Post Match Thread: Election 2017

Status
Not open for further replies.
goalmole said:
I think people have been conned into thinking what other people tell them they should think. They have been told that if we ask those who can afford it to pay a bit more tax then they are going to up sticks and leave turning this country into a wasteland. I personally know of people living on minimum wages on a council estate but who choose to vote Tory. Talk of turkeys voting for Christmas. You couldn't make it up. The power of propaganda can't be underestimated. It has come to the point where anyone who speaks up openly for the needs of the downtrodden is labelled as some kind of Marxist Leninist throwback(Corbyn) to be ridiculed for following an outdated and discredited creed. The accepted and acceptable creed being that of the middle and upper middle classes, namely that everybody should be able to make a better life for themselves by pulling up their bootstraps and working hard. While this is an admirable stance, ( I'm self employed and do quite well for myself and I'm quite ambitious for my children) not everyone is in a position to adequately fend for themselves. It should be a function of the state to ensure basic needs are adequately met for the population at large and not just provide a bare, grudging minimum of services by constantly clawing away and under mining funding. We are one of the richest countries in the world and we can afford it. The problem is ideologically since Mrs Thatcher we choose not to. It's a question of priorities. People have been conditioned to think that is the way it is and that is the way it has to be. This message has been put out by politicians and reinforced by the right wing media and people have nought into it. This is why you get people protesting about A and E closures and then going out and voting Tory.
Well it doesn't have to be that way.
What is needed is someone to slay this dragon. People need understand that public services are fundable without the sky falling in. Do we want to carry on making the rich richer or do we want to give our people the best life we can. While the working class has capitulated in it's struggle of making life better for the weak, the Tories have kept up their's, at the same time co opting us into helping them in the name of social mobility.
I just think Corbyn might finally be the man to connect with people to change their thinking and fight for their own interests rather than being wannabe Tories, hoping for social mobility and leaving behind the vulnerable and needy to fend for themselves the best they can. That you can't expect people who have been born into wealth and never experienced hardship to know what hardship feels like and therefore to sympathise and alleviate yours.
I know what I am saying may be the triumph of hope over expectation but I hope Corbyn is that man and I hope he succeeds.
If he fails I'll just go back onto my pit of despair for the future of the working class people of this country.
Click to expand...
It looks like we had the same type of idea at the exact same time! :-)
 
I notice today that Chris Leslie former shadow chancellor apparently, was again inferring that Labour would have won without Corbyn.

There are plenty who said this 6 weeks ago, some have had the good grace to say they got it wrong.
 
Bluemanc100 said:
You don't but it was clearly flawed logic to appoint him once let alone twice... It seems you don't agree though... it's fine to be principled but what's the point ... you needed Chuka or the other Milliband brother who would likely have got in
Click to expand...

The party chose him as leader, twice, if you think he's the wrong man then you think there's something wrong with the party and if you think there's something wrong with the party, then place your X against a candidate for another party, it's as simple as that.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
From afar, Britain appears to have fallen for the same schtick as American voters, even those who have little to nothing to gain from the policies for which they vote. My parents were somewhat the same...Mum voted Labour, Dad Conservative. She knew which side her bread was buttered and who party had anything of worth for the family, while Dad aspired to be someone who would one day have more.

When I look at Britain today, Manchester is not nearly as representative of the general belief that upward mobility is not only possible but achievable, and possibly within easy reach for some who feel like they are already on at least a lower rung of the economic ladder. I see it even on this Forum, between those that are doing halfway decently and those that are perhaps not doing as well.

The sentiment in identity politics today appears to have been successful for the Right, identifying those on the Left as moochers and people looking for a handout, who are reliant on the state to have anything or make anything of themselves, while the Right are self reliant, aspirational rugged individuals who have worked hard to get themselves ahead and deserve all the success they have achieved, because they achieved it themselves. They deserve to keep more of that hard earned money through lower taxes, which the Left want to pay for all their services and benefits.

Now, as a population, who wants to be identified as "Right or Left" in those caricaturish depictions? In America, even those who might more accurately fit the mold of the Left often vote Right, because they simply don't identify themselves as Left, all evidence to the contrary, because they are taught to see themselves (and definitely prefer to identify themselves) as the rugged, self reliant, individualist of the Right. Indeed, the Southern Tier states of the U.S. take vastly greater sums of Federal monies into their states than they contribute to the Federal coffers. Ironically, it is those "Blue" Leftie urban centers and states that contribute the vast majority of Federal dollars to those states full of "rugged individualists!"

In short, the propaganda of self-reliance, as if everyone has the choice given their circumstances, has tried to portray anyone requiring state aid, no matter how briefly or necessary, as a weight around the neck of the country and those who are working so hard to create their own futures. It is cynical in the extreme, but it plays to people who see themselves as good citizens who contribute to the betterment of society, even if it is actually them it is often negatively portraying.

