Snap General Election called

[Which Tyler]

[Son of Mathonwy]

Why would the Tories implement regulation against their interests? And if that's the case you need to win power, and the point about winning power is it's being noted would be easier with more favourable media.

Obviously. But that's like saying that it's against Xi Jinping's interests to introduce democracy to China. Obviously true, but does that mean that the Chinese people should not want him to? Or that it's not, nonetheless, the right thing for him to do?

I think fwiw it's a big problem, I'm just expecting someone needs to do something about it not hope someone does something about it for them

I'm used of course to arguing a case and getting nowhere, just a fringe benefit of being a Lib Dem member. But it is what it is, we either do better or we continue to be something of an irrelevance. Just because we think we have some good ideas doesn't mean shit

That's the strange thing. You say that you're a LibDem, but you come across as an anti-regulation neo-capitalist. If you're a LibDem, don't you believe in regulation? Don't you want to break up an oligopoly?

I think oligopolies are likely to be problematic, and I'm a Lib Dem partly because I believe in a regulated market. Still I don't put my faith in the current government legislating for the good in this, so I don't consider hoping for improved regulation to be any more useful than hoping for a lottery win.

And anyway, nothing is stopping people trying to build media options, other than mostly people cannot be bothered. And some better media outlets would be better. And yet despite complaining for decades about the unfairness of the media the left (including the Lib Dems for those like myself who'd consider them centre let) do nothing about it, granted sometimes they try, but even when they try they fail. And to succeed you need to win, which leaves trying again and being better as really the only practical option for mine. Or you could hope to win the lottery

Okay, it's just that you come across as very disparaging about regulation, for instance when you say that calling for it is 'whining'. You sound like (honestly, not a joke) more of a libertarian than a LibDem.

Agreed that hoping for better regulation under this government is like hoping for a lottery win. But it narrows the terms of the debate enormously if we only consider things that can be done, in this term, by those not in government. In fact it makes it impossible to criticize the government.

So, yeah, If we limit the scope of the discussion as above I agree that one of the best options in that short term is for the left to develop their own media voice in some way. However, in the longer term, even if this project were to be fabulously successful and create a left wing tabloid to rival the Sun, this would hardly be the complete solution to the problem. It would improve balance in newspapers, but they would still be projecting the opinions of a tiny number of billionaires to a large section of the population. What we actually need is to remove any single person from such a position of power, and that can only be done by regulation. Additionally, we would improve matters dramatically if 'news' and 'opinions' were strictly separated in newspapers and 'news' be subject to strong rules of impartiality (as they are in television), which would also require regulation.

[Digby]

Obviously. But that's like saying that it's against Xi Jinping's interests to introduce democracy to China. Obviously true, but does that mean that the Chinese people should not want him to? Or that it's not, nonetheless, the right thing for him to do?

That's the strange thing. You say that you're a LibDem, but you come across as an anti-regulation neo-capitalist. If you're a LibDem, don't you believe in regulation? Don't you want to break up an oligopoly?

I think oligopolies are likely to be problematic, and I'm a Lib Dem partly because I believe in a regulated market. Still I don't put my faith in the current government legislating for the good in this, so I don't consider hoping for improved regulation to be any more useful than hoping for a lottery win.

And anyway, nothing is stopping people trying to build media options, other than mostly people cannot be bothered. And some better media outlets would be better. And yet despite complaining for decades about the unfairness of the media the left (including the Lib Dems for those like myself who'd consider them centre let) do nothing about it, granted sometimes they try, but even when they try they fail. And to succeed you need to win, which leaves trying again and being better as really the only practical option for mine. Or you could hope to win the lottery

Okay, it's just that you come across as very disparaging about regulation, for instance when you say that calling for it is 'whining'. You sound like (honestly, not a joke) more of a libertarian than a LibDem.

Agreed that hoping for better regulation under this government is like hoping for a lottery win. But it narrows the terms of the debate enormously if we only consider things that can be done, in this term, by those not in government. In fact it makes it impossible to criticize the government.

