Brexit

[Jazzy G]

He is having to fight the media as well. I dread to think what the press and new channels are going to be like when this General Election does get called.

[Dead Mike]

9 hours ago, hallicks said:

Anyone can win an election with the approval of Uncle Rupe, as proven by every single one between 1979-2015. First time an approved candidate didn't win outright was against Corbyn. Maybe he won't win the next one, but it'll be because so-called "leftist" media outlets like the guardian shat the fucking bed when presented with pea-sized amount of socialism as much as anything else. 

Nah, it'll be because too many people think he's awful. Again, Labour's last election manifesto was incredibly popular. They'd have to change very little apart from the leader who's trailing massively behind Johnson in the polls & was less popular than May in her final days when she was being lambasted from every angle. Corbyn seems like a decent bloke but he's electoral kryptonite, provably so. Would you rather have Corbyn as leader but be in permanent opposition or a new leader & an actual chance of getting rid of the Tories? You can't have both.

[hallicks]

1 minute ago, Dead Mike said:

Nah, it'll be because too many people think he's awful. Again, Labour's last election manifesto was incredibly popular. They'd have to change very little apart from the leader who's trailing massively behind Johnson in the polls & was less popular than May in her final days when she was being lambasted from every angle. Corbyn seems like a decent bloke but he's electoral kryptonite, provably so. Would you rather have Corbyn as leader but be in permanent opposition or a new leader & an actual chance of getting rid of the Tories? You can't have both.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, though. Why do people think he's awful? A career backbencher whose main focus was local politics as well as campaigning for peace and justice globally. When thrust into the top job, he was smart enough to rein in some of his more radical ideas, like abolition of the monarchy and trident. His manifesto was hugely popular, as you say. He's never stooped to the level of personal attacks, despite endless character assassination. Brexit has been tricky for him, but I think the agreed party line of 2nd ref with remain vs soft brexit is the smartest idea in the interest of observing democracy, regardless of the shithousing and illegality during the 1st referendum. He's clearly a decent person, and depending on what you like, maybe a little dull. There just isn't the reciprocal evidence of what he is as a man and politican that would naturally equate to his status as the most hated man in Britain, or as you say, electoral kryptonite.

So why is that? And the answer, boringly, is that it's 4 years of blanket media coverage, from the "left", right, the supposedly impartial BBC and everybody else in between, framing everything he does as a mistake and constantly portraying him as either a) the most dangerous man in the world, or b) an idiot who doesn't know what he's doing, depending on what angle needs pushing that day. And you may say, "well I'm not influenced by that or these organisations", or maybe you don't read the papers or watch the news, fine. Maybe you're not. But it's the constant drip, drip, drip, every single day, the background noise constantly there so you don't even notice it, preconditioning as many millions of people as it can that he "can't" win, or he should "just go" or that he's "unelectable". If you say it enough times to a large enough section of the population, maybe you can make it true. The opinion polls would certainly have you believe that; it's just as important for them to back up the ongoing narrative as the narrative itself.

He'll contest one more election, I reckon, to see if he can break the system that's worked so hard to keep him out. As I've said, I don't know if he can win. If 2017 is a marker (and I think it is), he was DEAD at the start of that campaign. One of the polls on the day of the election had the tories winning a 100 seat majority. So we've got one more go around to see what he can or can't do. It's labour's 500,000 members canvassing vs tory social media dark ads.

[SuperBacon]

There are only 2 gooners in the world that I love, my eldest daughter and Corbyn.

I think that speaks volumes to be honest.

[Chest Rockwell]

I don't think he's dangerous or an idiot. But I don't think he's a great leader; he's been unable to get his party to fall in line. I also think that, for all his talk of respecting the process and being the voice for the whole party, he is unable to sell something that he personally doesn't believe in. It's totally transparent. He's good at some things but the problem is all the aspects of the role that just don't suit him.