There are no easy answers to societal problems, but when politics seeks to stratify people and pit them against each other, it will always be those who have (and have the most) who will continue to gain at the expense of those they have divided into factions fighting each other. Without the consensus politics required to corral, control and even negate such cynical politics, those with all the advantages will simply milk those advantages to the fullest extent possible for as long as possible, further widening the gap and exacerbating the underlying problem.
Click to expand...
goalmole said:
I think people have been conned into thinking what other people tell them they should think. They have been told that if we ask those who can afford it to pay a bit more tax then they are going to up sticks and leave turning this country into a wasteland. I personally know of people living on minimum wages on a council estate but who choose to vote Tory. Talk of turkeys voting for Christmas. You couldn't make it up. The power of propaganda can't be underestimated. It has come to the point where anyone who speaks up openly for the needs of the downtrodden is labelled as some kind of Marxist Leninist throwback(Corbyn) to be ridiculed for following an outdated and discredited creed. The accepted and acceptable creed being that of the middle and upper middle classes, namely that everybody should be able to make a better life for themselves by pulling up their bootstraps and working hard. While this is an admirable stance, ( I'm self employed and do quite well for myself and I'm quite ambitious for my children) not everyone is in a position to adequately fend for themselves. It should be a function of the state to ensure basic needs are adequately met for the population at large and not just provide a bare, grudging minimum of services by constantly clawing away and under mining funding. We are one of the richest countries in the world and we can afford it. The problem is ideologically since Mrs Thatcher we choose not to. It's a question of priorities. People have been conditioned to think that is the way it is and that is the way it has to be. This message has been put out by politicians and reinforced by the right wing media and people have nought into it. This is why you get people protesting about A and E closures and then going out and voting Tory.
Well it doesn't have to be that way.
What is needed is someone to slay this dragon. People need understand that public services are fundable without the sky falling in. Do we want to carry on making the rich richer or do we want to give our people the best life we can. While the working class has capitulated in it's struggle of making life better for the weak, the Tories have kept up their's, at the same time co opting us into helping them in the name of social mobility.
I just think Corbyn might finally be the man to connect with people to change their thinking and fight for their own interests rather than being wannabe Tories, hoping for social mobility and leaving behind the vulnerable and needy to fend for themselves the best they can. That you can't expect people who have been born into wealth and never experienced hardship to know what hardship feels like and therefore to sympathise and alleviate yours.
I know what I am saying may be the triumph of hope over expectation but I hope Corbyn is that man and I hope he succeeds.
If he fails I'll just go back onto my pit of despair for the future of the working class people of this country.
Click to expand...

The election is over chaps
 
Bluemanc100 said:
You don't but it was clearly flawed logic to appoint him once let alone twice... It seems you don't agree though... it's fine to be principled but what's the point ... you needed Chuka or the other Milliband brother who would likely have got in
Click to expand...
The other Millibrand brother is smart enough to stay away for a while and polish his bonafides on the global stage before dipping his toe back into British politics. From what I have seen and heard of him to date, when he comes back he will be a force to be reckoned with and an excellent advocate for Britain.
 
Bluemanc100 said:
The guy at the helm is a changeling... he is pretending to be something he simply isn't and that's why he isn't (and probably will never be) PM..

It's a crying shame that a credible leader wasn't sanctioned because the alternative party are now taking us up the creek

Should Corbyn have fallen on his own sword when many in your own party were casting doubts on his capability... he is arguably as guilty as May for not taking that opportunity.. maybe he thinks he is bigger than the party (or others do)
Click to expand...

Options bar corbyn in the last 2 leadership elections would have fared no better imho

how I believe they would have fared if they had been leader

Cooper - may have won a similar number of seats , but doubt it
Liz kendal - not a chance we would be wiped out now.
Andy burnham - Probably as many seats as now or a couple more than milliband
Owen smith - see Liz Kendall

the mebership was dropping and we were failing to get the youth and traditional labour vote energized since 2010 and none of those who ha also attempted to be leader would have done any better , tired soundbite style bullshit politicians, only burnham has the cameleonic ability to change tact to suit. out of them, but doubt he would have made much difference.

One reason labour improved was the grassroot contribution doorstepping and those load of numpties would not have enegised as many to come out as has.

Example of this is woodcocks campaign, spent 2 years slaging of corbyn and pissing off the membership, when it came to rhe campaign he at first struggled to get support canvassing with him from members who were pissed off with his attitude and bullshit the last 2 years. (though they did come out despite this to help for the good of the party)

None of the above would have increased tge youth vote either imho.

Also the right side of labour in fight as much as the left, they did it in the 80's and throughout government.

