[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Zizu

Sounds horrendous though stats can be interpreted in different ways ..




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

If you have a different way to interpret that, then go for it. Tories told everyone what they were going to do and they did it. They cut the bottom out of the safety nets whilst exploding the debt they told everyone they were making the cuts to reduce.

[Tom4784]

I don't think anyone with common sense should like the UK as it stands, it's terrible and nothing will ever change because the public don't mind swallowing Tory **** because they think that someone they don't like is suffering worse.

We live in a repugnant spineless country, and the few things that are good about it atm are under threat by the tories and a complacent public that's all too happy with Boris stamping on their throats.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Swan

1.5 million? That sounds like way too many. That's an insane number!

You're right. I mixed up food parcel numbers with foodbanks. It was 40k food parcels handed out in 2010 versus 1.7-2m in the year before the pandemic.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

The left has been purged completely from labour, which is a weird way to surrender your party to the loudest, "woke" mob.

This is largely correct but it's left behind a husk and not much more; a barebones collection of people without a core ideology lurching between New Labour and Corbynism instead of wiping the table and refocussing on the core issues that centre-left voters are actually concerned with, areas that are being failed in massively by the Tories as you've pointed out.

Given that and your other thread, there are two things I'd add to what I said before;

I think labour have been very guilty of performative "wokeness", or what might often be termed "champagne socialism" in an attempt to appeal to a group that seems bigger than it is, because it's louder than its size in numbers, but a lot of that rhetoric and a lot of those policies don't appeal whatsoever to the centre-left, or really, just to the average joe who can largely see that the Tories are uncaring scum but are more afraid of that loud group of moral absolutists. "Better the devil" and all that.

Which plays into the second point I had here; you point out that the left has been pretty much purged, I agree or at least agree that the top of the party is trying hard to do so, however ... it would be a massive assumption to think that the bulk of voters are politically active or aware enough to actually know what's happening within Labour. Labour will = Corbyn for quite a few years to come in the minds of the less-politically-engaged.

[Swan]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

You're right. I mixed up food parcel numbers with foodbanks. It was 40k food parcels handed out in 2010 versus 1.7-2m in the year before the pandemic.

Well it doesn't read well either way. Though it would be fair to factor in a growing population (over 4 million since 2010) and the lack of job opportunities over the past 10 years. The rise of internet shopping, Amazon etc. A large majority of retail workers, immigrants arriving with nothing but the shirt on their backs was always going to lead the need for more food/shelter, no matter which government was in charge.

The number is too many, 1 is too many, however people falling on hard times was always going to be inevitable (mainly due to the rise of internet shopping and buying habits changing). Would Labour over the last 10 years had a reduced number? Who knows, realistically it's impossible to know.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Swan

Well it doesn't read well either way. Though it would be fair to factor in a growing population (over 4 million since 2010) and the lack of job opportunities over the past 10 years. The rise of internet shopping, Amazon etc. A large majority of retail workers, immigrants arriving with nothing but the shirt on their backs was always going to lead the need for more food/shelter, no matter which government was in charge.

The number is too many, 1 is too many, however people falling on hard times was always going to be inevitable (mainly due to the rise of internet shopping and buying habits changing). Would Labour over the last 10 years had a reduced number? Who knows, realistically it's impossible to know.

The UK population was 62m in 2010, an increase of 4m wouldn't push up the number of food banks and such so much based on that alone.

You mention a lack of job opportunities for the past ten years, pray tell, which party has been in charge for the past ten years? It's down to governments to foster economic growth. The idea that things would have been the same under any government is baseless conjecture that serves to defend the incompetence of the tory governments.

[Swan]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

The UK population was 62m in 2010, an increase of 4m wouldn't push up the number of food banks and such so much based on that alone.

You mention a lack of job opportunities for the past ten years, pray tell, which party has been in charge for the past ten years? It's down to governments to foster economic growth. The idea that things would have been the same under any government is baseless conjecture that serves to defend the incompetence of the tory governments.

All im saying is no Government could have controlled the decline in Retail when every year more people turn to internet shopping as their primary source for spending. Im not defending anyone. It's just common sense. A growing population and the lack of Jobs inevitably would have played a huge part in so many needing to turn to food banks.