That said I don't think any of that is enough to mean he couldn't do the job half decently. Just that he does have faults and those aren't helped by the weight of the machine he's up against.

All of the things you've said are not things that are going to change so you just have to accept that that's the game, and try to understand that if framed in that context is it likely or possible that he could win an election and do the job required. It's shit and it sucks but using it as an excuse without making any attempt to work within the framework presented is just a stupid thing to do. 

As with any other aspect of life you have to accept the constraints and do what you can to work within them, focusing your efforts where they can make a difference.

[Chest Rockwell]

Just now, SuperBacon said:

There are only 2 gooners in the world that I love, my eldest daughter and Corbyn.

I think that speaks volumes to be honest.

The fact that you think speaks volumes only really speaks volumes about you.

Sorry for the double post, quote function sucks.

[SuperBacon]

1 minute ago, Chest Rockwell said:

The fact that you think speaks volumes only really speaks volumes about you.

Sorry for the double post, quote function sucks.

Was just a glib post mate, nothing serious. Happy Friyay! 

[lanky316]

Yeah, if my kids were to become gooners I wouldn't consider them family anymore. Far too soft on your daughter!  

[BomberPat]

3 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said:

All of the things you've said are not things that are going to change so you just have to accept that that's the game, and try to understand that if framed in that context is it likely or possible that he could win an election and do the job required. It's shit and it sucks but using it as an excuse without making any attempt to work within the framework presented is just a stupid thing to do. 

This is the most important point - saying "the media are against him" feels like making excuses after the fact. We all know that's the case, so the question is what can Labour do to win despite all of that.

[Dead Mike]

23 minutes ago, hallicks said:

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, though. Why do people think he's awful? A career backbencher whose main focus was local politics as well as campaigning for peace and justice globally. When thrust into the top job, he was smart enough to rein in some of his more radical ideas, like abolition of the monarchy and trident. His manifesto was hugely popular, as you say. He's never stooped to the level of personal attacks, despite endless character assassination. Brexit has been tricky for him, but I think the agreed party line of 2nd ref with remain vs soft brexit is the smartest idea in the interest of observing democracy, regardless of the shithousing and illegality during the 1st referendum. He's clearly a decent person, and depending on what you like, maybe a little dull. There just isn't the reciprocal evidence of what he is as a man and politican that would naturally equate to his status as the most hated man in Britain, or as you say, electoral kryptonite.

So why is that? And the answer, boringly, is that it's 4 years of blanket media coverage, from the "left", right, the supposedly impartial BBC and everybody else in between, framing everything he does as a mistake and constantly portraying him as either a) the most dangerous man in the world, or b) an idiot who doesn't know what he's doing, depending on what angle needs pushing that day. And you may say, "well I'm not influenced by that or these organisations", or maybe you don't read the papers or watch the news, fine. Maybe you're not. But it's the constant drip, drip, drip, every single day, the background noise constantly there so you don't even notice it, preconditioning as many millions of people as it can that he "can't" win, or he should "just go" or that he's "unelectable". If you say it enough times to a large enough section of the population, maybe you can make it true. The opinion polls would certainly have you believe that; it's just as important for them to back up the ongoing narrative as the narrative itself.

He'll contest one more election, I reckon, to see if he can break the system that's worked so hard to keep him out. As I've said, I don't know if he can win. If 2017 is a marker (and I think it is), he was DEAD at the start of that campaign. One of the polls on the day of the election had the tories winning a 100 seat majority. So we've got one more go around to see what he can or can't do. It's labour's 500,000 members canvassing vs tory social media dark ads.

I'm not discounting any of this but it all boils down, as Chest pretty much said, to the reality vs the hypothetical. Has Corbyn been massively mistreated by the media? Yes. Does that change anything coming into another election? No.

