RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:This sort of nonsense is part of the reason I wondered about Starmer wanting the leadership now, it would in many ways be easier to be the next cab off the rank in my estimation. And the action over Corbyn will cost Starmer, it might even cost him his role as leader, we'll have to see what happens in upcoming NEC elections and the like. But if Starmer can survive and build on this moment it's a positive because he was willing to do the right thing even if it costs him, and voters like that sort of example

I think it's quite likely that he'll face a leadership challenge. If he wants to survive said challenge he needs to move more to the left, and that move will need to be sincere (or at least be perceived as such).

If he moves left it needs to be on some specific policy areas that still have broad popular support among the electorate, and aren't merely popular talking points on the left of the official opposition. Moving left in general seems like a non starter with the electorate.

I'm all set to vote Labour for the first time ever, but if you ditch Keir and go back to someone like RLB I'll stick with voting Lib Dem. I'd even at this point join the Labour Party but the parties are getting better at checking if you appear on the membership list of another party, and oddly they seem to think it's a bad thing to live in a plural society (even weirder it's not just the Tories and Labour against pluralism, the Lib Dems are in on it too)

I disagree with the basic premise of your argument. You think they should move to where public opinion is. That is popularism, and Britain will never flourish under it, it brought us Brexit, and it is a poisonous and cowardly political strategy. Political leaders should have a vision and convince the electorate that their vision should be the future direction for our country.

I want an optimistic vision of the future, where we are much better in 10 years time than we are now, not just treading water from centre left to centre right. Man landed on the moon 50 years ago, enabling us to believe in a high tech future that was transformative. Instead, that high-tech future consists mostly of the ability to insult each other in 140 words or less, inflating our ego on social media platforms, or numbing ourselves by our media opiate of choice such as Netflix. This is not the future that we deserve, and it is a profound waste of the potential of our species.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
I think it's quite likely that he'll face a leadership challenge. If he wants to survive said challenge he needs to move more to the left, and that move will need to be sincere (or at least be perceived as such).

If he moves left it needs to be on some specific policy areas that still have broad popular support among the electorate, and aren't merely popular talking points on the left of the official opposition. Moving left in general seems like a non starter with the electorate.

I'm all set to vote Labour for the first time ever, but if you ditch Keir and go back to someone like RLB I'll stick with voting Lib Dem. I'd even at this point join the Labour Party but the parties are getting better at checking if you appear on the membership list of another party, and oddly they seem to think it's a bad thing to live in a plural society (even weirder it's not just the Tories and Labour against pluralism, the Lib Dems are in on it too)

I disagree with the basic premise of your argument. You think they should move to where public opinion is. That is popularism, and Britain will never flourish under it, it brought us Brexit, and it is a poisonous and cowardly political strategy. Political leaders should have a vision and convince the electorate that their vision should be the future direction for our country.

I want an optimistic vision of the future, where we are much better in 10 years time than we are now, not just treading water from centre left to centre right. Man landed on the moon 50 years ago, enabling us to believe in a high tech future that was transformative. Instead, that high-tech future consists mostly of the ability to insult each other in 140 words or less, inflating our ego on social media platforms, or numbing ourselves by our media opiate of choice such as Netflix. This is not the future that we deserve, and it is a profound waste of the potential of our species.

Strident, but you're not wrong. A good leader should lead - they should have ideals, plans, thoughts on how the country could be better and convince the people to believe with them. They should not just be an empty vessel seeking the easiest route to power.

I'm unsure as to who Starmer is. I think he has values and morals, but I don't have a clue whether he will try and convince people to come with him or whether he will amend his beliefs to gain power.

Puja

Unless Brexit goes swimmingly (any takers for that bet?) the. There will be a backlash. Much of the Tory vote last time was frustration and a lack of options. Given better options and suddenly that 80 seat majority isn’t so secure. I can easily see a scenario where the Tories are the largest party in Westminster but don’t have a majority.

If Starmer can be portrayed as a nutter then there is suddenly no alternative beyond a protest vote. But if he seems competent and inoffensive to those in the centre then anything is possible. Throwing Corbyn under a bus, or more accurately helping him jump for himself, removes a key line of attack and makes Starmer more appealing for those who thought Corbyn and his gang a bunch of nutters.

That’s not to say that there aren’t problems out there that Corbyn tapped into. At some point Starmer will need to think how to address those without being identified with Corbynism. That should be possible, particularly as there is probably a general feeling that taxes will need to rise after covid is sorted and the Tories are probably going to knacker their reputation for sound economic government for a generation due to Brexit.

