The General Politics Thread v2.0 (AKA the "Labour are Cunts" thread)

[d-d-d-dAz]

8 minutes ago, SuperBacon said:

I'd rather a leader of a party was "combative" than servile to be honest.

I'm sure you would. I'm sure lots of people would. But also lots of people don't like people being very punchy on social or whatever.

But, like, whatever. I want them to do well. I'm just saying I don't think she'll be as popular as Corbyn if he chooses not to lead at the next election. I could be wrong. She might be universally popular and I'll happily come back on this thread and say I was wrong.

But, like I say, I suspect that won't happen.

A lot of the power in this thing is with Corbyn, and I think that succession plan needs to be very well thought through as this country isn't kind to left wing candidates.

[SuperBacon]

11 minutes ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

I'm just saying I don't think she'll be as popular as Corbyn if he chooses not to lead at the next election.

I don't think you'll find many people that are as popular as him to be honest. 

To be honest the points you made didn't sound like this was the point you were making. To me anyway.

[JLM]

“Being the leader of a left wing party” is the quality she has that will be portrayed in a negative light.  Then they’ll pick from Too young/too brown/too keen/too female/too committal/too radical/too inexperienced/DOES SHE CONDEMN HAMAS/is she anti semitic/she says she’s a socialist but she owns a smart phone. If it’s not her they’ll find a list of reasons just as long for whoever it is, and it won’t matter how genuine they are. 

I’m not convinced a smear proof or more acceptably palatable candidate exists because the press won’t allow it.

With that in mind I’d prefer a combative MP who speaks like a human being over another wet sack of ham in a suit. Trying to be more palatable and not wanting to alienate anyone does nothing against the right wing and centrist smears AND alienates people who want a left wing candidate, or a candidate who stands for, well, anything at all. 

I have no doubt it will be a horrendous struggle but I’m not sure there’s anyone they could put forward who would have an easier time. 

 

 

 

Edited July 24, 2025 by JLM

[d-d-d-dAz]

12 minutes ago, JLM said:

“Being the leader of a left wing party” is the quality she has that will be portrayed in a negative light.  Then they’ll pick from Too young/too brown/too keen/too female/too committal/too radical/too inexperienced/DOES SHE CONDEMN HAMAS/is she anti semitic/she says she’s a socialist but she owns a smart phone. If it’s not her they’ll find a list of reasons just as long for whoever it is, and it won’t matter how genuine they are. 

I’m not convinced a smear proof or more acceptably palatable candidate exists because the press won’t allow it.

With that in mind I’d prefer a combative MP who speaks like a human being over another wet sack of ham in a suit. Trying to be more palatable and not wanting to alienate anyone does nothing against the right wing and centrist smears AND alienates people who want a left wing candidate, or a candidate who stands for, well, anything at all. 

I have no doubt it will be a horrendous struggle but I’m not sure there’s anyone they could put forward who would have an easier time. 

 

 

 

See, I don't buy this.

I think it assumes that the only reason left candidates don't do better is because of some right wing press conspiracy to whip up racists and, if female, misogynists. That's definitely a part of it, sure, but equally the left can produce flawed politicians. You're not instantly a good politician because you're left wing.

I also think there is a lane for left wing politicians to be successful and popular in this country. I've not seen enough to be completely convinced, so apologies if she's secretly awful, but Bell Ribeiro-Addy is someone I think could be very popular across the country, and is someone who could very easily breakaway to take part in JC's rebel alliance. I doubt she'll do it, but if Caroline Lucas has proven time and time again that she can be popular with a wide range of people. Equally, I think Ian Byrne - the fella that set up Football Supporting Foodbanks and did his degree whilst being a cabbie - could be very, very popular with people.

In fact, as i'm talking, I think a defecting Ian Byrne alongside Zarah Sultana or Bell Ribeiro-Addy could be a hell of a left wing ticket at the next general election. That'd bring actual experience in politics, alongside experience of the real world and gender balance. Chuck Caroline Lucas in if you can get her, alongside a slightly older JC and that's quite a left wing avengers with real personal appeal.

Edited July 24, 2025 by d-d-d-dAz

[Chest Rockwell]

2 hours ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

I'm just saying I don't think she'll be as popular as Corbyn if he chooses not to lead at the next election. I could be wrong. She might be universally popular and I'll happily come back on this thread and say I was wrong.

But, like I say, I suspect that won't happen.

No that's not what you said. You said there would be both good and bad reasons why she would fail.

How will you know how to attribute her presumed eventually failure when it happens?

[d-d-d-dAz]

15 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said:

No that's not what you said. You said there would be both good and bad reasons why she would fail.

How will you know how to attribute her presumed eventually failure when it happens?

No I didn't.

I also didn't say she'd fail.

I said I suspect she wouldn't be as popular as Corbyn if she was to lead. My exact words were:

"Corbyn is very popular. I'm not sure Zarah Sultana will be - for lots of awful reasons, and some genuine ones."

