US politics

[SuperBacon]

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

For the avoidance of doubt I was making the point that no one can say Sunak is to the left of Starmer, 

 

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

There's no argument that in a two horse race between Sunak and Starmer, Sunak is somehow closer to the left than Starmer. The centre point is the point at which you divide the two major parties effectively.

I'll be honest, I'm now massively baffled , but I don't get how quote 1 and quote 2 can be qualified.

Maybe I'm missing something but now need to go and do 2 hours of mentoring training, so will have to bow out for a bit.

[Devon Malcolm]

2 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

To me, that is the crux of what the Labour Party needs to address if they want to win the left of the party back. 

There's been no suggestion that they have any interest in doing this. They seem more than happy to attempt to win the election without them and more intent on roping in the centre-right.

[gmoney]

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

I wonder if the concept of broad church political parties is a relic, in some ways.

It's a puzzle, isn't it? Why are the left of the Labour party so unreasonable these days, when the right and centre behaved so impeccably under Corbyn?

[d-d-d-dAz]

1 minute ago, gmoney said:

It's a puzzle, isn't it? Why are the left of the Labour party so unreasonable these days, when the right and centre behaved so impeccably under Corbyn?

I mean, I'm not entirely sure why I'm answering for the sins of Labour under Corbyn but for the avoidance of doubt yes I'd agree the way Corbyn was treated is another example of broad churches being a relic.

And @SuperBacon I was literally saying there was no argument. As in you can't argue that.

[Carbomb]

5 minutes ago, Devon Malcolm said:

There's been no suggestion that they have any interest in doing this. They seem more than happy to attempt to win the election without them and more intent on roping in the centre-right.

No, I didn't think there was, either. It was more in response to my experience that, in conversation with more Blairite/New Labour supporters, there often emerges some bafflement on their part as to why the proposition "get the Tories out" isn't enough to persuade the socialist vote. For me, it's because we believed that the PLP and its supporters also subscribed to the "broad church" idea, and that they would hold their noses to vote for the left-wing candidate in the same way we did ours to vote for Blair in the 90s - and that didn't happen.

[d-d-d-dAz]

2 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

No, I didn't think there was, either. It was more in response to my experience that, in conversation with more Blairite/New Labour supporters, there often emerges some bafflement on their part as to why the proposition "get the Tories out" isn't enough to persuade the socialist vote. For me, it's because we believed that the PLP and its supporters also subscribed to the "broad church" idea, and that they would hold their noses to vote for the left-wing candidate in the same way we did ours to vote for Blair in the 90s - and that didn't happen.

Which I think is really interesting because that article basically says similar forces are at play in the US, the left feel they held their noses, did their part in voting for Biden and haven't been rewarded appropriately. Coupled with Trump panic fading, there is an argument that its difficult to see a Biden win in 2024.

I personally think if you add in Israel/Gaza, Biden may be dead with progressives either way and they're willing to roll the dice that Trump won't be as bad as the worst projections.

[Dead Mike]

6 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

No, I didn't think there was, either. It was more in response to my experience that, in conversation with more Blairite/New Labour supporters, there often emerges some bafflement on their part as to why the proposition "get the Tories out" isn't enough to persuade the socialist vote. For me, it's because we believed that the PLP and its supporters also subscribed to the "broad church" idea, and that they would hold their noses to vote for the left-wing candidate in the same way we did ours to vote for Blair in the 90s - and that didn't happen.

It wasn't the 'blairites/new labour' supporters that jumped ship to the Tories. It was the old school Labour voters. Red wall constituencies, ex-industrial towns etc.

The 'middle class' Labour voters that you'd associate with Blair were the ones who held their noses. It was the communities that felt their vote was taken for granted by Labour who jumped ship. Areas that had been on the receiving end of the worst of the cuts who saw Labour as abandoning the working classes in favour of immigrants and 'wokeism'. I saw it first hand.

Edited January 22 by Dead Mike

[Devon Malcolm]

1 minute ago, Carbomb said:

No, I didn't think there was, either. It was more in response to my experience that, in conversation with more Blairite/New Labour supporters, there often emerges some bafflement on their part as to why the proposition "get the Tories out" isn't enough to persuade the socialist vote. For me, it's because we believed that the PLP and its supporters also subscribed to the "broad church" idea, and that they would hold their noses to vote for the left-wing candidate in the same way we did ours to vote for Blair in the 90s - and that didn't happen.

I mean, I can see their reasoning. In this country, there are perhaps more centre-right voters than left-wing/socialist/Tankie voters. So in terms of winning the election, they're playing in safer ground.