But is should be very apparent by now that a leftish government in waiting isn’t going to win an election, Foot and Corbyn both tried it and both got humiliated when their opposition didn’t shoot itself in the foot (Mays 11th hour comment about paying for health care definitely robbed her of a majority).

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
I think it's quite likely that he'll face a leadership challenge. If he wants to survive said challenge he needs to move more to the left, and that move will need to be sincere (or at least be perceived as such).

If he moves left it needs to be on some specific policy areas that still have broad popular support among the electorate, and aren't merely popular talking points on the left of the official opposition. Moving left in general seems like a non starter with the electorate.

I'm all set to vote Labour for the first time ever, but if you ditch Keir and go back to someone like RLB I'll stick with voting Lib Dem. I'd even at this point join the Labour Party but the parties are getting better at checking if you appear on the membership list of another party, and oddly they seem to think it's a bad thing to live in a plural society (even weirder it's not just the Tories and Labour against pluralism, the Lib Dems are in on it too)

I disagree with the basic premise of your argument. You think they should move to where public opinion is. That is popularism, and Britain will never flourish under it, it brought us Brexit, and it is a poisonous and cowardly political strategy. Political leaders should have a vision and convince the electorate that their vision should be the future direction for our country.

I want an optimistic vision of the future, where we are much better in 10 years time than we are now, not just treading water from centre left to centre right. Man landed on the moon 50 years ago, enabling us to believe in a high tech future that was transformative. Instead, that high-tech future consists mostly of the ability to insult each other in 140 words or less, inflating our ego on social media platforms, or numbing ourselves by our media opiate of choice such as Netflix. This is not the future that we deserve, and it is a profound waste of the potential of our species.

A political leader should definitely offer a vision. But if they wish to be elected then it needs to be a vision that can be supported. Not all visions are good.

Your last paragraph is somewhat hyperbolic, but there is a real point in there that how society adapts to the increasing challenges that tech brings is important. Tech can be good and bad; it will also continue to change our society significantly. What does that mean for employment, for housing, for education and so on. The Tories seem to think the answer is building more capacity on the train into London, yet WFH during covid is making that a joke. I don’t recall any sensible offers from Corbyn on the subject either. If Starmer wants to be that visionary then spending time thinking how tech will change the future of this country and how we adapt to it would be time well spent.

Puja wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
If he moves left it needs to be on some specific policy areas that still have broad popular support among the electorate, and aren't merely popular talking points on the left of the official opposition. Moving left in general seems like a non starter with the electorate.

I'm all set to vote Labour for the first time ever, but if you ditch Keir and go back to someone like RLB I'll stick with voting Lib Dem. I'd even at this point join the Labour Party but the parties are getting better at checking if you appear on the membership list of another party, and oddly they seem to think it's a bad thing to live in a plural society (even weirder it's not just the Tories and Labour against pluralism, the Lib Dems are in on it too)

I disagree with the basic premise of your argument. You think they should move to where public opinion is. That is popularism, and Britain will never flourish under it, it brought us Brexit, and it is a poisonous and cowardly political strategy. Political leaders should have a vision and convince the electorate that their vision should be the future direction for our country.

I want an optimistic vision of the future, where we are much better in 10 years time than we are now, not just treading water from centre left to centre right. Man landed on the moon 50 years ago, enabling us to believe in a high tech future that was transformative. Instead, that high-tech future consists mostly of the ability to insult each other in 140 words or less, inflating our ego on social media platforms, or numbing ourselves by our media opiate of choice such as Netflix. This is not the future that we deserve, and it is a profound waste of the potential of our species.

Strident, but you're not wrong. A good leader should lead - they should have ideals, plans, thoughts on how the country could be better and convince the people to believe with them. They should not just be an empty vessel seeking the easiest route to power.

I'm unsure as to who Starmer is. I think he has values and morals, but I don't have a clue whether he will try and convince people to come with him or whether he will amend his beliefs to gain power.

Puja

Politics is the art of the possible, much more so than flights of fancy. If you want to see the country dragged to the left by all means go for it, but you're going to have to put in a hard slog and it there kicking and screaming in increments. Right now I'd not be the only possible Labour voter who'd rather vote Conservative than Corbyn

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
I disagree with the basic premise of your argument. You think they should move to where public opinion is. That is popularism, and Britain will never flourish under it, it brought us Brexit, and it is a poisonous and cowardly political strategy. Political leaders should have a vision and convince the electorate that their vision should be the future direction for our country.

I want an optimistic vision of the future, where we are much better in 10 years time than we are now, not just treading water from centre left to centre right. Man landed on the moon 50 years ago, enabling us to believe in a high tech future that was transformative. Instead, that high-tech future consists mostly of the ability to insult each other in 140 words or less, inflating our ego on social media platforms, or numbing ourselves by our media opiate of choice such as Netflix. This is not the future that we deserve, and it is a profound waste of the potential of our species.