So, yeah, If we limit the scope of the discussion as above I agree that one of the best options in that short term is for the left to develop their own media voice in some way. However, in the longer term, even if this project were to be fabulously successful and create a left wing tabloid to rival the Sun, this would hardly be the complete solution to the problem. It would improve balance in newspapers, but they would still be projecting the opinions of a tiny number of billionaires to a large section of the population. What we actually need is to remove any single person from such a position of power, and that can only be done by regulation. Additionally, we would improve matters dramatically if 'news' and 'opinions' were strictly separated in newspapers and 'news' be subject to strong rules of impartiality (as they are in television), which would also require regulation.

TV news is impartial? If I watch TV news it's likely to be Channel 4 news or Newsnight, and impartial isn't a word which springs to mind. I understand it's not a word many would associate with GB News either. BBC News and ITV I don't have much impression of other than it's asinine crap made for morons, sometimes they make it worse still be employing a Piers Morgan

TV news is less partial than the print or social media, but it's not impartial.

And yes, whinging about regulation before getting elected does sound like whining. We hear it in all walks of live, one of my favourites is Arsene Wenger explaining and frankly complaining if other teams would just back off and give his team space they'd pass them off the park. And especially when there is positive action which can be taken to instead complain others (and others who frankly don't agree with you) not acting as you want them to just seems... weak, and that lack of positivity, that can't do attitude does make it harder for the left with some % of the voting population.

I'm also not sure why millionaires and billionaires cannot put out newspapers which represent their ideas. I might not agree with them, I might not even like them, but I would have strong concerns in advance about trying to put in place a strongly regulated system which strips the right of individuals to express their ideas and to enforce upon them some notion of impartiality. Certainly I'd have concerns in advance about how that could work, if it could work, and what the costs to a free society might be, would it only prompt an ongoing version of whack-a-mole, and whither the extraordinary dissent?

I'm also not sure why people think it impossible to criticise the government, they get it in the neck from all sides all the time. Rightly so, but we certainly don't need to worry they get a free pass in the media. If they're getting a free pass with the voters on the back of lines like 'get Brexit done' then that's simply a failing of democracy and unless you've got a better plan we just need to suck it up

[Digby]

Oh, and in many ways I take not the slightest bit of concern in being told I sound like a libertarian, in many ways I'd consider myself one. Though many libertarians would I'm reasonably confident think I was a moron and a Socialist because we'd take some very different stances on what minimal state involvement means, and on the outcomes of those involvements

[Puja]

I'm also not sure why millionaires and billionaires cannot put out newspapers which represent their ideas. I might not agree with them, I might not even like them, but I would have strong concerns in advance about trying to put in place a strongly regulated system which strips the right of individuals to express their ideas and to enforce upon them some notion of impartiality. Certainly I'd have concerns in advance about how that could work, if it could work, and what the costs to a free society might be, would it only prompt an ongoing version of whack-a-mole, and whither the extraordinary dissent?

You genuinely have no problem with 1 person specifically controlling the message of a significant chunk of the country's media, influencing the votes of hundreds of thousands and swinging elections, simply because they have riches which they inherited from parents. You would regard any attempt to regulate using money as a megaphone as "stripping the right of individuals to express their ideas", despite the fact that the status quo means that only 4-5 ultra-rich people have the right to express their ideas in this way, out of the 70 million people in the UK.

That is... certainly some kind of belief structure that you have right there.

Puja

[morepork]

Is the function of the 4th estate to represent one person's ideas?

[Digby]

I'm also not sure why millionaires and billionaires cannot put out newspapers which represent their ideas. I might not agree with them, I might not even like them, but I would have strong concerns in advance about trying to put in place a strongly regulated system which strips the right of individuals to express their ideas and to enforce upon them some notion of impartiality. Certainly I'd have concerns in advance about how that could work, if it could work, and what the costs to a free society might be, would it only prompt an ongoing version of whack-a-mole, and whither the extraordinary dissent?