In 2017 Labour still hadn't completely fucked themselves with a fence sitting Brexit position. They've screwed that now, ardent remainers wont back them as they know Corbyn is a Brexiter at heart & the leavers wont back them as they're seen to be trying to stop Brexit. They've only committed recently to a position because the membership (70% remainers) were refusing at local levels to canvas on doorsteps with a bullshit Brexit policy. The 2017 'bounce' they had wont be repeated.

Add to this the attitude of the staunch Corbyn supporters which has turned off swathes of causal voters (you know, the people you actually need to win a majority). 'Fuck off & join the Lib Dems you Red Tory'....many have. Slow hand clap for that shit.

If it's purely hypothetical I'd have a Corbyn led Labour in Government, happy days. If we're dealing with actual reality then I want the Tories out & no matter how much you like him, it's not going to happen under Corbyn. It comes down to the question of priorities, do you want an ideologically pure Labour party or would you make a couple of concessions & get rid of the Tories?

This is where the Tories do well, they realise that to get what you want you've actually got to be in power first. Feign unity then bicker once you're in Government. The left will continue to eat itself as many would rather be in permanent opposition but feel like they've got the moral high ground.

 

Quote

All of the things you've said are not things that are going to change so you just have to accept that that's the game, and try to understand that if framed in that context is it likely or possible that he could win an election and do the job required. It's shit and it sucks but using it as an excuse without making any attempt to work within the framework presented is just a stupid thing to do.

I think it was James O Brien who said something like 'The right are playing the game & winning whilst the left are still complaining that the rules aren't fair'.  Pretty much sums it up.

[Carbomb]

It's one of the reasons I said Corbyn should stand down and throw his weight behind a leadership candidate from Labour's left. Whoever he backed would win by a landslide, given Labour's current membership levels and their motivation for joining.

I've said it before in other politics threads, and I still believe it: Corbyn has already accomplished the biggest feat he will ever do in his career, whether he becomes PM or not, which is to boot the door back open on left-wing politics in the mainstream political arena, long after we thought them dead and buried with the ascension of Blair and New Labour. I've no illusions about the guy; he's not quite left-wing enough for my liking, but he's the closest any politician is going to come to my views who has a chance of actually getting into power and putting real socialist policies into practice, in my lifetime. 

But as Sir Humphrey said: "When people start talking about something, do you know what will happen? Eventually they start thinking about it!" Corbyn appealed massively to a lot of people because of how he carried himself in his leadership campaign and his early months in power; when challenged, he gave clear, well-reasoned answers to everything they threw at him, to an audience to whom none of this had occurred before. Now that audience is thinking and discussing these ideas, and when that happens, those ideas achieve critical mass, and others listen and think for themselves - this is how ideas spread. There's no putting the toothpaste back in the tube now, at least not for a very long time or (I hope) ever.

[hallicks]

14 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said:

All of the things you've said are not things that are going to change so you just have to accept that that's the game, and try to understand that if framed in that context is it likely or possible that he could win an election and do the job required. It's shit and it sucks but using it as an excuse without making any attempt to work within the framework presented is just a stupid thing to do. 

As with any other aspect of life you have to accept the constraints and do what you can to work within them, focusing your efforts where they can make a difference.

8 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

This is the most important point - saying "the media are against him" feels like making excuses after the fact. We all know that's the case, so the question is what can Labour do to win despite all of that.

That is the right question. I think the by-election win in Peterborough showed they can do it - versus Farage firing on all cylinders, disgraced former Labour MP - and it'll be down to how effective their local campaigns are.

18 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said:

I don't think he's dangerous or an idiot. But I don't think he's a great leader; he's been unable to get his party to fall in line. I also think that, for all his talk of respecting the process and being the voice for the whole party, he is unable to sell something that he personally doesn't believe in. It's totally transparent. He's good at some things but the problem is all the aspects of the role that just don't suit him.