Strident, but you're not wrong. A good leader should lead - they should have ideals, plans, thoughts on how the country could be better and convince the people to believe with them. They should not just be an empty vessel seeking the easiest route to power.

I'm unsure as to who Starmer is. I think he has values and morals, but I don't have a clue whether he will try and convince people to come with him or whether he will amend his beliefs to gain power.

Puja

Politics is the art of the possible, much more so than flights of fancy. If you want to see the country dragged to the left by all means go for it, but you're going to have to put in a hard slog and it there kicking and screaming in increments. Right now I'd not be the only possible Labour voter who'd rather vote Conservative than Corbyn

You should just stick to voting Liberal Democrats (but I must admit their leaders of late have been far from inspiring). Both the Tories and Labour are too radical for you in my view (based on what I read here). I guess this is the reason why you're quite politically homeless, just like many in the country. It's such a pity that there's such a dearth of acceptable options. Maybe we should analyse how we got to the situation where we are producing such poor political leadership in general, as it seems systemic rather than related to any single party.

In the Netherlands there's a centre-right party in power that is probably closest to the Liberal Democrats, if I try to compare. Rutte is the prime minister, and he's better than any political leader we've had in Britain in the last 20 years. I probably still wouldn't vote for him if I were eligible to do so, but it would at least be a harder choice than I have in Britain. And my city (Amsterdam) is left wing, and implements policies that I appreciate, such as investment in public infrastructure (such as cycling infrastructure). I left Britain in January 2013, and for me the Britain of the time of the 2012 Olympics feels like a completely different Britain, even though that was a Britain that was run by Cameron and Clegg. It throws into sharp relief just how steep our downward descent into chaos has been.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
If he moves left it needs to be on some specific policy areas that still have broad popular support among the electorate, and aren't merely popular talking points on the left of the official opposition. Moving left in general seems like a non starter with the electorate.

I'm all set to vote Labour for the first time ever, but if you ditch Keir and go back to someone like RLB I'll stick with voting Lib Dem. I'd even at this point join the Labour Party but the parties are getting better at checking if you appear on the membership list of another party, and oddly they seem to think it's a bad thing to live in a plural society (even weirder it's not just the Tories and Labour against pluralism, the Lib Dems are in on it too)

I disagree with the basic premise of your argument. You think they should move to where public opinion is. That is popularism, and Britain will never flourish under it, it brought us Brexit, and it is a poisonous and cowardly political strategy. Political leaders should have a vision and convince the electorate that their vision should be the future direction for our country.

I want an optimistic vision of the future, where we are much better in 10 years time than we are now, not just treading water from centre left to centre right. Man landed on the moon 50 years ago, enabling us to believe in a high tech future that was transformative. Instead, that high-tech future consists mostly of the ability to insult each other in 140 words or less, inflating our ego on social media platforms, or numbing ourselves by our media opiate of choice such as Netflix. This is not the future that we deserve, and it is a profound waste of the potential of our species.

A political leader should definitely offer a vision. But if they wish to be elected then it needs to be a vision that can be supported. Not all visions are good.

Your last paragraph is somewhat hyperbolic, but there is a real point in there that how society adapts to the increasing challenges that tech brings is important. Tech can be good and bad; it will also continue to change our society significantly. What does that mean for employment, for housing, for education and so on. The Tories seem to think the answer is building more capacity on the train into London, yet WFH during covid is making that a joke. I don’t recall any sensible offers from Corbyn on the subject either. If Starmer wants to be that visionary then spending time thinking how tech will change the future of this country and how we adapt to it would be time well spent.

You say that, but I could take it even more dystopian if I wanted to and it'd still ring true. Social media that enslaves us to a life of addiction to dopaminergic stimulation, a high that we pimp out our personal information for, which is commodified and sold by faceless extraterratorial tax dodging corporations so that powerful interests can bombard us with propaganda influencing us to either consume products we don't need with money we don't have, or to vote for a political stratum that offers us poison to cure the ills they inflicted. Which we are barely able to resist because our concentration span and energy has been so degraded by the affliction of this technology, and sapped even further by our struggle to simply make ends meet as we come home from another long shift.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
I think it's quite likely that he'll face a leadership challenge. If he wants to survive said challenge he needs to move more to the left, and that move will need to be sincere (or at least be perceived as such).

If he moves left it needs to be on some specific policy areas that still have broad popular support among the electorate, and aren't merely popular talking points on the left of the official opposition. Moving left in general seems like a non starter with the electorate.

