RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:Anyone know how much the parties spent on these elections? Also have we ever had a set of local elections less about local politics? At least I realised as I stood in the booth I knew nothing about any of the candidates

Not sure that was the same for everyone tbh. It was very local issue based here.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Anyone know how much the parties spent on these elections? Also have we ever had a set of local elections less about local politics? At least I realised as I stood in the booth I knew nothing about any of the candidates

Not sure that was the same for everyone tbh. It was very local issue based here.

So much of the coverage too has been Brexit, May and Corbyn, which is more than a little removed from actual local issues. I felt a bit bad actually as I stood there not only not knowing what the respective issues were for the candidates but not even knowing their names.

Mellsblue wrote:

Zhivago wrote: not counting the effect of the rules that require media to be impartial during election period.

You’ll to explain this to me, I obviously haven’t read enough.

I think he means that during a GE, the BBC is required to give equal airtime to major parties and Corbyn can speak directly to people. The rest of the media can ridicule him to their hearts content. It probably did help,him last time as Corbyn does like to debate.

Personally I think Labour was helped more by the ineptitude of May and her team

Mellsblue wrote:

fivepointer wrote:The notion that they are there for the taking across the board is pure moonshine.

They are if there is a credible, centrist oppo.......which there isn’t and is unlikely to be in the near future.
This Govt must be one of the most unpopular in decades - NHS, Windrush, Brexit, Grenfell - and is incredibly weak and unstable - minority government and unpopular PM - and yet Labour are barely making a dent.

I completely agree a credible opposition would dismantle what is a very poor government. But I disagree it has to be centrist.

It just has to be more "for the people". But that's a massive problem in politics as a whole now: there's no-one left to talk for the average person, they're all careerists.

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

fivepointer wrote:The notion that they are there for the taking across the board is pure moonshine.

They are if there is a credible, centrist oppo.......which there isn’t and is unlikely to be in the near future.
This Govt must be one of the most unpopular in decades - NHS, Windrush, Brexit, Grenfell - and is incredibly weak and unstable - minority government and unpopular PM - and yet Labour are barely making a dent.

I completely agree a credible opposition would dismantle what is a very poor government. But I disagree it has to be centrist.

It just has to be more "for the people". But that's a massive problem in politics as a whole now: there's no-one left to talk for the average person, they're all careerists.

Now??

There's some very 'interesting' stuff happening amongst voters now; intolerance across the spectrum from left to right is creating an absolute breakdown in constructive dialogue. Further, economic competence and other traditional signals of voter intentions are less and less relevant....'gut instinct' is the new driver, apparently.

Sandydragon wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Zhivago wrote: not counting the effect of the rules that require media to be impartial during election period.

You’ll to explain this to me, I obviously haven’t read enough.

I think he means that during a GE, the BBC is required to give equal airtime to major parties and Corbyn can speak directly to people. The rest of the media can ridicule him to their hearts content. It probably did help,him last time as Corbyn does like to debate.

Personally I think Labour was helped more by the ineptitude of May and her team

Ah, ok. So not really media but the BBC. No wonder I (though, I think it is he) was confused.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: They are if there is a credible, centrist oppo.......which there isn’t and is unlikely to be in the near future.
This Govt must be one of the most unpopular in decades - NHS, Windrush, Brexit, Grenfell - and is incredibly weak and unstable - minority government and unpopular PM - and yet Labour are barely making a dent.

I completely agree a credible opposition would dismantle what is a very poor government. But I disagree it has to be centrist.

It just has to be more "for the people". But that's a massive problem in politics as a whole now: there's no-one left to talk for the average person, they're all careerists.

Now??

There's some very 'interesting' stuff happening amongst voters now; intolerance across the spectrum from left to right is creating an absolute breakdown in constructive dialogue. Further, economic competence and other traditional signals of voter intentions are less and less relevant....'gut instinct' is the new driver, apparently.

Centralist politics depends on compromise. Today w all seem to be less tolerant. I have some hope it will bounce back at some point.

