You need to buy off media moguls to get their editors to give favourable headlines to the left wing narrative.
Keir Starmer Labour Leader
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
Well, that's the problem.
I'm not suggesting that Starmer's tactics won't be electorally effective. They may very well be.
However, I'm utterly jaded with the prospect of voting for a party drifting to the right and being guided by focus groups, who are in turn influenced by the carefully managed and long established narrative of the right ,on the argument that "at least they're better than the Tories" again.
I understand the argument of pragmatism but this path leads, if it hasn't already, to a US model where we have right and even more right in the political spectrum.
It is this issue, as an aside, that is behind the sundering of Scotland from the Labour party. However, what's the option in England? It's Labour or nothing really. Voting Liberal is like backing the Observer Food Monthly magazine, the Greens are too peripheral and there is no other option.
So, whilst I get the direction Labour are taking it is, to me, political capitulation of principles. I prefer my politicians to have principles and I don't see that as naive...it's just not cynical.
That’s fair enough I pretty much agree with you on everything.
Mendoza is a horrible horrible woman, she’s best ignored.
She always puts her foot in it. However extremely galaxy brained take from Brendan to say there is no contradiction between putting Britain first and not putting Britain first.
I don't really see the contradiction you imply. No nation puts other country's interests ahead of its own. It a pretty absurd idea really.
Then internationalism doesn't exist. It's just self-interest
Also can we talk about this:
Starmer said, adding: “Let’s be brutally honest with ourselves. When you lose an election in a democracy, you deserve to. You don’t look at the electorate and ask them: ‘What were you thinking?’
from Labour's Second Referendum guy
Starmer said, adding: “Let’s be brutally honest with ourselves. When you lose an election in a democracy, you deserve to. You don’t look at the electorate and ask them: ‘What were you thinking?’
from Labour's Second Referendum guy
It's cooperation driven by self-interest. If there was nothing to be gained or if it resulted in observable net-negatives for nations then it wouldn't happen.
Centrists serenely telling themselves that internationalism is when you pursue your national self-interest above all else, and it's good. Whereas nationalism is where you pursue your national self-interest above all else, and that's bad.
In IR terms you are just outlining realism rather than liberalism, and realism is not internationalism.
Where does internationalism actually exist where nations are not acting in diplomatic or economic interests?
I mean any form of international aid is the obvious example.
Edit: Obviously aid is also used to pursue national interests. It's fine to believe that it's all self-interest, but you can't call that internationalism.
I'm a cynic obviously.
I highly doubt that any Starmer government would stop engaging in the many (what would be considered as) internationalist activities we currently do engage in. It's simply rhetoric to please a particular and significant part of the electorate.
It'd be a struggle to come up with a positive spin on the idea of nationalising Royal Mail.
You'd have to do something terrible like converse with the people who work for it. Heaven forbid.
That's easy - just keep using the word english and british, put the union jack in the background when making the arguement for it.
You certainly wouldn't ask anyone who invested in it.
The Brits like their royal money pits I guess.
Well no because they deliberately sold the shares off at a below market price so anyone who invested in it immediately made a tidy profit.
I mean it probably would be a compelling argument for renationalisation if (as should have happened) once they were privatised they were no longer allowed to use the imagery of the British state (no insignia on postboxes, no 'Royal' mail, no Queen on the stamps, etc).
This idea that in order to win back seats never lost before in the North of England Labour would have to throw out the red rose symbol and replace it with a swastika is utter nonsense. Its not even going to be that hard they voted for Ed Miliband for Christ's sake hardly a national socialist.
It doesn't hurt now and again to say something nice about your country and the people who live in it. Brace yourself even if they are from the North.
If you can't bring yourself to do that then why do you even want to be the leader of that country and why would all the people you look down on ever vote for you as you clearly don't care about their best interests or concerns?
This part of the discussion is a false dichotomy thrown out by the dead end ultra left wing to excuse themselves for bringing Boris Johnson into power. Its not our fault we elected a useless dirty old man as leader of the Labour party how could we do otherwise all the other candidates were as bad as Hitler.
It doesn't hurt now and again to say something nice about your country and the people who live in it. Brace yourself even if they are from the North.
If you can't bring yourself to do that then why do you even want to be the leader of that country and why would all the people you look down on ever vote for you as you clearly don't care about their best interests or concerns?
This part of the discussion is a false dichotomy thrown out by the dead end ultra left wing to excuse themselves for bringing Boris Johnson into power. Its not our fault we elected a useless dirty old man as leader of the Labour party how could we do otherwise all the other candidates were as bad as Hitler.
What a load of nonsense. Internationalism is about cooperation and looking outward. Nationalism is about exclusion and looking inward. You can have mutual self interest or exclusionary self interest.
Last edited:
Have you seen the share price now? It shot up short-term, as investors piled in, but has been an awful investment long-term. It's a capital intensive industry in structural decline- it's completely failed to grab a decent share of the online delivery market. God knows why anyone would want that back on the public balance sheet.
I’m sure we could have a whip round on the caf and takeover Royal Mail these days if we wanted to own a shitty business for some reason.
1) "Guided by focus groups" means listening to voters. Listening to the people whose support you need, is a good thing.
2) It's mad to let the Tories "own patriotism" especially if patriotism is important to more socially conservative labour voters. And patriotism is not the same thing as nationalism.
3) The labour left seem to have a real tin ear to some basic political truths... maybe a sign of a metropolitan bias that's not done them any favours.
2) It's mad to let the Tories "own patriotism" especially if patriotism is important to more socially conservative labour voters. And patriotism is not the same thing as nationalism.
3) The labour left seem to have a real tin ear to some basic political truths... maybe a sign of a metropolitan bias that's not done them any favours.
If in any situation you are pursuing self-interest it’s misleading to call it internationalism when self-interest = cooperation and nationalism when self-interest is exclusionary. As I said, this is just realism, not liberal internationalism.
Royal Mail is a red flag business, nationalising it makes no business sense. It's better off in private hands as it needs further investment to even be as efficient as it's competitors in this space. As you say @Jippy their share of the online market is hugely low.
Royal Mail was and is hugely profitable despite paying by far the highest wages in the sector. Selling it, and for the price we did, was bad for everyone except the Tory hangers-on who snapped it up. It'll become less profitable as mail continues to decline, but its ability to compete on parcels is hamstrung by the fact that its competitors' business models are entirely based on dodgy gig economy practices (self employed workers using their own cars). If the likes of Hermes were forced to operate on a level playing field Royal Mail would be almost unassailable.
None of which is a comment on whether we should buy it back.
None of which is a comment on whether we should buy it back.
Going off on a tangent for the thread, but Royal Mail will be more exposed when the subsidies for the Post Office is pulled by the government in 2021. If it can stand on it's own two feet, then it might be a different conversation. Difficult to report on its true profitability, when the other business it's strongly linked to as a partner is only reportedly breaking even by 2021. Red flags.
He's been solid so far and certainly has the air of an eventual prime minister. Certainly going to need all of the next 4 years to make more inroads as the metrics are against him and his party but competant at least will do for now.
Get Pledge 4 out for the lads! Get Pledge 4 out for the lads.
Well, there goes my vote for Labour in 4 years time.
Marine A will be a Labour candidate by then.
Only 12 opposing
The bloke's a fecking coward. Worst bit is none of his supporters will give two fecks about it.