I'm all set to vote Labour for the first time ever, but if you ditch iKeir and go back to someone like RLB I'll stick with voting Lib Dem. I'd even at this point join the Labour Party but the parties are getting better at checking if you appear on the membership list of another party, and oddly they seem to think it's a bad thing to live in a plural society (even weirder it's not just the Tories and Labour against pluralism, the Lib Dems are in on it too)

I disagree with the basic premise of your argument. You think they should move to where public opinion is. That is popularism, and Britain will never flourish under it, it brought us Brexit, and it is a poisonous and cowardly political strategy. Political leaders should have a vision and convince the electorate that their vision should be the future direction for our country.

I want an optimistic vision of the future, where we are much better in 10 years time than we are now, not just treading water from centre left to centre right. Man landed on the moon 50 years ago, enabling us to believe in a high tech future that was transformative. Instead, that high-tech future consists mostly of the ability to insult each other in 140 words or less, inflating our ego on social media platforms, or numbing ourselves by our media opiate of choice such as Netflix. This is not the future that we deserve, and it is a profound waste of the potential of our species.

You don’t get to an optimistic future by pigeonholing people as left or right or centrist.

The truth is, the best policies take something from all spectrum. Populism has taken away the idea of left v right, trying to bring it back will simply see you fail.

Every decision and every policy should be based on humanism. On trying to make life better for the electorate. That might mean some policies you see as right and some you see as left.

Corbyn didn’t offer a vision of a society, he offered a rejection of a society and despite initial promise he failed to deliver because he quite obviously didn’t want to make life better for everyone.

We can’t afford left v right as the right will make sure no one will vote for the left. Instead it needs to play as humanist v evil.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
I disagree with the basic premise of your argument. You think they should move to where public opinion is. That is popularism, and Britain will never flourish under it, it brought us Brexit, and it is a poisonous and cowardly political strategy. Political leaders should have a vision and convince the electorate that their vision should be the future direction for our country.

I want an optimistic vision of the future, where we are much better in 10 years time than we are now, not just treading water from centre left to centre right. Man landed on the moon 50 years ago, enabling us to believe in a high tech future that was transformative. Instead, that high-tech future consists mostly of the ability to insult each other in 140 words or less, inflating our ego on social media platforms, or numbing ourselves by our media opiate of choice such as Netflix. This is not the future that we deserve, and it is a profound waste of the potential of our species.

A political leader should definitely offer a vision. But if they wish to be elected then it needs to be a vision that can be supported. Not all visions are good.

Your last paragraph is somewhat hyperbolic, but there is a real point in there that how society adapts to the increasing challenges that tech brings is important. Tech can be good and bad; it will also continue to change our society significantly. What does that mean for employment, for housing, for education and so on. The Tories seem to think the answer is building more capacity on the train into London, yet WFH during covid is making that a joke. I don’t recall any sensible offers from Corbyn on the subject either. If Starmer wants to be that visionary then spending time thinking how tech will change the future of this country and how we adapt to it would be time well spent.

You say that, but I could take it even more dystopian if I wanted to and it'd still ring true. Social media that enslaves us to a life of addiction to dopaminergic stimulation, a high that we pimp out our personal information for, which is commodified and sold by faceless extraterratorial tax dodging corporations so that powerful interests can bombard us with propaganda influencing us to either consume products we don't need with money we don't have, or to vote for a political stratum that offers us poison to cure the ills they inflicted. Which we are barely able to resist because our concentration span and energy has been so degraded by the affliction of this technology, and sapped even further by our struggle to simply make ends meet as we come home from another long shift.

All of that existed before the internet, it’s e delivery medium that’s changed. And there’s plenty of good that the advent of technology has brought as well.

As for struggling to make ends meet and exhaustion, I suspect our grand parents would have had a few words about that. Yes there are struggles but let’s not make out that it’s harder than it has been previously, it’s just different.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: A political leader should definitely offer a vision. But if they wish to be elected then it needs to be a vision that can be supported. Not all visions are good.

Your last paragraph is somewhat hyperbolic, but there is a real point in there that how society adapts to the increasing challenges that tech brings is important. Tech can be good and bad; it will also continue to change our society significantly. What does that mean for employment, for housing, for education and so on. The Tories seem to think the answer is building more capacity on the train into London, yet WFH during covid is making that a joke. I don’t recall any sensible offers from Corbyn on the subject either. If Starmer wants to be that visionary then spending time thinking how tech will change the future of this country and how we adapt to it would be time well spent.