He's unlikely to ever win over the right of the party, though. There's a bunch of them that are desperate for him to fail, and I don't think there's anything he can do about it. Well, there is... but I daresay it hasn't worked out too well for Johnson this week. Though I can't imagine anyone shedding any tears if John Mann or Kate Hoey were booted out right now. And I know that some CLPs are looking into trigger ballots, so hopefully they can excise some of the worst obstructors.

I'm a little anxious about the pursuit of a "great leader" in the traditional sense - you'd have probably described Blair as that before Iraq. Perhaps him not being a great liar will ultimately cost him the chance of winning an election.

14 minutes ago, Dead Mike said:

This is where the Tories do well, they realise that to get what you want you've actually got to be in power first. Feign unity then bicker once you're in Government. The left will continue to eat itself as many would rather be in permanent opposition but feel like they've got the moral high ground.

As mentioned, the Labour right would prefer to be in opposition forever than let a socialist get into power. How does one achieve unity in this situation? You either pull the PM's trick of expelling those you don't like, or play the long game of redemocratising from within, slowly weeding out those who wish to destroy you by an agreed process. It probably won't help him win an election, and it won't help the party appear unified, but it's better for the party long term and it shows he's not going to make any dick moves to get his own way.

You say the 2017 bounce won't be repeated, but it wasn't supposed to happen the first time. You talk about ideological purity and compromise. Corbyn's been compromising all over the place to stop no deal, even though that's supposed to be what he "secretly" wants. Where's the compromise of those on the right of the party? They have not stopped trying to undermine him since day 1. As Phil McDuff said on twitter,

Brexit has broken centrism because it's heightened one of the key contradictions. "We need a sensible moderate person who can speak to the centre of middle England by compromising" Vs "This technocratic neoliberal status quo is good and anyone who disagrees is a terrorist."

Their entire thing is compromise as a virtue, avoiding "purity politics", being pragmatic etc, but they can't find any way of negotiating *at all* with the large group of people who voted leave, or even voted remain reluctantly. They did try, for a bit, the "wait would you like some racism?" gambit, but that's tapped out - nobody ever believed in it anyway, it was always a bait and switch.

But mostly their idea of compromise involves other people agreeing with them. The idea they might have to meet people where they are and convince them to come on over is humiliating to them. "You should be able to just see I'm right!" People from all sides are rejecting technocratic centrism *because it has failed*. This means it can't be the compromise solution any more, but they don't know any other way of envisioning what "compromise" means.

[Dead Mike]

8 minutes ago, hallicks said:

As mentioned, the Labour right would prefer to be in opposition forever than let a socialist get into power. How does one achieve unity in this situation? You either pull the PM's trick of expelling those you don't like, or play the long game of redemocratising from within, slowly weeding out those who wish to destroy you by an agreed process. It probably won't help him win an election, and it won't help the party appear unified, but it's better for the party long term and it shows he's not going to make any dick moves to get his own way.

 

TBH, according to the polls its the Momentum types that the casual voter finds the most toxic. Labour being unappealing to the masses is their biggest problem. The Tories can lurch to the right & not lose many voters as people will grumble & still vote Tory. Those on the left are more fickle, always been the way.

Do you genuinely think that a Corbyn led Labour could win an election held within the next couple of months?

[hallicks]

3 minutes ago, Dead Mike said:

TBH, according to the polls its the Momentum types that the casual voter finds the most toxic. Labour being unappealing to the masses is their biggest problem. The Tories can lurch to the right & not lose many voters as people will grumble & still vote Tory. Those on the left are more fickle, always been the way.

Do you genuinely think that a Corbyn led Labour could win an election held within the next couple of months?

I don't know. I can't look at 2017 and say "it'll never happen." I'm not naive, I understand the game and how much of an uphill battle he faces. If we do get an election in 2019, my best guess is Labour+Others in coalition.

[PunkStep]

2 hours ago, SuperBacon said:

There are only 2 gooners in the world that I love, my eldest daughter and Corbyn.

I think that speaks volumes to be honest.

Fuck you too then