You genuinely have no problem with 1 person specifically controlling the message of a significant chunk of the country's media, influencing the votes of hundreds of thousands and swinging elections, simply because they have riches which they inherited from parents. You would regard any attempt to regulate using money as a megaphone as "stripping the right of individuals to express their ideas", despite the fact that the status quo means that only 4-5 ultra-rich people have the right to express their ideas in this way, out of the 70 million people in the UK.

That is... certainly some kind of belief structure that you have right there.

Puja

I'd have concerns about how you'd go about forcing the sale of a company, breaking up a company or what have you. But, put a plan on the table and I'd give it a gander, which was more the thinking of I'd have concerns in advance, not that no change or additional regulation could be contemplated

And I don't agree only 4-5 people get to express their views. Their views get a prominence, but that's always been the case for the powerful, and frankly it's never been easier for the underdog to get their message out. Indeed part of the problem is it's so easy to get a message out so many do their own messaging and there's a giant pile of ill-considered shit flooding the media. So there's a lot of effort, but it's not applied in collective fashion. And again, nothing has been stopping the left acting to push information from a lefty coalition/collective other than they cannot be bothered and/or agree on who should control that message and what it should be, I'd much rather they sort their shit out than whine, but they seem to prefer arguing between themselves as to who has the purest of visions

[Sandydragon]

Starmer has a massive problem in that he is seen as utterly tedious. I think he is very competent but probably is more of a supporting workhorse than the party leader. That might seem harsh but a leader needs to have a little personality.

Corbyn had charisma as leader but then became toxic as his politics became better known. I also think his strong GE showing was largely the result of May’s awful campaign.

You need a Labour leader who can cut through and appeal to normal people. I don’t think Angela Rayner is that person. She has personality but comments like Tory scum demonstrate a certain immaturity. Unless Burnham or Kahn step up (don’t think they will until after the next GE) then I don’t see the aspiring new leader who can move Labour forward.

This is the crux of it. Sir Keir Starmer QC isn't ever going to be able to appeal to normal people, no matter how often he mentions his working class upbringing. Labour needs a political outsider. Someone who has leadership experience in the real world, but not within the Westminster milieu. You might point out that Starmer was only an MP for a couple of years before he became leader, but the fact is his previous employment was as DPP so his office postcode moved from SW1H to SW1A when he became leader, so still Westminster milieu - he doesn't have that outsider feel.

As for Angela Rayner - if you objected to Corbyn (partly) because he was a bit thick, then you aren't doing much better with Angela Rayner.

Burnham perhaps has cleansed himself of that Westminster image a bit since he's been Manchester mayor, so could be a good candidate. But I still think he is too much of an insider to be the best choice. Kahn is probably realistically a poor choice from a pragmatic point of view due to his ethnicity (just an extra hurdle for certain people to be able to relate to him).

I think Burnham has the best chance out of that lot, but I do agree it’s not an inspiring field of candidates!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sandydragon]

Starmer has a massive problem in that he is seen as utterly tedious. I think he is very competent but probably is more of a supporting workhorse than the party leader. That might seem harsh but a leader needs to have a little personality.

Corbyn had charisma as leader but then became toxic as his politics became better known. I also think his strong GE showing was largely the result of May’s awful campaign.

You need a Labour leader who can cut through and appeal to normal people. I don’t think Angela Rayner is that person. She has personality but comments like Tory scum demonstrate a certain immaturity. Unless Burnham or Kahn step up (don’t think they will until after the next GE) then I don’t see the aspiring new leader who can move Labour forward.

This is the crux of it. Sir Keir Starmer QC isn't ever going to be able to appeal to normal people, no matter how often he mentions his working class upbringing. Labour needs a political outsider. Someone who has leadership experience in the real world, but not within the Westminster milieu. You might point out that Starmer was only an MP for a couple of years before he became leader, but the fact is his previous employment was as DPP so his office postcode moved from SW1H to SW1A when he became leader, so still Westminster milieu - he doesn't have that outsider feel.

As for Angela Rayner - if you objected to Corbyn (partly) because he was a bit thick, then you aren't doing much better with Angela Rayner.