You say that, but I could take it even more dystopian if I wanted to and it'd still ring true. Social media that enslaves us to a life of addiction to dopaminergic stimulation, a high that we pimp out our personal information for, which is commodified and sold by faceless extraterratorial tax dodging corporations so that powerful interests can bombard us with propaganda influencing us to either consume products we don't need with money we don't have, or to vote for a political stratum that offers us poison to cure the ills they inflicted. Which we are barely able to resist because our concentration span and energy has been so degraded by the affliction of this technology, and sapped even further by our struggle to simply make ends meet as we come home from another long shift.

All of that existed before the internet, it’s e delivery medium that’s changed. And there’s plenty of good that the advent of technology has brought as well.

As for struggling to make ends meet and exhaustion, I suspect our grand parents would have had a few words about that. Yes there are struggles but let’s not make out that it’s harder than it has been previously, it’s just different.

Selling our personal information and it being used against us did not happen before the internet. The way personal electronic devices are used to manipulate the way our brain functions to keep us on the platforms that bombard us with propaganda did not happen before the internet. TV does not have the same effect in terms of its effect on the dopamine pathway of the brain. Yes, previous generations have also had it hard, I'm certainly not arguing that it was some kind of utopia in the past.

Of course there is technology out there that has very beneficial applications, and I'm glad for those advancements. I'm certainly no luddite, quite the opposite. The internet was overall a great advancement and brought us the information revolution, which should not be understated. We stand on the cusp of a period of rapid technological advancement - the key question is WHO will reap the harvest of the technological advancement? Not likely those who sowed the seed, unfortunately.

This dysfunctional socio-economic system, this current iteration of capitalism, not only has dire effects on the poorest in society, but as shown by the rapidly worsening climate change crisis, which is a direct consequence of that system, is clearly an existential threat to humanity. The question is - do you trust the invisible hand of the free market to save humanity from the apocalypitic consequences? The clock is ticking and the stakes could not be greater.

OK compare that to the exploitation of workers in the industrial revolution. Things aren’t as bad as they used to be, although there are clear improvements required.

And actually regarding who reaps the spoils for the tech whirlwind, I think you are wrong. Many tech millionaire are self made and the advent of the internet has given a new generation of entrepreneurs the opportunity to break the norm. Those workers who are educated and skilled will continue to do well.

The real issue is the paucity of jobs for workers who are unskilled. Education has become more
Important and it needs to be tweaked to ensure young people enter the workforce with the right skills but also that
Young people make the most of their education and don’t assume they can pick something up.

But that’s very comparable to historical norms so I still regard your statement as being hyperbole.

Stom wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
If he moves left it needs to be on some specific policy areas that still have broad popular support among the electorate, and aren't merely popular talking points on the left of the official opposition. Moving left in general seems like a non starter with the electorate.

I'm all set to vote Labour for the first time ever, but if you ditch iKeir and go back to someone like RLB I'll stick with voting Lib Dem. I'd even at this point join the Labour Party but the parties are getting better at checking if you appear on the membership list of another party, and oddly they seem to think it's a bad thing to live in a plural society (even weirder it's not just the Tories and Labour against pluralism, the Lib Dems are in on it too)

I disagree with the basic premise of your argument. You think they should move to where public opinion is. That is popularism, and Britain will never flourish under it, it brought us Brexit, and it is a poisonous and cowardly political strategy. Political leaders should have a vision and convince the electorate that their vision should be the future direction for our country.

I want an optimistic vision of the future, where we are much better in 10 years time than we are now, not just treading water from centre left to centre right. Man landed on the moon 50 years ago, enabling us to believe in a high tech future that was transformative. Instead, that high-tech future consists mostly of the ability to insult each other in 140 words or less, inflating our ego on social media platforms, or numbing ourselves by our media opiate of choice such as Netflix. This is not the future that we deserve, and it is a profound waste of the potential of our species.

You don’t get to an optimistic future by pigeonholing people as left or right or centrist.

The truth is, the best policies take something from all spectrum. Populism has taken away the idea of left v right, trying to bring it back will simply see you fail.

Every decision and every policy should be based on humanism. On trying to make life better for the electorate. That might mean some policies you see as right and some you see as left.

Corbyn didn’t offer a vision of a society, he offered a rejection of a society and despite initial promise he failed to deliver because he quite obviously didn’t want to make life better for everyone.

We can’t afford left v right as the right will make sure no one will vote for the left. Instead it needs to play as humanist v evil.

You won't win anyone over by calling them evil. The vision for the future should be one where everyone has an incentive to contribute to it. Britain is a patriotic country, but one that is divided. It needs a unifying national goal, or even better a unifying international goal (although that seems too ambitious given Brexit). Give people a reason to go to work in the morning, that isn't simply so that they can put food on the table or a roof over their heads.

The right can't 'make sure no one will vote for the left', but the left does need to get its house in order. You can't win an election when your party is bedevilled with infighting. Too many people in this country have false consciousness, and that's something that needs to be fixed before the left can have a chance.