Sandydragon wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:
I completely agree a credible opposition would dismantle what is a very poor government. But I disagree it has to be centrist.

It just has to be more "for the people". But that's a massive problem in politics as a whole now: there's no-one left to talk for the average person, they're all careerists.

Now??

There's some very 'interesting' stuff happening amongst voters now; intolerance across the spectrum from left to right is creating an absolute breakdown in constructive dialogue. Further, economic competence and other traditional signals of voter intentions are less and less relevant....'gut instinct' is the new driver, apparently.

Centralist politics depends on compromise. Today w all seem to be less tolerant. I have some hope it will bounce back at some point.

Firstly, ALL politics is about compromise. And secondly, the concept of centrist has changed somewhat over the years. If you had told Gladstone what you consider centrist to mean, he would have thought you were talking about a fascist dictatorship!

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Banquo wrote: Now??

There's some very 'interesting' stuff happening amongst voters now; intolerance across the spectrum from left to right is creating an absolute breakdown in constructive dialogue. Further, economic competence and other traditional signals of voter intentions are less and less relevant....'gut instinct' is the new driver, apparently.

Centralist politics depends on compromise. Today w all seem to be less tolerant. I have some hope it will bounce back at some point.

Firstly, ALL politics is about compromise. And secondly, the concept of centrist has changed somewhat over the years. If you had told Gladstone what you consider centrist to mean, he would have thought you were talking about a fascist dictatorship!

I suggest here is plenty of evidence to support the view that extremist politics isn’t about compromise. The centre ground changes over time, that’s pretty normal. The point is that between the lunacy of Corbyn and Momentum vs Brexiteers, there is a centre ground which is somewhat subdued (unfortunately).

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Banquo wrote: Now??

There's some very 'interesting' stuff happening amongst voters now; intolerance across the spectrum from left to right is creating an absolute breakdown in constructive dialogue. Further, economic competence and other traditional signals of voter intentions are less and less relevant....'gut instinct' is the new driver, apparently.

Centralist politics depends on compromise. Today w all seem to be less tolerant. I have some hope it will bounce back at some point.

Firstly, ALL politics is about compromise. And secondly, the concept of centrist has changed somewhat over the years. If you had told Gladstone what you consider centrist to mean, he would have thought you were talking about a fascist dictatorship!

That’s a strange thing to say. Gladstone was well known for his strong support for free trade and laissez-faire economics. On top of that his views on slavery didn’t exactly align with what would be considered acceptable to a “centrist” of today.

Stones of granite wrote:

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Centralist politics depends on compromise. Today w all seem to be less tolerant. I have some hope it will bounce back at some point.

Firstly, ALL politics is about compromise. And secondly, the concept of centrist has changed somewhat over the years. If you had told Gladstone what you consider centrist to mean, he would have thought you were talking about a fascist dictatorship!

That’s a strange thing to say. Gladstone was well known for his strong support for free trade and laissez-faire economics. On top of that his views on slavery didn’t exactly align with what would be considered acceptable to a “centrist” of today.

No, no, no. The U.K. has become more right wing. It’s a narrative.

Stom wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Banquo wrote: Now??

There's some very 'interesting' stuff happening amongst voters now; intolerance across the spectrum from left to right is creating an absolute breakdown in constructive dialogue. Further, economic competence and other traditional signals of voter intentions are less and less relevant....'gut instinct' is the new driver, apparently.

Centralist politics depends on compromise. Today w all seem to be less tolerant. I have some hope it will bounce back at some point.

Firstly, ALL politics is about compromise. And secondly, the concept of centrist has changed somewhat over the years. If you had told Gladstone what you consider centrist to mean, he would have thought you were talking about a fascist dictatorship!

there is not one iota of compromise on left or right here.

