d-d-d-dAz Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 Just now, SuperBacon said: Its very, very rarely used in the positive though is it, let's be honest. It's an easy go-to in order to talk about the "left" of the party, and usually in a derogatory manner. Maybe, but that's more a problem with the political media always framing Corbyn as a villain. I think there'll be an interesting essay to be written in 10 years about how many Corbyn policies ultimately were adopted by both parties as political orthodoxy. His foreign policy probably won't enter the mainstream, but there's a whole load of other stuff that's slowly being picked up by people who'd tell you to they were blue in the face that he was useless, stupid and dangerous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JLM Posted July 24 Paid Members Share Posted July 24 (edited) The political media's tireless efforts to destroy Corbyn did a lot of damage, but the sensibles ate it up and regurgitated it as vocally as any of his opponents on the right. Any time they admit they are in favour of something insanely radical and politically suicidal, like the Labour party representing any sort of progressive or socialist values, they will still preface it with "I'm no Corbynite/I'm no Corbynista but..." Same with this "politically motivated rebellion" talk. Let's say all 7 of them did it as a political move to try and hurt Starmer, couldn't that still be because they genuinely believe the Labour party should represent the left, rather than them being bitter Corbynites with a vendetta? It's a very convenient shorthand way to dismiss the notion that the Labour Party should represent the left. As @Devon Malcolm says, I do struggle with this complete detachment people have discussing politics in threads like these. Yeah it's regrettable that ongoing apartheid/genocide/child poverty etc. is still happening, bit of a shame that, but you need to stop being all emotional, get your rational hat on and look at the optics. The sort of armchair political punditry completely divorced from the real world ramifications is so weird. The completely ignorant "politics doesn't affect my life" stance has somehow come full circle to "I am now so enlightened on the subject that I scoff at the naivety of people EMOTIVELY discussing the real world impact of this stuff". Edited July 24 by JLM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted July 24 Paid Members Share Posted July 24 1 hour ago, SuperBacon said: It's an easy go-to in order to talk about the "left" of the party, and usually in a derogatory manner. This has happened in the last page or two of this very thread, in fact! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 25 minutes ago, JLM said:  As @Devon Malcolm says, I do struggle with this complete detachment people have discussing politics in threads like these. Yeah it's regrettable that ongoing apartheid/genocide/child poverty etc. is still happening, bit of a shame that, but you need to stop being all emotional, get your rational hat on and look at the optics. The sort of armchair political punditry completely divorced from the real world ramifications is so weird. The completely ignorant "politics doesn't affect my life" stance has somehow come full circle to "I am now so enlightened on the subject that I scoff at the naivety of people EMOTIVELY discussing the real world impact of this stuff". I don't buy this at all. It's like saying you can't both be horrified by the human tragedy of a natural disaster, but also fascinated by the science of earthquakes. The morality of this issue is clear, but that doesn't make the politics of it any less fascinating. Reducing everything to GOOD vs EVIL, almost religious absolutism, isn't helpful to actually understanding politics. Starmer isn't pushing back on the two child cap because he's evil and that's the end. He has political reasons and motivations and that's interesting too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JLM Posted July 24 Paid Members Share Posted July 24 (edited)  I am not asking for a reductive "good vs evil" discussion, but "the morality of this issue is clear" is you essentially saying that discussion of the morality or real world outcomes of political issues is off the table. It is "unhelpful" to advocate for/protest against /be appalled by anything and instead we must coldly discuss the political motivations as if it all happens in a vacuum. We can and should discuss all aspects of it. I don't object to people being both horrified by the destruction and fascinated by the science behind natural disasters. If a thread about an earthquake was on a seismology forum, I wouldn't wade into the thread and have a go at people for discussing the science behind Earthquakes and screaming at them to think of the lives lost. However, if there was a thread on this forum about an Earthquake that had just happened with pictures of the carnage, I would expect a mixture of all sorts of responses. Links to news articles, people expressing their horror, some talk of how and why it happened as well. I wouldn't have an issue with any of that being discussed. I would not be happy, though, if someone came in saying they were devastated by the images and it was affecting their mental health, only for someone to go "the horror of the situation is clear, but discussing that is not helpful to our understanding of Earthquakes."   Edited July 25 by JLM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted July 24 Moderators Share Posted July 24 Hopefully this is a wake up call to any members (MPs or otherwise) who felt they could do more good working from within Labour than walking away from a party that doesn't represent their values (or are sitting on the fence to see which way the wind blows for the time being). Need to stop propping them up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SuperBacon Posted July 24 Author Members Share Posted July 24 1 hour ago, JLM said: If a thread about an Earthquake was on a seismology forum I'm sure we've had plenty of threads about an Earthquake on here as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members FLips Posted July 25 Paid Members Share Posted July 25 6 hours ago, SuperBacon said: I'm sure we've had plenty of threads about an Earthquake on here as well When we had him posting on here people would ask him how is Earthquake but never what is Earthquake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 8 hours ago, JLM said: Â However, if there was a thread on this forum about an Earthquake that had just happened with pictures of the carnage, I would expect a mixture of all sorts of responses. Links to news articles, people expressing their horror, some talk of how and why it happened as well. I wouldn't have an issue with any of that being discussed. I would not be happy, though, if someone came in saying they were devastated by the images and it was affecting their mental health, only for someone to go "the horror of the situation is clear, but discussing that is not helpful to our understanding of Earthquakes."