Im not saying it's right, im saying it's basic logic.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Dr Janice Morphet, a visiting professor at University College London and author of Beyond
Brexit, has said: “a good showing at the local elections could encourage Johnson to make
a run for an early general election - after a good summer, while booster jabs are being
given and before any new variants require further lockdowns later in the year”. Whether
that happens or not, Starmer’s next moves will be vital. As even he admits, his party still
has “a mountain to climb” to win back voters.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...e-b933749.html

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Zizu

In my humble opinion, Starmer ‘looked’ potentially good for about the first 2 weeks of his ‘reign’ and I was rather optimistic about the political scene .. then he very rapidly just became a complete joke early last year .

Initially he was backing the government in everything - as they fought against Covid began promising that the political parties would all fight as one against the pandemic... that lasted a few weeks and then he started jumping on any passing bandwagon that found any kind of fault with the Tory strategies.

Now he’s almost a caricature of his former , poll winning self ... he’s actually not even worth listening to now .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Yes you are spot on there...

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Swan

All im saying is no Government could have controlled the decline in Retail when every year more people turn to internet shopping as their primary source for spending. Im not defending anyone. It's just common sense. A growing population and the lack of Jobs inevitably would have played a huge part in so many needing to turn to food banks.

Im not saying it's right, im saying it's basic logic.

The retail and service sectors are actually still growing, service sector still substantially, physical retail is stagnating but it's not falling (yet). Yes there have been company and store closures with certain brands and "the highstreet" is flagging, but the sector overall isn't in decline and so there aren't fewer jobs requiring experienced retail staff. The massive increase in food bank use simply can't be attributed to retail job losses.

That said, I haven't seen any solid data on what the cause IS so can't make any concrete statements about fault. HOWEVER, the most likely culprits are increasing cost of living and (especially) increasing cost of housing as a percentage of income leaving less money for other things and increasing difficulty for other things after essential bills. These are the main factors in increasing child poverty, and increasing child poverty is one of the major factors in increasing foodbank usage.

[edit to add]

Why this is relevant; The Government absolutely COULD be doing more to control ballooning property prices, rents and household fuel costs.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Swan

All im saying is no Government could have controlled the decline in Retail when every year more people turn to internet shopping as their primary source for spending. Im not defending anyone. It's just common sense. A growing population and the lack of Jobs inevitably would have played a huge part in so many needing to turn to food banks.

Im not saying it's right, im saying it's basic logic.

That's still baseless conjecture. You don't know how other governments could have adapted, you're just assuming one thing based off the government we had.

[Swan]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

That's still baseless conjecture. You don't know how other governments could have adapted, you're just assuming one thing based off the government we had.

And you're just assuming i think the Tories have done better than what Labour would have. Im saying there is no way to know.

You're free to point out where i said the tories have done a great job, and that Labour would have been terrible. But again, i didn't say anything of the sort.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

This is largely correct but it's left behind a husk and not much more; a barebones collection of people without a core ideology lurching between New Labour and Corbynism instead of wiping the table and refocussing on the core issues that centre-left voters are actually concerned with, areas that are being failed in massively by the Tories as you've pointed out.

Given that and your other thread, there are two things I'd add to what I said before;

I think labour have been very guilty of performative "wokeness", or what might often be termed "champagne socialism" in an attempt to appeal to a group that seems bigger than it is, because it's louder than its size in numbers, but a lot of that rhetoric and a lot of those policies don't appeal whatsoever to the centre-left, or really, just to the average joe who can largely see that the Tories are uncaring scum but are more afraid of that loud group of moral absolutists. "Better the devil" and all that.

Which plays into the second point I had here; you point out that the left has been pretty much purged, I agree or at least agree that the top of the party is trying hard to do so, however ... it would be a massive assumption to think that the bulk of voters are politically active or aware enough to actually know what's happening within Labour. Labour will = Corbyn for quite a few years to come in the minds of the less-politically-engaged.

There isn't any Corbyn faction left, so I completely disagree with you saying there is a husk. The left have been completely ejected and sidelined. This current labour party should be a centrist/labour rights paradise. Where is the Corbynism coming from within the party?

If voters still see Corbyn as the problem with labour, then it's interesting they would wait for him to leave before taking it out on the party, because Corbyn had his own party working against him from the minute he took over, and never once performed this badly, and his policies are still extremely popular when polled.

There is a simpler explanation that the country is lurching dangerously to the right, and with the soapbox and media amplifying the same dangerous non-conformist buzzwords into their mics everyday, it is the natural conclusion, when coupled with a narcissistic pm and his cabal actively looking to take advantage of the situation for themselves.