Burnham perhaps has cleansed himself of that Westminster image a bit since he's been Manchester mayor, so could be a good candidate. But I still think he is too much of an insider to be the best choice. Kahn is probably realistically a poor choice from a pragmatic point of view due to his ethnicity (just an extra hurdle for certain people to be able to relate to him).

That said, Sir Kier Hardy can’t break through to ordinary people but Boris Bullington Johnson can? I’d suggest more about charisma than background


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Son of Mathonwy]

Oh, and in many ways I take not the slightest bit of concern in being told I sound like a libertarian, in many ways I'd consider myself one. Though many libertarians would I'm reasonably confident think I was a moron and a Socialist because we'd take some very different stances on what minimal state involvement means, and on the outcomes of those involvements

The mystery then is why you support the LibDems. But I shouldn't complain, better they get your vote than the Tories.

As for your earlier post, I think I'd just be repeating myself if I tried to reply.

[cashead]

Why the fuck would anyone support Labor?

[Digby]

Oh, and in many ways I take not the slightest bit of concern in being told I sound like a libertarian, in many ways I'd consider myself one. Though many libertarians would I'm reasonably confident think I was a moron and a Socialist because we'd take some very different stances on what minimal state involvement means, and on the outcomes of those involvements

The mystery then is why you support the LibDems. But I shouldn't complain, better they get your vote than the Tories.

As for your earlier post, I think I'd just be repeating myself if I tried to reply.

Because whilst I want to remove regulation I believe in sufficient regulation not minimal state intervention for the sake of it. Because I don't think that private inherently means better than public. And frankly because I think a more equal society ultimately is more beneficial and even in the self interest of said society than allowing more rampant self interest.

I think you'd be repeating yourself too, but frankly who does otherwise.

[Digby]

Why the fuck would anyone support Labor?

Never even seen them on the ballot paper so probably no one will.

Labour will attract a lot of votes, mine included as things stand.

[Puja]

Why the fuck would anyone support Labor?

At the moment, because they are the most credible opposition to the incompetent, corrupt, and selfish government that we currently have.

I'm hoping they'll have come up with some reasons for voting by the time the election comes along, rather than just resting on reasons against the other lot.

Puja

[cashead]

Why the fuck would anyone support Labor?

Never even seen them on the ballot paper so probably no one will.

Labour will attract a lot of votes, mine included as things stand.

Shut the fuck up.

Why the fuck would anyone support Labor?

At the moment, because they are the most credible opposition to the incompetent, corrupt, and selfish government that we currently have.

I'm hoping they'll have come up with some reasons for voting by the time the election comes along, rather than just resting on reasons against the other lot.

Puja

On the other hand, they're pretty worthless at the moment.

[Puja]

I don't get what is so controversial about the idea that being an MP should be a full-time job. If I told my work that I wanted to do another job and only do theirs part-time, but still get paid full salary because I reckoned I could get enough work done in 2 days a week, they'd understandably have questions. Even if I pointed out that it would give me "real world experience of life outside of their bubble."

On the other hand, they're pretty worthless at the moment.

Indeed. At the moment, my vote's going Green - probably a waste in my constituency, but right now, so's anything that's not Conservative, and Green actually have some beliefs and policies, unlike Labour.

Puja

[cashead]

If you're an MP and having so much time to spare that you're off doing another job, then what fucking use are you as an MP?

Also, seriously? MPs getting paid by third parties? How fucking greasy can you get? Miss me with that shit, the fucking grifters.

[Zhivago]

Starmer has a massive problem in that he is seen as utterly tedious. I think he is very competent but probably is more of a supporting workhorse than the party leader. That might seem harsh but a leader needs to have a little personality.

Corbyn had charisma as leader but then became toxic as his politics became better known. I also think his strong GE showing was largely the result of May’s awful campaign.

You need a Labour leader who can cut through and appeal to normal people. I don’t think Angela Rayner is that person. She has personality but comments like Tory scum demonstrate a certain immaturity. Unless Burnham or Kahn step up (don’t think they will until after the next GE) then I don’t see the aspiring new leader who can move Labour forward.