Â Â Â It's a thread about electoral politics, to be fair. Not a thread about the emotional response to a specific issue. So, in your example, the discussion about the electoral reasoning is completely justified. That said, I think for me the hardest thing to understand here is that you've actually taken offence at someone who agrees with you politically. And that's a level of desired ideological purity that I really struggle to understand. I stand by my point, the morality of this issue is clear. It's been covered beautifully by lots of people in this thread and I can't add to that anything but my support. However, I think discussing the electoral reasoning that underpins the issue is completely valid and the whole point of this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members BomberPat Posted July 25 Paid Members Share Posted July 25 I think "they voted that way because they're Corbynites" is getting the whole thing backwards; I think it's far more likely that they are politicians on the Left of the party who believe that the current system simply isn't working, and voted in good faith against the two-child cap for that reason. If they are "Corbynites", then they are Corbynites because of the beliefs that led them to vote that way, they didn't vote that way because they are Corbynites. One of the criticisms of Starmer from the left is that he's authoritarian. Suspending politicians for a minimum of six months for not towing the party line in one of the first major votes of his premiership isn't going to do much to dissuade those people, especially when the party has a stonking majority and seven people defying the whip is hardly going to make or break it. We've been told for years that the point of centrism was to win power, and then once they're in power the real work of pressuring them to do the right thing and not keep skewing further to the right begins. Well, it's begun, and we've seen what Starmer's response to it is, and it doesn't fill me with hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JLM Posted July 25 Paid Members Share Posted July 25 1 hour ago, d-d-d-dAz said: It's a thread about electoral politics, to be fair. Not a thread about the emotional response to a specific issue. General Election 2024 is the thread. Discussion of the real world impact and the morality/ethics behind the policy decisions and votes of the people elected in said general election are as valid as discussion of the political motivations. Dictating what the thread is not about and deciding what the “whole point” of it is are exactly what my posts have been about. It’s the  Bill Maher-esque enlightened centrist tone in response to people’s more emotive posts that I find a little bit jarring at times, and I wasn’t singling you out specifically,  I was empathising with Devon Malcolm’s sentiments on that more broadly.  I would imagine we don’t align politically on a lot of things, though in truth I don’t really know what you believe in or stand for. It’s not  my concern and I’m not attacking you or challenging you on how strongly you feel about child poverty. I don’t doubt that you agree with me on that. I can be a hysterical leftist scolding you for a perceived lack of ideological purity if helps with your struggle to understand where I’m coming from though. I’m afraid I don’t have blue hair, though if any more greys come through I wouldn’t rule it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted July 25 Share Posted July 25 18 minutes ago, JLM said: General Election 2024 is the thread. Discussion of the real world impact and the morality/ethics behind the policy decisions and votes of the people elected in said general election are as valid as discussion of the political motivations. Dictating what the thread is not about and deciding what the “whole point” of it is are exactly what my posts have been about.  Absolutely they're as valid as, which is what I've been saying too. You were the one setting out what you would or wouldn't be happy with. I think we both broadly agree, but are just coming at it from different angles. I've never tried to stop people discussing the emotive issue, and I can't keep saying that I'm in favour of the removal of the cap. The fact that I'm interested in political science seems to tell you something about my beliefs, which it absolutely shouldn't. I'm obsessed with reading about Barry Goldwater currently, it doesn't make me a right wing nutcase. I find politics and political machinations really interesting, irrespective of my views on the policy issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members BomberPat Posted July 25 Paid Members Share Posted July 25 On 7/24/2024 at 10:32 AM, FLips said: He was clear throughout the campaign he wasn’t scrapping this though so if people voted for them hoping they’d just change their mind then more fool them. It should be scrapped, but it was made very clear multiple times it wouldn’t be.  Yeah, we can't possibly expect Keir Starmer to change his mind and go against what he promised during the campaign.   Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members FLips Posted July 25 Paid Members Share Posted July 25 9 minutes ago, BomberPat said:  Yeah, we can't possibly expect Keir Starmer to change his mind and go against what he promised during the campaign.   Well done mate you got me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Lorne Malvo Posted July 29 Paid Members Share Posted July 29 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx02zdd92zdo Not content with letting kids starve, they're now also happy having pensioners freeze to death. Brilliant. Still, that lurch to the left should come any day now, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.