I believe the use of wokeness is little more than a method to delegitimise anyone that speaks up against the regime. The courts are woke according to Boris and Priti, folks saying don't be racist are woke according to Andrew Neil, and on and on it goes.

It's easier to call someone woke than to ponder out loud why they can't be as racist as they'd like. It also has the aspect of divide and conquor purposefully built in, and when mixed with the English love of all things toff, it works as we're seeing.

[Swan]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The retail and service sectors are actually still growing, service sector still substantially, physical retail is stagnating but it's not falling (yet). Yes there have been company and store closures with certain brands and "the highstreet" is flagging, but the sector overall isn't in decline and so there aren't fewer jobs requiring experienced retail staff. The massive increase in food bank use simply can't be attributed to retail job losses.

That said, I haven't seen any solid data on what the cause IS so can't make any concrete statements about fault. HOWEVER, the most likely culprits are increasing cost of living and (especially) increasing cost of housing as a percentage of income leaving less money for other things and increasing difficulty for other things after essential bills. These are the main factors in increasing child poverty, and increasing child poverty is one of the major factors in increasing foodbank usage.

[edit to add]

Why this is relevant; The Government absolutely COULD be doing more to control ballooning property prices, rents and household fuel costs.

What you've added to my argument i agree with. House pricing, the lack of affordable housing, and the lack housing in general has played a huge part too.

bib - Yep i'll happily agree with that.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

There isn't any Corbyn faction left, so I completely disagree with you saying there is a husk. The left have been completely ejected and sidelined. This current labour party should be a centrist/labour rights paradise. Where is the Corbynism coming from within the party?

Within the party (as in the party membership) there is still a massive Corbyn support base... I personally know people who are committed Corbynists and are heavily active within the party (people who were at events rubbing shoulders with Corbyn himself 2 years ago). "The Party" in this sense is not the active career politicians of the party who I agree have been actively purged. But then, again, with that I would say there's a difference between the SMALL proportion of politically engaged people knowing this element has been purged, and the bulk of the general voting public knowing this. I would guess from some pretty anecdotal evidence that the bulk of voters are not aware of how quickly this has happened, and they will associate Labour with Corbynesque policies and actions for a good few years.

If voters still see Corbyn as the problem with labour, then it's interesting they would wait for him to leave before taking it out on the party, because Corbyn had his own party working against him from the minute he took over, and never once performed this badly, and his policies are still extremely popular when polled.

I agree to an extent but you could argue that they haven't "waited for him to leave" - the party never did well under Corbyn, and the fact that they're doing even worse now can surely be attributed to them losing many of his supporters whilst failing to gain back many of his skeptics. This is why a flip-flopping party is always going to be in decline... every time they flip they lose some support, and then when they flop, it doesn't all come back.

There is a simpler explanation that the country is lurching dangerously to the right, and with the soapbox and media amplifying the same dangerous non-conformist buzzwords into their mics everyday, it is the natural conclusion, when coupled with a narcissistic pm and his cabal actively looking to take advantage of the situation for themselves.

Absolutely there is a concerning slide to the right and of course Tories are going to be scrabbling to take advantage; sadly, they do it rather well and people are successfully being hoodwinked into believing that the Tories aren't just "unconcerned for the poor" - but that they have concern for anyone other than the actually-wealthy.

I think though there's a very real and very problematic shying-away when it comes to examining and acknowledging WHY this surge in sympathies for the right is happening, WHY there's been a foothold for the Tories to exploit in the first place. Why is their tune reaching so many ears? What fears are they exploiting to gain that support (and it is, always, down to fear). Identity politics, "right-think", moral absolutism and tribalism and some of the worst and most aggressive aspects of left-leaning political rhetoric play into this in HUGE ways and it's going to be unstoppable for as long as people dogmatically refuse to acknowledge it. Are there bigots attached to it? Of course, yes, but there are also huge numbers of people who think of themselves more as individualists/libertarians who are prepared to "join the battle against it" and (very very sadly) many who don't fall into that category but are worried enough by the push towards anti-intellectualism to abandon Labour, who have (in the past) been keen to support it, out of ... "wokeness". Disingenuous support for something they mistakenly believe is wildly popular. These people will never vote Tory but they're being siphoned off. To the SNP up here. To the Greens and even it seems back to the Lib Dems down south. Which will always leave the Tories with disproportionate power because of FPTP voting.

I believe the use of wokeness is little more than a method to delegitimise anyone that speaks up against the regime. The courts are woke according to Boris and Priti, folks saying don't be racist are woke according to Andrew Neil, and on and on it goes.