Jezza aint perfect, but credit to him that he proved the progress lot wrong and we need never go back to the liles of ed balls, dave milliband and tristham hunt.
 
The perfect fumble said:
Just because you think something is so, does not make it so and repeating it over and over again does not bolster its validity.

Corbyn is the leader of the Labour party, elected by its members in two leadership elections in the last two years, you don't get more legitimate a leader of a political party than that.
Click to expand...
Paragraph one is somewhat ironic.

Paragraph two shows that you'd rather have 'your man' in charge than actually be in power at this point.
 
Chippy_boy said:
It's as easy as abc

Anyone But Corbyn.

It's no good mobilising the left if at the same time you alienate the right. He does the first part great, but will never solve the latter. The Labour leader needs to set out a stall that appeals to the moderate conservative. Corbyn never can.
Click to expand...
And the one that can will be a selfish money grabbing Tory in Socialist clothing that once in power will ignore the poor in the hope of ingratiating himself with said Conservatives.
 
robbieh said:
I notice today that Chris Leslie former shadow chancellor apparently, was again inferring that Labour would have won without Corbyn.

There are plenty who said this 6 weeks ago, some have had the good grace to say they got it wrong.
Click to expand...
I think he got it bang on.

Worst Tory campaign in several generations and his lot are celebrating second like Arsenal players in a changing room.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
The other Millibrand brother is smart enough to stay away for a while and polish his bonafides on the global stage before dipping his toe back into British politics. From what I have seen and heard of him to date, when he comes back he will be a force to be reckoned with and an excellent advocate for Britain.
Click to expand...

I've no doubt, but he'll never lead the Labour party.
 
west didsblue said:
Thatcher was up against leaders in the mould of Corbyn (Foot especially and Kinnock was quite far to the left). She won for the same reason as May did after the worst campaign ever.
Click to expand...
Thatcher was right because the country needed a fundamental & drastic change in its inevitable path of slow decline. Blair was right because she went too far and the country wanted a market economy but with some social justice. But Blair's government was still to the right of Heath's, which is staggering when you think of it.

Now it's a case of austerity having gone too far. People would have accepted that if there'd been some benefit coming out of it but the only prospect is yet more of the same, degradation of public services to an unacceptable degree and falls in real wages. They've had enough and many think there's a better way. The political ground has started to shift very significantly in my view.
 
hilts said:
The election is over chaps
Click to expand...
Indeed. So, fold the tent, go home and shut up, is it?

From what I've seen so far, voters are not thrilled by what they've seen, so an ongoing conversation on how to improve things might be relevant.

Or, we can stop history now and call it game over? No future, no problem?

Let's pretend there will be a future and try to figure out why these things have happened, where things might be better, and how we might achieve those improvements, shall we?
 
goalmole said:
And the one that can will be a selfish money grabbing Tory in Socialist clothing that once in power will ignore the poor in the hope of ingratiating himself with said Conservatives.
Click to expand...

Well if so, it would be a first. There's never been a Tory leading the Labour party. Tony Blair was NOT a Tory. Gordon Brown, most certainly not.
 
SWP's back said:
I think he got it bang on.

Worst Tory campaign in several generations and his lot are celebrating second like Arsenal players in a changing room.
Click to expand...

LOL...You're a Tory mate, why should anyone give a shit what you think is good for the Labour party.

As we're talking football analogies, maybe Pep should give Ferguson a ring and ask who we should buy this summer.
 
SWP's back said:
Paragraph one is somewhat ironic.

Paragraph two shows that you'd rather have 'your man' in charge than actually be in power at this point.
Click to expand...

It's not my man, it's the party's man! I campaigned for Labour when Blair was its leader, I'm 60 and have been a member for over 40 years.
 
The perfect fumble said:
I've no doubt, but he'll never lead the Labour party.
Click to expand...
From the comments of others, and the current state of the party, he might well be better for it. He seems like he might be the person to actually create some critical mass, and a coalescing force, for a more vibrant Lib-Dem party, peeling off the less strident Labour voter and pointing to growing need for a larger, more vibrant Centrist vision of Britain moving forward.

That said, given his current role, he might see British politics as kryptonite and not want spoil such a high visibility global role in the world. He is a regular on the current affairs conference circuit and may well be earning a small fortune from speeches and presentations. After all, not many better things than traveling the world first class and rubbing elbows with movers and shakers on behalf of a good cause, especially when it means you will also never have to worry where the electric bill money is going to come from!
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Indeed. So, fold the tent, go home and shut up, is it?

From what I've seen so far, voters are not thrilled by what they've seen, so an ongoing conversation on how to improve things might be relevant.

Or, we can stop history now and call it game over? No future, no problem?

Let's pretend there will be a future and try to figure out why these things have happened, where things might be better, and how we might achieve those improvements, shall we?
Click to expand...

You took a lot from that post
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top