Sandydragon wrote:OK compare that to the exploitation of workers in the industrial revolution. Things aren’t as bad as they used to be, although there are clear improvements required.

And actually regarding who reaps the spoils for the tech whirlwind, I think you are wrong. Many tech millionaire are self made and the advent of the internet has given a new generation of entrepreneurs the opportunity to break the norm. Those workers who are educated and skilled will continue to do well.

The real issue is the paucity of jobs for workers who are unskilled. Education has become more
Important and it needs to be tweaked to ensure young people enter the workforce with the right skills but also that
Young people make the most of their education and don’t assume they can pick something up.

But that’s very comparable to historical norms so I still regard your statement as being hyperbole.

Tech millionaires are clearly a minority. I don't see how it disproves my point about making the technological advancement benefit the majority.

The question should be, if you could prioritise what technological advancements to aim for, would you choose the ones we have got via the free market? Letting our technological investments be driven by a market that seeks to satisfy the whimsy of personal short term desires is quite simply a waste of our potential.

Zhivago wrote:

Stom wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
I disagree with the basic premise of your argument. You think they should move to where public opinion is. That is popularism, and Britain will never flourish under it, it brought us Brexit, and it is a poisonous and cowardly political strategy. Political leaders should have a vision and convince the electorate that their vision should be the future direction for our country.

I want an optimistic vision of the future, where we are much better in 10 years time than we are now, not just treading water from centre left to centre right. Man landed on the moon 50 years ago, enabling us to believe in a high tech future that was transformative. Instead, that high-tech future consists mostly of the ability to insult each other in 140 words or less, inflating our ego on social media platforms, or numbing ourselves by our media opiate of choice such as Netflix. This is not the future that we deserve, and it is a profound waste of the potential of our species.

You don’t get to an optimistic future by pigeonholing people as left or right or centrist.

The truth is, the best policies take something from all spectrum. Populism has taken away the idea of left v right, trying to bring it back will simply see you fail.

Every decision and every policy should be based on humanism. On trying to make life better for the electorate. That might mean some policies you see as right and some you see as left.

Corbyn didn’t offer a vision of a society, he offered a rejection of a society and despite initial promise he failed to deliver because he quite obviously didn’t want to make life better for everyone.

We can’t afford left v right as the right will make sure no one will vote for the left. Instead it needs to play as humanist v evil.

You won't win anyone over by calling them evil. The vision for the future should be one where everyone has an incentive to contribute to it. Britain is a patriotic country, but one that is divided. It needs a unifying national goal, or even better a unifying international goal (although that seems too ambitious given Brexit). Give people a reason to go to work in the morning, that isn't simply so that they can put food on the table or a roof over their heads.

The right can't 'make sure no one will vote for the left', but the left does need to get its house in order. You can't win an election when your party is bedevilled with infighting. Too many people in this country have false consciousness, and that's something that needs to be fixed before the left can have a chance.

Well, sorry for my final flippancy.

But, well, it's not about the left. At all. In fact, many of the old socialist policies are...out of date. And the people who those policies are for won't vote Labour because of Brexit... so you need to find a way to get all of them voting for you.

And also, I don't think Britain is very patriotic... I really don't.

Stom wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Stom wrote:
You don’t get to an optimistic future by pigeonholing people as left or right or centrist.

The truth is, the best policies take something from all spectrum. Populism has taken away the idea of left v right, trying to bring it back will simply see you fail.

Every decision and every policy should be based on humanism. On trying to make life better for the electorate. That might mean some policies you see as right and some you see as left.

Corbyn didn’t offer a vision of a society, he offered a rejection of a society and despite initial promise he failed to deliver because he quite obviously didn’t want to make life better for everyone.

We can’t afford left v right as the right will make sure no one will vote for the left. Instead it needs to play as humanist v evil.

You won't win anyone over by calling them evil. The vision for the future should be one where everyone has an incentive to contribute to it. Britain is a patriotic country, but one that is divided. It needs a unifying national goal, or even better a unifying international goal (although that seems too ambitious given Brexit). Give people a reason to go to work in the morning, that isn't simply so that they can put food on the table or a roof over their heads.

The right can't 'make sure no one will vote for the left', but the left does need to get its house in order. You can't win an election when your party is bedevilled with infighting. Too many people in this country have false consciousness, and that's something that needs to be fixed before the left can have a chance.

Well, sorry for my final flippancy.

But, well, it's not about the left. At all. In fact, many of the old socialist policies are...out of date. And the people who those policies are for won't vote Labour because of Brexit... so you need to find a way to get all of them voting for you.