In the land of the blind:

I' m just surprised "Don't Know" is so low down; deserves a good 10 point lead over the opposition

Sandydragon wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Stom wrote:
Firstly, ALL politics is about compromise. And secondly, the concept of centrist has changed somewhat over the years. If you had told Gladstone what you consider centrist to mean, he would have thought you were talking about a fascist dictatorship!

That’s a strange thing to say. Gladstone was well known for his strong support for free trade and laissez-faire economics. On top of that his views on slavery didn’t exactly align with what would be considered acceptable to a “centrist” of today.

No, no, no. The U.K. has become more right wing. It’s a narrative.

The comparison with Gladstone's era was poor... society is becoming increasingly unequal, such that it's more reasonable to claim we are becoming more like a Victorian society. The fascist stuff from Stom is a bit exaggerated.

Surely you don't seriously deny that the UK has become more right wing since the post-war settlement. right?

Which Tyler wrote:I' m just surprised "Don't Know" is so low down; deserves a good 10 point lead over the opposition

Don’t Know was leading this time last year. Psephologists believe May’s lead is based on her stealing Don’t Know’s policies. For example, in answer to the question ‘after your first speech as PM about wanting to right injustices in society why have you done nothing about it?’, No 10 replied ‘Don’t Know’. When asked the question ‘why the **** are we in May 2018 and you still haven’t finalised your plan for Brexit despite setting out your red lines ages ago?’ No10 replied ‘Don’t know’. Rumours are emerging that Lansman is demanding that Corbyn moves from answering every question with ‘We’ll give you free stuff that someone else is going to pay for’, to simply shrugging his shoulders and saying ‘Don’t know’.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: That’s a strange thing to say. Gladstone was well known for his strong support for free trade and laissez-faire economics. On top of that his views on slavery didn’t exactly align with what would be considered acceptable to a “centrist” of today.

No, no, no. The U.K. has become more right wing. It’s a narrative.

The comparison with Gladstone's era was poor... society is becoming increasingly unequal, such that it's more reasonable to claim we are becoming more like a Victorian society. The fascist stuff from Stom is a bit exaggerated.

Surely you don't seriously deny that the UK has become more right wing since the post-war settlement. right?

Or returning to a historical norm following a commuist inspired scare post 1918? That said, we still are far more socially minded that we were in the 19th century. I don’t see children working down mines anymore ( not that we have any mines left but you get the point).

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:I' m just surprised "Don't Know" is so low down; deserves a good 10 point lead over the opposition

Don’t Know was leading this time last year. Psephologists believe May’s lead is based on her stealing Don’t Know’s policies. For example, in answer to the question ‘after your first speech as PM about wanting to right injustices in society why have you done nothing about it?’, No 10 replied ‘Don’t Know’. When asked the question ‘why the **** are we in May 2018 and you still haven’t finalised your plan for Brexit despite setting out your red lines ages ago?’ No10 replied ‘Don’t know’. Rumours are emerging that Lansman is demanding that Corbyn moves from answering every question with ‘We’ll give you free stuff that someone else is going to pay for’, to simply shrugging his shoulders and saying ‘Don’t know’.

Either way, Corbyn has a hell of a lot to do, by historical norms, to get this back on track. The Tories are a laughing stock, but labour still can’t get a lead.

The Tomes has a story today about Tory MPs asking their constituency associations to support their bids for re election. There’s a rumour in the air that due to the stalled Brexit negotiations within government, another election might be needed.

What’s the odds on Brenda from Bristol getting on TV again?

I heard May was working with Timbaland to put out her version of I'm Bringing Brexit Back - no confirmation yet of whether there'll be a video. That aside there is the rather huge problem an election mayn't change much

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: No, no, no. The U.K. has become more right wing. It’s a narrative.

The comparison with Gladstone's era was poor... society is becoming increasingly unequal, such that it's more reasonable to claim we are becoming more like a Victorian society. The fascist stuff from Stom is a bit exaggerated.

Surely you don't seriously deny that the UK has become more right wing since the post-war settlement. right?

