advertisement


Labour Leader: Keir Starmer VII

Kirk said:
Hard to determine whether "more" is "a bit more" though. Labour do get it but at the moment they have chosen to take a gradual rather than radical path on climate, probably because of what happened in 2019 and because voters aren't in the mood for moving too quickly on climate (despite the country's sympathy and support for matters green). And Labour's green policy is hardly Tory. I agree the sooner, the better though. It will save billions (and lives) but we are dealing with politics and people, 17-odd million of whom voted for anti-green Brexit. Therein lies the problem.
Click to expand...

TBH The problem is that the LP 'policy' on making 'Green' changes is ambiguous. Too much vague claims which they may 'interpret' later on, and still too much reliance on assuming companies-for-profit will save us rather than rip us off. In essence ye old 'trianguation' beloved of the Lord of Darkness.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Surely Labour must also have done this analysis for itself. And if, as you suggest, a painful fall happens within the next parliament, that just opens the door to the far right to walk right in, as there's only one alternative to Labour, in many minds. Do they not see the risk that, if they fail to enact significant change and improvement quickly and decisively, they will just be enablers of Fascism in due course?
Click to expand...

They are still terrfied of being 'monstered' by the press, etc. And are happy to accept donations/help/etc from the wealthy in exchange for the 'triangulation' of policy. However reality in the shape of climate and our needs for food, energy, etc, really doesn't care what wealthy non-dom newspaper owners 'like'. Those people feel they can migrate and afford to be OK. We can't assume the same for our own health and safety. The Universe doesn't care what you would *wish* to be true.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Surely Labour must also have done this analysis for itself. And if, as you suggest, a painful fall happens within the next parliament, that just opens the door to the far right to walk right in, as there's only one alternative to Labour, in many minds. Do they not see the risk that, if they fail to enact significant change and improvement quickly and decisively, they will just be enablers of Fascism in due course?
Click to expand...
Fear of the far-right and the resulting lack of resistance only makes them stronger...
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Surely Labour must also have done this analysis for itself. And if, as you suggest, a painful fall happens within the next parliament, that just opens the door to the far right to walk right in, as there's only one alternative to Labour, in many minds. Do they not see the risk that, if they fail to enact significant change and improvement quickly and decisively, they will just be enablers of Fascism in due course?
Click to expand...

They're not bothered. As long as they get their turn in "government", it's all good. You assume that the Labour right have any principles, other than the lust for power.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Surely Labour must also have done this analysis for itself. And if, as you suggest, a painful fall happens within the next parliament, that just opens the door to the far right to walk right in, as there's only one alternative to Labour, in many minds. Do they not see the risk that, if they fail to enact significant change and improvement quickly and decisively, they will just be enablers of Fascism in due course?
Click to expand...
They’re strongly incentivised *not* to do the kind of analysis that might result in the conclusion that things need to change, because they are where they are on the understanding that they won’t change anything. They’re also psychologically predisposed to believe that there is no situation so bad that it can’t be made right simply by putting them in charge. They’re aggressively anti-intellectual as well: their reading is limited to political biographies and they associate ideas and analysis with the left, who they literally can’t hear: anything the left says is just noise to them.

It’s hard to fathom just how homogeneous the Labour right now are in terms of their background, their thinking, their goals, beliefs, prejudices etc. and above all in their self-belief and sense of entitlement. They are incredibly vulnerable to groupthink and the core groupthought is “This is fine”. I can’t see how they’re not going to explode on contact with reality.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
TBH The problem is that the LP 'policy' on making 'Green' changes is ambiguous. Too much vague claims which they may 'interpret' later on, and still too much reliance on assuming companies-for-profit will save us rather than rip us off. In essence ye old 'trianguation' beloved of the Lord of Darkness.
Click to expand...

The 2019 GE 'traumatised' Labour. There's really no other way to put it, and it has informed and conditioned the party's direction ever since. The party pendulum has swung from radical and transformative to caution, incrementalism and pragmatism. It's an entirely understandable reaction to the cluster that came before, and yet people rigidly hang onto past management. Good luck with that. Doubling down on failure is not a winning strategy.

Ambiguity in public policy has been around for ages. There's nothing new there. Maybe Labour's manifesto will firm things up a bit on green matters but it's unlikely to satisfy those who want full stop clarity. Not too sure how you'd define "rip us off" but a lot of private sector companies are doing a lot of heavy lifting in the green sector, and rightly so. Hopefully, GB Energy will also make a big impact.
 