It's easier to call someone woke than to ponder out loud why they can't be as racist as they'd like. It also has the aspect of divide and conquor purposefully built in, and when mixed with the English love of all things toff, it works as we're seeing.

Of course it's over-simplified and weaponised but it's not the first term that has been or will be and if that makes terms off-limits we'll just be in a constant battle to find new words to sum up the same things. The problem comes when people want to scoff, be dismissive, say "Pfft u are just a woke!" as a shut-down tactic. I don't think that should stop a term being examined to see if it is in any way "a real thing", or preclude discussion of whther or not it might be a bad thing. To try to ignore that anti-intellectualism, populism, moral absolutism and group-think are huge problems on the left is ultimately not going to help anyone. Are there comparable issues on the right? Yes of course there are ... but that's not really the point. You don't ignore your own house's problems because the neighbours have similar issues.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Within the party (as in the party membership) there is still a massive Corbyn support base... I personally know people who are committed Corbynists and are heavily active within the party (people who were at events rubbing shoulders with Corbyn himself 2 years ago). "The Party" in this sense is not the active career politicians of the party who I agree have been actively purged. But then, again, with that I would say there's a difference between the SMALL proportion of politically engaged people knowing this element has been purged, and the bulk of the general voting public knowing this. I would guess from some pretty anecdotal evidence that the bulk of voters are not aware of how quickly this has happened, and they will associate Labour with Corbynesque policies and actions for a good few years.

Of course there would be support for Corbyn within what should be a left wing party, but a look at the membership numbers shows they are falling through the floor. Labour are putting themselves in a political no mans land by not standing for anything. Starmer has dropped his election pledges, not Corbyn or the left. Again, Corbyn's policies were always more popular than the party when the gbp is polled. It's way too simplistic to even attempt to put this on "well the voters didn't know that Corbyn wasn't there" when we've seen Starmers poll numbers, and the constant freefall. The same voters that had him as popular when he took over, can't now, with a straight face or a modicum of honesty try and say that his popularity has fallen because of Corbyn.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I agree to an extent but you could argue that they haven't "waited for him to leave" - the party never did well under Corbyn, and the fact that they're doing even worse now can surely be attributed to them losing many of his supporters whilst failing to gain back many of his skeptics. This is why a flip-flopping party is always going to be in decline... every time they flip they lose some support, and then when they flop, it doesn't all come back.

The party hasn't done well for decades, apart from a brief spell in the 90's - 00's so there has again been a consistent downward trend. Again, it's just not true to put that on Corbyn, especially when he did well in 17, and that's when we saw the media and his own party turn completely crazy with the lies. I've never seen any politician offer hope to young people in the same way Corby did/does, because his message resonates. People are free to like or dislike Corbyn, I think he had faults as a politician, but I'm not really interested in listening to the constant lies about him or his character.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Absolutely there is a concerning slide to the right and of course Tories are going to be scrabbling to take advantage; sadly, they do it rather well and people are successfully being hoodwinked into believing that the Tories aren't just "unconcerned for the poor" - but that they have concern for anyone other than the actually-wealthy.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I think though there's a very real and very problematic shying-away when it comes to examining and acknowledging WHY this surge in sympathies for the right is happening, WHY there's been a foothold for the Tories to exploit in the first place. Why is their tune reaching so many ears? What fears are they exploiting to gain that support (and it is, always, down to fear). Identity politics, "right-think", moral absolutism and tribalism and some of the worst and most aggressive aspects of left-leaning political rhetoric play into this in HUGE ways and it's going to be unstoppable for as long as people dogmatically refuse to acknowledge it. Are there bigots attached to it? Of course, yes, but there are also huge numbers of people who think of themselves more as individualists/libertarians who are prepared to "join the battle against it" and (very very sadly) many who don't fall into that category but are worried enough by the push towards anti-intellectualism to abandon Labour, who have (in the past) been keen to support it, out of ... "wokeness". Disingenuous support for something they mistakenly believe is wildly popular. These people will never vote Tory but they're being siphoned off. To the SNP up here. To the Greens and even it seems back to the Lib Dems down south. Which will always leave the Tories with disproportionate power because of FPTP voting.

Lets cut to the chase. You mentioned this in the other thread about moral absolutes, but until you expand on what areas you think these exist, then I'll never really know the definitions and parameters of the discussion, so would ask that you're specific in what areas these exist.