Or returning to a historical norm following a commuist inspired scare post 1918? That said, we still are far more socially minded that we were in the 19th century. I don’t see children working down mines anymore ( not that we have any mines left but you get the point).

Absolutely a historical norm, as proven by Pikkety's magnus opus, inequality is worsening again due to rises in income from capital outperforming rises income from wages. It is clear that that situation leads to increasing inequality. If unmitigated, it will cause instability in the capitalist order, as at a certain point enough will be enough. That's not to predict a resurgence in old ideologies, rather a prediction that a new ideological force will emerge.

Sandydragon wrote:The Tomes has a story today about Tory MPs asking their constituency associations to support their bids for re election. There’s a rumour in the air that due to the stalled Brexit negotiations within government, another election might be needed.

What’s the odds on Brenda from Bristol getting on TV again?

Brexit is a hot potato that will burn whoever is left holding it.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
The comparison with Gladstone's era was poor... society is becoming increasingly unequal, such that it's more reasonable to claim we are becoming more like a Victorian society. The fascist stuff from Stom is a bit exaggerated.

Surely you don't seriously deny that the UK has become more right wing since the post-war settlement. right?

Or returning to a historical norm following a commuist inspired scare post 1918? That said, we still are far more socially minded that we were in the 19th century. I don’t see children working down mines anymore ( not that we have any mines left but you get the point).

Absolutely a historical norm, as proven by Pikkety's magnus opus, inequality is worsening again due to rises in income from capital outperforming rises income from wages. It is clear that that situation leads to increasing inequality. If unmitigated, it will cause instability in the capitalist order, as at a certain point enough will be enough. That's not to predict a resurgence in old ideologies, rather a prediction that a new ideological force will emerge.

Instability in the capitalist order is again nothing g new, and not is it uncommon in any system where people feel hard done by. Suggesting that something else will emerge is perhaps a bit of wishful thinking by Pikkety. It all sounds like a new paradigm although Pikkety is more intelligent than Russell Brand.

Ultimately, the hard right capitalist structure that is the target of many left wing rebuttals doesn’t exist in this country. All Weatern European capitalist economies practice a degree of socialism, whilst still maintaining capitalist principles.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:The Tomes has a story today about Tory MPs asking their constituency associations to support their bids for re election. There’s a rumour in the air that due to the stalled Brexit negotiations within government, another election might be needed.

What’s the odds on Brenda from Bristol getting on TV again?

Brexit is a hot potato that will burn whoever is left holding it.

We agree entirely on that. The only benefit I see from a labour victory in any election in the immediate future is that Corbyn will have to make his mind up on Brexit.

If Labour campaigned as the voice of the 48% I think they could edge it, provided they keep the crazier elements out of the media

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Or returning to a historical norm following a commuist inspired scare post 1918? That said, we still are far more socially minded that we were in the 19th century. I don’t see children working down mines anymore ( not that we have any mines left but you get the point).

Absolutely a historical norm, as proven by Pikkety's magnus opus, inequality is worsening again due to rises in income from capital outperforming rises income from wages. It is clear that that situation leads to increasing inequality. If unmitigated, it will cause instability in the capitalist order, as at a certain point enough will be enough. That's not to predict a resurgence in old ideologies, rather a prediction that a new ideological force will emerge.

Instability in the capitalist order is again nothing g new, and not is it uncommon in any system where people feel hard done by. Suggesting that something else will emerge is perhaps a bit of wishful thinking by Pikkety. It all sounds like a new paradigm although Pikkety is more intelligent than Russell Brand.

Ultimately, the hard right capitalist structure that is the target of many left wing rebuttals doesn’t exist in this country. All Weatern European capitalist economies practice a degree of socialism, whilst still maintaining capitalist principles.

Instability may come, but it won’t be because of inequality, which has been slowly decreasing for the last 20 years*, but it may come about due to the perception of feeling hard done by, which goes back to your post pointing out the current narrative about the drift to the right

*https://fullfact.org/economy/fifty-year ... nequality/