What I'm tired of, and this absolutely applies to the US as well, is the suggestion that if you don't go with this 'compromise' then you're responsible for Trump/Sunak getting/staying in. It's the most tired, emotional blackmail bullshit that centrists and liberals think is more than enough to vote for a party that barely aligns with your politics at all. Every Labour and Democrat government that has been in power the time I've been alive has traded on this. I will vote for a party that has policies that I believe in and support, for me and my family. I will not vote for 'Not Tories'. 

[Keith Houchen]

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

Given the Labour Party and Democrats are seen as the Mainstream Left, are you saying they've gone right of centre?

How is that combated?

I'm aware of the thread we're in, so in the US specifically do you think a third party is a permissable option if it leads to Trump? Do you think from a Left perspective Trump and Biden are essentially the same?

Be interested to get your take as to what you'd do if you were a socialist in America right now, knowing you could vote third party or not vote, but the result could be Trump.

They aren’t right of centre in the Overton window but yeah, I’d say overall they’re right leaning more than left leaning. 
 

When it comes to voting, I’m a firm believer of voting for what you want, not voting to stop what you don’t. If you’re voting Biden to stop Trump, you’re voting and endorsing Biden. Anything he does, you’ve green lighted it. You can say to yourself you only did it because you thought the alternative was worse, but your vote counts the same as one of his campaigners. It’s on you. 
 

I think growing from the ground up is the way forward. We are seeing it stateside with actual socialists getting results and seats at local level. But truth is if you’re a left winger, or hard left or whatever you’re called, you know it’s at least a generation away for radical change, if at all. And the more you vote for the least bad option, the longer they’ll be the only options. The lesser of two evils is still evil. 

[Carbomb]

8 minutes ago, Dead Mike said:

It wasn't the 'blairites/new labour' supporters that jumped ship to the Tories. It was the old school Labour voters. Red wall constituencies, ex-industrial towns etc.

But it was Blairite/New Labour supporters who deliberately conspired to screw over Corbyn and sabotage his leadership run. Not just MPs, but members of the party as well.

8 minutes ago, Dead Mike said:

The 'middle class' Labour voters that you'd associate with Blair were the ones who held their noses. It was the communities that felt their vote was taken for granted by Labour who jumped ship. Areas that had been on the receiving end of the worst of the cuts who saw Labour as abandoning the working classes in favour of immigrants and 'wokeism'. I saw it first hand.

Yes, that's fair - although, separately, this is something that bugs me: when the Tories change leader, they're treated like a different party to the one under the previous leadership. Doesn't happen when it's Labour.

Corbyn and his iteration of Labour were about as far removed from the version that took the working class for granted, i.e. Blair and Brown's, and yet he still got tarred with that brush. 

Edited January 22 by Carbomb

[Loki]

41 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

Labour are closer to me politically than the tories in the same way that Australia is geographically closer to me than New Zealand. 

If you had to swim to one of them, which would you choose?

[Carbomb]

1 minute ago, Loki said:

If you had to swim to one of them, which would you choose?

That's probably the worst challenge to that analogy you could use!

Edited January 22 by Carbomb

[Keith Houchen]

Just now, Loki said:

If you had to swim to one of them, which would you choose?

I’m a one lunged cripple, mate. I’d drown. 

[d-d-d-dAz]

It is an interesting one, as by and large I actually agree with @Devon Malcolm and think that voting against yourself is against the spirit of democracy.

That said, I do think there's something unique to this US election. For example, I wouldn't say 'Trump/Sunak' as above. I don't think they're in any way the same thing. I think there's a much more compelling case for an avowed socialist to say bollocks to Starmer and Sunak, I'm doing my own thing.

But Sunak, as bad a politician as he may be, is broadly a cut and paste politician. I do think Trump uniquely poses specific threats to human life en masse, and our collective way of life. I think there's a more compelling argument that anyone and everyone should be holding their noses and voting for whoever is in the Democrat column in the US election.

Edited January 22 by d-d-d-dAz

[Dead Mike]

9 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

But truth is if you’re a left winger, or hard left or whatever you’re called, you know it’s at least a generation away for radical change, if at all. 

The biggest myth people tell themselves is that there's an appetite for radical change (in Britain at least). People really don't like big change, it's scary and unsettling. People want to be made to feel comfortable. 

I believe the change that I'd like to see (and likely you too) will be a forced reaction to job erosion by technology. Discussions around UBI, social housing etc that wouldn't occur without external factors forcing them. Its when this happens that we'll need a left-leaning Government rather than an 'every man for himself" approach we'd get under the current regime.