - they are doing the same thing to Starmer.

It's fine to be annoyed at someone you back being unfairly lambasted and lied about, but not if you're going to then do the exact same thing yourself.


I don't think Corbyn was evil and I think he had some good ideas, but unfortunately I don't think that he was really that good either. He has spent his entire life sniping at, voting against and undermining the Labour Party from the wings and tried to do the same thing to a (sadly) United Tory Party.

Starmer isn't evil, he's done a lot of good work from all accounts and is a decent man, but to read the bullshit - he's more Tory than the Toriest Tory in Toryland.

[Wild Romany Boy]

Are they though?

Aren't they announcing a month-long delay to the easing of restrictions due to a new variant that would otherwise kill tens of thousands of British people?**



**I accept that we are where we are with this due to this government being a shower of bungling knobends, but the delay is the right thing to do

Andy, Snail isn't saying that it isn't the right thing to do - she might believe that, but she's not saying it - she is saying that it presents an opportunity for Starmer because it didn't have to be this way. And Starmer gave a very good answer on LBC around this issue - I don't think he should do shows like that, but he was excellent for that question in particular - explaining that it was the right thing to do but it didn't have to be. He can make hay with that line of thought.

She's also been very fair to Starmer despite having different ideas of policy.

[Wild Romany Boy]

Are they though?

Aren't they announcing a month-long delay to the easing of restrictions due to a new variant that would otherwise kill tens of thousands of British people?**



**I accept that we are where we are with this due to this government being a shower of bungling knobends, but the delay is the right thing to do

Andy, Snail isn't saying that it isn't the right thing to do - she might believe that, I wouldn't know, but she's not saying it - she is saying that it presents an opportunity for Starmer because it didn't have to be this way. And Starmer gave a very good answer on LBC around this issue - I don't think he should do shows like that, but he was excellent for that question in particular - explaining that it was the right thing to do but it didn't have to be. He can make hay with that line of thought.

She's also been very fair to Starmer despite having different ideas of policy.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Andy, Snail isn't saying that it isn't the right thing to do - she might believe that, but she's not saying it - she is saying that it presents an opportunity for Starmer because it didn't have to be this way. And Starmer gave a very good answer on LBC around this issue - I don't think he should do shows like that, but he was excellent for that question in particular - explaining that it was the right thing to do but it didn't have to be. He can make hay with that line of thought.

She's also been very fair to Starmer despite having different ideas of policy.

See I don't agree. Labour have to be very, very careful about what they say regarding Coronavirus. The topic has too much gravity to be taken lightly and to be used as a political football.

The time to address it is once the crisis is over. The Tories have made loads of mistakes and their inaction and reaction has led to more than a hundred thousand British people dead and twice that number fucked for life.

At the moment the Tories own the mess and Labour needs to not become embroiled in the actions of an acting government.

That's what I think anyway, in major crisis a party pettily sniping doesn't really get the public spirit onboard.

The Tories will likely get their comeuppance once the Virus is done. We see it everytime there is a major crisis. No matter how well or badly a government does then people are pissed off and fed up with the whole situation and tend to want to bin off a party to get something new - whatever Johnson and his oiks do they'll forever be remembered as the Coronavirus Party and history is unlikely to be kind.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Saying that, the questions are best left to the shadow health minister and they are holding the Tories to account;




UK opposition health spokesperson, Jonathan Ashworth, Labour’s shadow health secretary, has told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the reason why the nation was in the current situation was because the Government had not imposed travel restrictions sooner.

“Rather than red listing this variant, we essentially gave it the red carpet treatment as 20,000 people were allowed to arrive from India over a number of weeks in April, even though the warning signs were there,” he said. “That essentially seeded this Delta variant across the country.”

“Nobody wanted to be in this place and we could have avoided this if it was not for the Delta variant, and I’m afraid this is on Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson for his puny weak border policy, which was secure as a sieve.”

PA report he added that Labour would “collapse” the traffic light travel system, adding: “Essentially all those nations on the amber list we wouldn’t move to a red list. We would want to see more nations move on to the green list when it is safe to do so.

“But we would ask those returning from those red list countries to properly quarantine themselves at the borders - I understand this is an immense inconvenience for people, and I don’t want to put people in this situation, but we’ve got to protect ourselves from this very dangerous virus.”