And also, I don't think Britain is very patriotic... I really don't.

The British aren't delusional, they know Britain isn't what it used to be. But if you could make them truly believe that you could make it be as powerful economically as it used to be, or even just believe that you could get it going in that direction, people would lap that dream up. People need something to believe in.

Old policies are out of date... wow you're really telling me something new here.

I bet you don't even know what you want. If I asked you what economic policy you want you wouldn't have a clue. All you want really (and same as everyone) is for everything to work better than it does now. And if someone comes along telling you that they can make it happen, and you believe them, then you will vote for them. The reason no one is inspiring you, is because our leaders don't have a f'cking clue. They have no political beliefs themselves, apart from the famous electability. It's very hard to get someone to believe in you if you don't believe in something yourself. Unless you're a charlatan and can bluff people of course, like Boris, but that won't last long. Frauds always get found out in the end.

Zhivago wrote:

Stom wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
You won't win anyone over by calling them evil. The vision for the future should be one where everyone has an incentive to contribute to it. Britain is a patriotic country, but one that is divided. It needs a unifying national goal, or even better a unifying international goal (although that seems too ambitious given Brexit). Give people a reason to go to work in the morning, that isn't simply so that they can put food on the table or a roof over their heads.

The right can't 'make sure no one will vote for the left', but the left does need to get its house in order. You can't win an election when your party is bedevilled with infighting. Too many people in this country have false consciousness, and that's something that needs to be fixed before the left can have a chance.

Well, sorry for my final flippancy.

But, well, it's not about the left. At all. In fact, many of the old socialist policies are...out of date. And the people who those policies are for won't vote Labour because of Brexit... so you need to find a way to get all of them voting for you.

And also, I don't think Britain is very patriotic... I really don't.

The British aren't delusional, they know Britain isn't what it used to be. But if you could make them truly believe that you could make it be as powerful economically as it used to be, or even just believe that you could get it going in that direction, people would lap that dream up. People need something to believe in.

Old policies are out of date... wow you're really telling me something new here.

I bet you don't even know what you want. If I asked you what economic policy you want you wouldn't have a clue. All you want really (and same as everyone) is for everything to work better than it does now. And if someone comes along telling you that they can make it happen, and you believe them, then you will vote for them. The reason no one is inspiring you, is because our leaders don't have a f'cking clue. They have no political beliefs themselves, apart from the famous electability. It's very hard to get someone to believe in you if you don't believe in something yourself. Unless you're a charlatan and can bluff people of course, like Boris, but that won't last long. Frauds always get found out in the end.

Well no, I don't believe they care about the economic power of the country at all. They care about the food on their plate, the beer they can buy, the way they feel about their own life.

And yes, I do have my own economic and social policies, we just weren't discussing them. And Starmer has no reason to discuss his beliefs right now, as Labour need trust and the country is in the middle of a pandemic.

Politically, he needs to rid the party of mismanagement tags, racism tags, and incompetence tags. So he has to be ruthless.

Policy wise, he only needs to show one policy right now: trust the experts. If he can bring trust back to experts and put a huge dent in trust in the government, it will go a long way to making people like him and his party more than the government.

Making his inevitable policy announcement much more likely to be treated fairly or even given a positive reading.

Stom wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Stom wrote:
Well, sorry for my final flippancy.

But, well, it's not about the left. At all. In fact, many of the old socialist policies are...out of date. And the people who those policies are for won't vote Labour because of Brexit... so you need to find a way to get all of them voting for you.

And also, I don't think Britain is very patriotic... I really don't.

The British aren't delusional, they know Britain isn't what it used to be. But if you could make them truly believe that you could make it be as powerful economically as it used to be, or even just believe that you could get it going in that direction, people would lap that dream up. People need something to believe in.

Old policies are out of date... wow you're really telling me something new here.

I bet you don't even know what you want. If I asked you what economic policy you want you wouldn't have a clue. All you want really (and same as everyone) is for everything to work better than it does now. And if someone comes along telling you that they can make it happen, and you believe them, then you will vote for them. The reason no one is inspiring you, is because our leaders don't have a f'cking clue. They have no political beliefs themselves, apart from the famous electability. It's very hard to get someone to believe in you if you don't believe in something yourself. Unless you're a charlatan and can bluff people of course, like Boris, but that won't last long. Frauds always get found out in the end.

Well no, I don't believe they care about the economic power of the country at all. They care about the food on their plate, the beer they can buy, the way they feel about their own life.

And yes, I do have my own economic and social policies, we just weren't discussing them. And Starmer has no reason to discuss his beliefs right now, as Labour need trust and the country is in the middle of a pandemic.