This is the crux of it. Sir Keir Starmer QC isn't ever going to be able to appeal to normal people, no matter how often he mentions his working class upbringing. Labour needs a political outsider. Someone who has leadership experience in the real world, but not within the Westminster milieu. You might point out that Starmer was only an MP for a couple of years before he became leader, but the fact is his previous employment was as DPP so his office postcode moved from SW1H to SW1A when he became leader, so still Westminster milieu - he doesn't have that outsider feel.

As for Angela Rayner - if you objected to Corbyn (partly) because he was a bit thick, then you aren't doing much better with Angela Rayner.

Burnham perhaps has cleansed himself of that Westminster image a bit since he's been Manchester mayor, so could be a good candidate. But I still think he is too much of an insider to be the best choice. Kahn is probably realistically a poor choice from a pragmatic point of view due to his ethnicity (just an extra hurdle for certain people to be able to relate to him).

That said, Sir Kier Hardy can’t break through to ordinary people but Boris Bullington Johnson can? I’d suggest more about charisma than background


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well they are targetting different groups. Boris only pulls traditional labour voters due to Brexit in my opinion, although he does indeed have more charisma, and generally takes a more optimistic rhetoric. Labour tend to campaign quite negatively, a lot of what they argue is anti-Tory, but they would be better off focusing more on their own optimistic vision for Britain.

[Sandydragon]

This is the crux of it. Sir Keir Starmer QC isn't ever going to be able to appeal to normal people, no matter how often he mentions his working class upbringing. Labour needs a political outsider. Someone who has leadership experience in the real world, but not within the Westminster milieu. You might point out that Starmer was only an MP for a couple of years before he became leader, but the fact is his previous employment was as DPP so his office postcode moved from SW1H to SW1A when he became leader, so still Westminster milieu - he doesn't have that outsider feel.

As for Angela Rayner - if you objected to Corbyn (partly) because he was a bit thick, then you aren't doing much better with Angela Rayner.

Burnham perhaps has cleansed himself of that Westminster image a bit since he's been Manchester mayor, so could be a good candidate. But I still think he is too much of an insider to be the best choice. Kahn is probably realistically a poor choice from a pragmatic point of view due to his ethnicity (just an extra hurdle for certain people to be able to relate to him).

That said, Sir Kier Hardy can’t break through to ordinary people but Boris Bullington Johnson can? I’d suggest more about charisma than background


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well they are targetting different groups. Boris only pulls traditional labour voters due to Brexit in my opinion, although he does indeed have more charisma, and generally takes a more optimistic rhetoric. Labour tend to campaign quite negatively, a lot of what they argue is anti-Tory, but they would be better off focusing more on their own optimistic vision for Britain.

Bashing the opposition is always a risk. Boris has always had a wider appeal which isn’t just about Brexit. I think people genuinely find him amusing. Personally that joke wore off over a decade ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Digby]

Why the fuck would anyone support Labor?

Never even seen them on the ballot paper so probably no one will.

Labour will attract a lot of votes, mine included as things stand.

Shut the fuck up.

Why the fuck would anyone support Labor?

At the moment, because they are the most credible opposition to the incompetent, corrupt, and selfish government that we currently have.

I'm hoping they'll have come up with some reasons for voting by the time the election comes along, rather than just resting on reasons against the other lot.

Puja

On the other hand, they're pretty worthless at the moment.

Congrats on calling some people worthless and swearing at others. If anything this evidences progress on your behalf

[Son of Mathonwy]

On the other hand, they're pretty worthless at the moment.

Better that than actively harmful.

[cashead]

Never even seen them on the ballot paper so probably no one will.

Labour will attract a lot of votes, mine included as things stand.

Shut the fuck up.

At the moment, because they are the most credible opposition to the incompetent, corrupt, and selfish government that we currently have.

I'm hoping they'll have come up with some reasons for voting by the time the election comes along, rather than just resting on reasons against the other lot.

Puja

On the other hand, they're pretty worthless at the moment.