Kirk said:
The 2019 GE 'traumatised' Labour. There's really no other way to put it, and it has informed and conditioned the party's direction ever since. The party pendulum has swung from radical and transformative to caution, incrementalism and pragmatism. It's an entirely understandable reaction to the cluster that came before, and yet people rigidly hang onto past management. Good luck with that. Doubling down on failure is not a winning strategy.

Ambiguity in public policy has been around for ages. There's nothing new there. Maybe Labour's manifesto will firm things up a bit on green matters but it's unlikely to satisfy those who want full stop clarity. Not too sure how you'd define "rip us off" but a lot of private sector companies are doing a lot of heavy lifting in the green sector, and rightly so. Hopefully, GB Energy will also make a big impact.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Labour was not taumatised at all. It got the exact result it campaigned hard and long for. Labour campaigned for disaster in 2019 and got it.
 
Kirk said:
The 2019 GE 'traumatised' Labour. There's really no other way to put it, and it has informed and conditioned the party's direction ever since.
Click to expand...

The big change was Blairism and *his* adoption of Tory/Market delusions. He walked away happy, leaving Brown to face the consequences when the Banks showed the reality beyond the delusions.

The press then proceeded to blame Brown for what the Banks had done under cover provided by Blairism. They got that story to stick because too many at the top of the LP were happy to go along with it. Era of 'monstering' anyone out-of-step then set in. Add in BloJo who promised everyone everything and was happy to blame Johnny Forigener for all our ills. Which suits the wealthy as the EU was coming to pull the wheels off their wagon in the UK.

Stare-More comes late to this on the basis of caving in to the same old delusions. Boosted when voters fall for it rather than stand up and make clear the reality. Too lazy and self-interested to tell people the truth, or too dumb? Dunno. Either way, will just make things worse.

But the bottom line is that we can 'blame' whoever we like and it won't help us at all. What can help is a clear change to support people who state the reality we face and vote for them. All else is a wasted vote as we move closer to the fire. Failing to stand up to bullies (who deploy monstering, etc) is why they go on doing it. You don't get what you want - or need - by giving in to it. You just go on being exploited and left to burn.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
The big change was Blairism and *his* adoption of Tory/Market delusions. He walked away happy, leaving Brown to face the consequences when the Banks showed the reality beyond the delusions.

The press then proceeded to blame Brown for what the Banks had done under cover provided by Blairism. They got that story to stick because too many at the top of the LP were happy to go along with it. Era of 'monstering' anyone out-of-step then set in. Add in BloJo who promised everyone everything and was happy to blame Johnny Forigener for all our ills. Which suits the wealthy as the EU was coming to pull the wheels off their wagon in the UK.

Stare-More comes late to this on the basis of caving in to the same old delusions. Boosted when voters fall for it rather than stand up and make clear the reality. Too lazy and self-interested to tell people the truth, or too dumb? Dunno. Either way, will just make things worse.

But the bottom line is that we can 'blame' whoever we like and it won't help us at all. What can help is a clear change to support people who state the reality we face and vote for them. All else is a wasted vote as we move closer to the fire. Failing to stand up to bullies (who deploy monstering, etc) is why they go on doing it. You don't get what you want - or need - by giving in to it. You just go on being exploited and left to burn.
Click to expand...
Yes, though to be fair to Blair, the adoptions of Tory/Market delusions began under Callaghan.

Healy was described as a Monetarist way before Brown came along
 
gavreid said:
Here's a good piece on the Cass review getting all the highlights yesterday

Cass Review opens door to more attacks on trans people​

A deeply flawed report that boosts Tories, bigots and transphobes

"She added, “They are medicalising being trans. They are also scaremongering about ‘irreversible care’.”

The Tories will use Cass to go on the offensive—and Labour is going along with their transphobia. Wes Streeting, Labour’s shadow health secretary, pledged the party’s “support for the Cass Review’s evidence-led recommendations”.

socialistworker.co.uk

Cass Review opens door to more attacks on trans people

The Cass Review on gender identity services for children boosts Tories, bigots and transphobes and will make life harder for trans+ people.
socialistworker.co.uk socialistworker.co.uk
Click to expand...
Good piece exposing the hit job that was the Cass Review.

novaramedia.com

Spare a Thought for Hilary Cass | Novara Media

Within hours of publication, the Cass Review into youth gender identity services had been torn to shreds. What a waste of four years of 'research', writes Gemma Stone.
novaramedia.com novaramedia.com
 
I'm surprised Sunak hasn't started properly trolling him by now, dreaming up ever more crazy policies just to see if Starmer will nod along with everything. You wonder if he would draw the line at anything at all.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
The big change was Blairism and *his* adoption of Tory/Market delusions. He walked away happy, leaving Brown to face the consequences when the Banks showed the reality beyond the delusions.