The awful reasons are institutional misogyny and racism. The genuine reasons are some of the ones I listed.

That's perfectly valid, it's perfectly valid to critique political candidates and divide up the headwinds they're going to face between the bad, institutional stuff and the stuff that is actually a personal issue that could be rectified if they chose another candidate.

I don't just want to name people of colour or women for the sake of it, but I listed above Bell Ribeiro-Addy as someone who I think could be very popular as a political leader across the country despite the very real institutional hostility she'll face for being a woman of colour.

I'm not entirely sure how I've kicked up a stink as I've said I'm supportive of the project, think JC is very popular and important for the movement and listed a bunch of people who I think could be great additions. 

Surely we're not at a point in politics where suggesting someone might not be a perfect candidate to lead a movement is offensive? That feels like a bad place to be.

Edited July 24, 2025 by d-d-d-dAz

[Devon Malcolm]

2 hours ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

You're not instantly a good politician because you're left wing.

JLM isn't saying that and nor is anybody else in this thread.

I've heard this before though. It's on the extremely long list of bullet point criticisms that are brought up when people show a support or like for a left-wing politician. The assumption that as soon as someone exhibits political beliefs that so much as glance in the general direction of Castro or Lenin that people like myself think they're instantly infallible.

But as things stand, right now, everyone lining up to shoot down a political party that this country so, so badly needs are too busy cackling about the 'awful' name of the party that isn't even their name. Already focusing on stuff that doesn't fucking matter a jot rather than why this has been started. The deflections have begun, the spin is already in motion. In fact, it already was when Sultana announced what was happening early. "Oh they're already falling out! Sultana's fucked it! Corbyn's mad!" Same old shit that less and less people are falling for.

Sultana is enthusiastic and genuine. She'll be a superb foil for Corbyn, regardless of whatever set-up they opt for. Judging by what happened at the least general election I think they could win a respectable chunk of seats at the next one.

Edited July 24, 2025 by Devon Malcolm

[d-d-d-dAz]

3 minutes ago, Devon Malcolm said:

JLM isn't saying that and nor is anybody else in this 

Perhaps not, but it does strike me that me suggesting she might have some flaws hasn't gone down particularly well either.

Like I don't disagree with the rest of what you're saying, I think its an important movement and I want them to do well. 

I do think the stuff around their name and the initial announcement isn't completely unimportant though, as I do think portraying competence is important to the silent middle who aren't overtly political and just vote for the people who they think can run the country well.

I personally don't think Corbyn will lead the new party into the next election, and I don't think she'll be the best choice necessarily to replace him.

Equally, I could be wrong. We'll see. 

I hope they're successful, above all. The Labour party in its current form is a soulless void, the Tories are dead and Reform are a terrifyingly real prospect. Regardless of who actually wins the general election, having a bigger contingent of genuinely humane, compassionate voices in parliament will be a good thing.

[deathrey]

3 hours ago, JLM said:

With that in mind I’d prefer a combative MP who speaks like a human being over another wet sack of ham in a suit. Trying to be more palatable and not wanting to alienate anyone does nothing against the right wing and centrist smears AND alienates people who want a left wing candidate, or a candidate who stands for, well, anything at all. 

That's basically a description of Keir Starmer. 

[wandshogun09]

2 hours ago, deathrey said:

That's basically a description of Keir Starmer. 

Especially the “wet sack of ham in a suit” bit. That’s killed me off. 

[RedTwoster]

Keir Starmer has said he hangs England flags in his flat, and ‘always sits in front of a Union Jack’.

‘…always, even when I’m taking a shit.’

Wonder if he’s ever going to figure out his strategy of appealing to the racists isn’t working for him, and isn’t going to work for him? 

[BomberPat]

it's just the most obvious bollocks. The whole pandering to the right is idiotic when half of them still think he's a Muslim-loving, Jimmy Savile-defending Stalinist anyway, but he's not a stupid man, surely he and the people around him can see that "I hang England flags in my flat and always sit in front of a Union Jack" makes him sound fucking mental, not relatable and patriotic. He's five minutes away from saying we should all stand for the national anthem when we turn the telly off.

[SuperBacon]

"I love seeing flags flying when it's supporting our lionesses for example, but not so much when they're being used to incite hatred and cause division" NOT FUCKING HARD IS IT?

A lot of this flag bollocks could be avoided if people weren't so weird about it.

I really am not arsed if someone wants to fly a flag in their garden, just be normal about it and no one will care.

Also if these people love their country so much, join the army.

 

[tiger_rick]

There's an Australia flag on the footbridge near my house. I can't decide if an Aussie has decided to take the piss or some thick cunt just saw the Union Jack bit in the corner.

[FLips]

Wondered what was going on. The bus route through the shit estates to town was like passing through a platty jubes celebration.