Politically, he needs to rid the party of mismanagement tags, racism tags, and incompetence tags. So he has to be ruthless.

Policy wise, he only needs to show one policy right now: trust the experts. If he can bring trust back to experts and put a huge dent in trust in the government, it will go a long way to making people like him and his party more than the government.

Making his inevitable policy announcement much more likely to be treated fairly or even given a positive reading.

That sounds utterly dry and uninspirational. Boris will just promise the stars and the moon to the electorate and get re-elected again. If your assessment of the Great British Public is true then I think they probably deserve the Tories.

I think it's interesting the degree to which Corbyn is acting like a natural conservative. That he knows best what's right for him and his party in all this, and he shouldn't have to consider the thoughts/needs of others, and he especially will not be dictated to by those he deems less worthy.

Digby wrote:I think it's interesting the degree to which Corbyn is acting like a natural conservative. That he knows best what's right for him and his party in all this, and he shouldn't have to consider the thoughts/needs of others, and he especially will not be dictated to by those he deems less worthy.

Well indeed, as you know the left right spectrum is no straight line

Digby wrote:I think it's interesting the degree to which Corbyn is acting like a natural conservative. That he knows best what's right for him and his party in all this, and he shouldn't have to consider the thoughts/needs of others, and he especially will not be dictated to by those he deems less worthy.

Brexit is a policy that Old Labour would readily vote for. It's New Labor that loves the EU. Joining the EU was a Conservative decision in the first place, and makes sense when you think about how it increases the supply of labour which suppresses wages. Everything is upside down at the moment.

New Labour, Lib Dems, and the more moderate Tories should probably all be in one party.

Zhivago wrote: Joining the EU was a Conservative decision in the first place, and makes sense when you think about how it increases the supply of labour which suppresses wages. Everything is upside down at the moment.

Ben Youngs in his worst games shows more accuracy with his passing than the accuracy of that comment, actually Bergamasco in his worst game at 9 has more accuracy. Also beyond being imo just plain wrong it's a sadly depressing and limited view as to how things can work, and it's anchored in some weird conservatism itself around restoring/protecting a time in the past that probably never existed in the first place.

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote: Joining the EU was a Conservative decision in the first place, and makes sense when you think about how it increases the supply of labour which suppresses wages. Everything is upside down at the moment.

Ben Youngs in his worst games shows more accuracy with his passing than the accuracy of that comment, actually Bergamasco in his worst game at 9 has more accuracy. Also beyond being imo just plain wrong it's a sadly depressing and limited view as to how things can work, and it's anchored in some weird conservatism itself around restoring/protecting a time in the past that probably never existed in the first place.

Saying it doesn't make it so. What exactly is untrue about what I wrote?

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote: Joining the EU was a Conservative decision in the first place, and makes sense when you think about how it increases the supply of labour which suppresses wages. Everything is upside down at the moment.

Ben Youngs in his worst games shows more accuracy with his passing than the accuracy of that comment, actually Bergamasco in his worst game at 9 has more accuracy. Also beyond being imo just plain wrong it's a sadly depressing and limited view as to how things can work, and it's anchored in some weird conservatism itself around restoring/protecting a time in the past that probably never existed in the first place.

Saying it doesn't make it so. What exactly is untrue about what I wrote?

It's bollocks. It's not exactly true just in isolation, and in the real world it doesn't remotely exist in isolation anyway.

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
Ben Youngs in his worst games shows more accuracy with his passing than the accuracy of that comment, actually Bergamasco in his worst game at 9 has more accuracy. Also beyond being imo just plain wrong it's a sadly depressing and limited view as to how things can work, and it's anchored in some weird conservatism itself around restoring/protecting a time in the past that probably never existed in the first place.

Saying it doesn't make it so. What exactly is untrue about what I wrote?

It's bollocks. It's not exactly true just in isolation, and in the real world it doesn't remotely exist in isolation anyway.

You're the one talking nonsense.

Just as an example, take this bit from this wikipedia article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Un ... referendum

The Labour Party had historically feared the consequences of EC membership, such as the large differentials between the high price of food under the Common Agricultural Policy and the low prices prevalent in Commonwealth markets, as well as the loss of both economic sovereignty and the freedom of governments to engage in socialist industrial policies.

(sounds like the Brexiteer argument, apart from the socialist part at the end)

Anyway my point is that Corbyn is merely a reflection of this past Labour strand, an unchanged relic of those times. Just because the Tories have bizarrely taken up this Old Labour political stance out of desperation to protect themselves from UKIP, it doesn't make those still believing those Old Labour positions conservative. It's also why Brexit has completely destroyed the traditional left-right division of UK politics.

So a paragraph not on wage inflation speaks to wage inflation because?