Congrats on calling some people worthless and swearing at others. If anything this evidences progress on your behalf

Go cry about it some more, and fuck off with the tone-policing while you’re at it.

[cashead]

On the other hand, they're pretty worthless at the moment.

Better that than actively harmful.

Yeah, but worthless ain't gonna cut it when you're in opposition.

We saw the same thing in NZ, which seems to be the Crosby-Textor beta test political scene, where we had our own Tory scum PM with a carefully manufactured buffoon act stay in power while being actively harmful to the nation.

NZ Labour managed to tip the scales in their favour when they installed a leader that had massive public appeal, and used CT tactics against the government, which was wrapped up in a message of relentless positivity.

There's also something to be said in often speaking publicly in easy-to-digest soundbites. "Oven Ready Brexit." "Get Brexit Done." Like, you knew exactly what they were trying to sell. Compare that to "It's time for a real change," which J-Corbz evidently thought was a real vote winner. The fuck does it even mean? It's bland, vague and it sounds so generic.

There are a lot of other factors, mind, like FPP being the shittiest shitty shit voting system that was ever shat out by a bunch of shits that know fuck about shit, or the complete lack of party discipline in 2019 - I hope Mumbly Joe or Sir Kevin or whatever he calls him self has managed to keep a lid on that sort of thing.

[Son of Mathonwy]

On the other hand, they're pretty worthless at the moment.

Better that than actively harmful.

Yeah, but worthless ain't gonna cut it when you're in opposition.

We saw the same thing in NZ, which seems to be the Crosby-Textor beta test political scene, where we had our own Tory scum PM with a carefully manufactured buffoon act stay in power while being actively harmful to the nation.

NZ Labour managed to tip the scales in their favour when they installed a leader that had massive public appeal, and used CT tactics against the government, which was wrapped up in a message of relentless positivity.

There's also something to be said in often speaking publicly in easy-to-digest soundbites. "Oven Ready Brexit." "Get Brexit Done." Like, you knew exactly what they were trying to sell. Compare that to "It's time for a real change," which J-Corbz evidently thought was a real vote winner. The fuck does it even mean? It's bland, vague and it sounds so generic.

There are a lot of other factors, mind, like FPP being the shittiest shitty shit voting system that was ever shat out by a bunch of shits that know fuck about shit, or the complete lack of party discipline in 2019 - I hope Mumbly Joe or Sir Kevin or whatever he calls him self has managed to keep a lid on that sort of thing.

Yes, that's a good tactic. Unfortunately none of the candidates had it.

[cashead]

Better that than actively harmful.

Yeah, but worthless ain't gonna cut it when you're in opposition.

We saw the same thing in NZ, which seems to be the Crosby-Textor beta test political scene, where we had our own Tory scum PM with a carefully manufactured buffoon act stay in power while being actively harmful to the nation.

NZ Labour managed to tip the scales in their favour when they installed a leader that had massive public appeal, and used CT tactics against the government, which was wrapped up in a message of relentless positivity.

There's also something to be said in often speaking publicly in easy-to-digest soundbites. "Oven Ready Brexit." "Get Brexit Done." Like, you knew exactly what they were trying to sell. Compare that to "It's time for a real change," which J-Corbz evidently thought was a real vote winner. The fuck does it even mean? It's bland, vague and it sounds so generic.

There are a lot of other factors, mind, like FPP being the shittiest shitty shit voting system that was ever shat out by a bunch of shits that know fuck about shit, or the complete lack of party discipline in 2019 - I hope Mumbly Joe or Sir Kevin or whatever he calls him self has managed to keep a lid on that sort of thing.

Yes, that's a good tactic. Unfortunately none of the candidates had it.

Ardern isn't someone that popped in out of nowhere. She succeeded Andrew Little, who was able to unite the caucus (credit should go to his first deputy, Annette King, who had connections across the various factions, and helped unite them under his banner), and when she retired, he promoted Ardern as his deputy. Early on, she was pegged as a potential future Party Leader, and it's just that it came a lot sooner than anyone had expected.

Surely there's someone similar who's young and has been pegged for big things down the line?