The press then proceeded to blame Brown for what the Banks had done under cover provided by Blairism. They got that story to stick because too many at the top of the LP were happy to go along with it. Era of 'monstering' anyone out-of-step then set in. Add in BloJo who promised everyone everything and was happy to blame Johnny Forigener for all our ills. Which suits the wealthy as the EU was coming to pull the wheels off their wagon in the UK.

Stare-More comes late to this on the basis of caving in to the same old delusions. Boosted when voters fall for it rather than stand up and make clear the reality. Too lazy and self-interested to tell people the truth, or too dumb? Dunno. Either way, will just make things worse.

But the bottom line is that we can 'blame' whoever we like and it won't help us at all. What can help is a clear change to support people who state the reality we face and vote for them. All else is a wasted vote as we move closer to the fire. Failing to stand up to bullies (who deploy monstering, etc) is why they go on doing it. You don't get what you want - or need - by giving in to it. You just go on being exploited and left to burn.
Click to expand...

Truth/reality in politics would be very welcome but things seem to be going in the wrong direction on that front as you've noted. The post-truth society is very much alive helped along by various politicians who want to warp reality and sell various versions of the sunlit uplands to the voters. Many voters lap it up. But voters matter.

The "big change" was very successful for the Labour Party (and Cool Britannia), all fuelled by winning a number of GEs. We can only hope, in the face of years of Tory rule, that current Labour pull off the same feat.
 
Kirk said:
Truth/reality in politics would be very welcome but things seem to be going in the wrong direction on that front as you've noted. The post-truth society is very much alive helped along by various politicians who want to warp reality and sell various versions of the sunlit uplands to the voters. Many voters lap it up. But voters matter.

The "big change" was very successful for the Labour Party (and Cool Britannia), all fuelled by winning a number of GEs. We can only hope, in the face of years of Tory rule, that current Labour pull off the same feat.
Click to expand...
A vote for Labour is not an anti Tory vote

A vote for Labour is a vote to do everything the Tories ever wanted to do but faster.
 
Kirk said:
The "big change" was very successful for the Labour Party (and Cool Britannia), all fuelled by winning a number of GEs. We can only hope, in the face of years of Tory rule, that current Labour pull off the same feat.
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem much of a "hope" to me TBH. In essence, more of the same with red lipstick. The problem is that putting lipstick on a pig doesn't mean it is no longer a pig. What matters is real policies, not the lipstick. On that Staremore's party fails. Just Tory with lipstick... as things get worse.

The only way to change this is to show a bigger vote for the Greens. (or to some extent SNP in Scotland) as a rise in that vote will at least fire a shot over the bows of the next government. Shows people are NOT happy with either of the big parties, but end up voting for them out of desperation.

The more people vote for one of the two 'big parties' because they feel anything else is pointless, the more they lock in that view in the minds of others who would also like real changes. Voting Labour at present may be 'slightly less bad' than Tory. But it shows every sign of not dealing with the basic changes we need, because they spout the usual twaddle.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
That doesn't seem much of a "hope" to me TBH. In essence, more of the same with red lipstick. The problem is that putting lipstick on a pig doesn't mean it is no longer a pig. What matters is real policies, not the lipstick. On that Staremore's party fails. Just Tory with lipstick... as things get worse.

The only way to change this is to show a bigger vote for the Greens. (or to some extent SNP in Scotland) as a rise in that vote will at least fire a shot over the bows of the next government. Shows people are NOT happy with either of the big parties, but end up voting for them out of desperation.

The more people vote for one of the two 'big parties' because they feel anything else is pointless, the more they lock in that view in the minds of others who would also like real changes. Voting Labour at present may be 'slightly less bad' than Tory. But it shows every sign of not dealing with the basic changes we need, because they spout the usual twaddle.
Click to expand...
A vote for Labour is a vote to make things worse, not better.

Unless you believe that more privatisation is a cure.
 
I'm not convinced Labour do 'get it'. For years now any environmental policy they announce always has to be justified by some other more important benefit - jobs! cheap energy! - not destroying the planet isn't considered enough on it's own. Historically the environment has barely featured in their manifestos and when it did it was clear it was an existing policy that had been badly green-washed. The Corbyn years were a break from that but now we're back to business as usual.
 
And I guess all of this comes down to how serious you believe the climate crisis to be.

Whether you think we've got a few decades to slowly ease off the gas of whether you think there's a good chance we're already ****ed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top