In my opinion, this lurch to the right isn't complicated. We've seen it in pretty much every place in the world at different times on both the left and right. A government creates a crisis at home that attacks the needs of it's population (austerity), attacking mostly the lives of the working and middle classes, but it has this ready made solution and group to blame (Immigrants, the EU), and they know how to fix it with multiple silver bullets - leave the eu to fund our NHS, end wokeness (whatever that fcuking word is supposed to mean), all the time dividing and conquering as they go along. It's not a new thing.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Of course it's over-simplified and weaponised but it's not the first term that has been or will be and if that makes terms off-limits we'll just be in a constant battle to find new words to sum up the same things. The problem comes when people want to scoff, be dismissive, say "Pfft u are just a woke!" as a shut-down tactic. I don't think that should stop a term being examined to see if it is in any way "a real thing", or preclude discussion of whther or not it might be a bad thing. To try to ignore that anti-intellectualism, populism, moral absolutism and group-think are huge problems on the left is ultimately not going to help anyone. Are there comparable issues on the right? Yes of course there are ... but that's not really the point. You don't ignore your own house's problems because the neighbours have similar issues.

Again, I need to see your working outs, because although I don't necessarily disagree, at the moment there aren't any specifics.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Swan

And you're just assuming i think the Tories have done better than what Labour would have. Im saying there is no way to know.

You're free to point out where i said the tories have done a great job, and that Labour would have been terrible. But again, i didn't say anything of the sort.

And I never said you did, try reading what I actually said before you try to ram words down my throat.

I rejected the idea that you said that any government would have changed the landscape of the retail or work environment and the economy, I said that was baseless conjecture that had the added effect of defending the current government whether you meant that or not. We don't know how other party led governments would have reacted so saying that it would have been no different regardless of the leadership is baseless conjecture.

Try arguing against what I'm actually saying, not what your imagination says I wrote.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Lets cut to the chase. You mentioned this in the other thread about moral absolutes, but until you expand on what areas you think these exist, then I'll never really know the definitions and parameters of the discussion, so would ask that you're specific in what areas these exist.

Gender and general identity philosophy, race issues, issues relating to and interwoven with mental health (slightly more complex and highly related to identity politics)... to give specific examples... but it’s broader than that.

As a summing up, it’s whenever and wherever someone is deciding what “feels right” and then creating the intellectual structures to prove that it is in fact right after the fact. Deciding on the conclusion and then developing the thinking to fit the conclusion rather than the other way around. Then the secondary aspect where it becomes about group identity; it becomes not even about deciding what feels right as a starting point, but rather “accepting the group consensus on what is right” and going from there. It doesn’t apply to everyone who holds any opinion or set of opinions obviously but it is easy to spot because people immediately fall apart when asked to elaborate. They can’t offer any real advice on reaching their conclusion because they didn’t reach the conclusion for themselves, so the result is frustrated (often young) people insisting “what I think is right, you just think as I think!” Whilst being totally unable to tackle the “why?”.

Again that’s where my thoughts on it get complicated. Often the conclusions are perfectly sound and reasonable. But the aggression that comes with frustration at being unable to justify those conclusions when pushed is significant and offputting . So people have to be categorised, and some people are right, and some are wrong, and they are the enemy.

It’s not a partisan left-right issue it applies across the board. A gammon is no better-reasoned than a woke. But the key point is that both are fundamentally positive that they are RIGHT, based mostly on things they have been told rather than their own reasoning, and being asked for their reasoning is deemed an offensive challenge and will most likely see you labelled as [something] and others warned that you are [something].

But yeah basically my observation (worry?) is that I see a lot of the same types of people with the same types of thinking (or lack of thinking) right across the political spectrum, and that is the real problem. That is the massive well of emotion-driven crude oil that the politicians are more than happy to exploit.

The major differences are that the driving factor on the left is the concept of moralism and group-wellbeing whereas the right tends towards impulses for selfishness and individualism.

I’d argue that that’s why the right finds it so much easier to “get the numbers” too... at the base level, humans are instinctually driven towards selfish gains; the survival of self first and foremost and then small groups with close ties. Genuine concern “for mankind” or larger groups isn’t something that comes to people easily and actually REQUIRES a deeper level of philosophical and introspective thought. Divide and conquer is part of it but divide and conquer isn’t even difficult when all you actually have to do is distract and people will automatically tend towards self-interest.

[GoldHeart]

It doesn't help that there's so much Tory bias everywhere , especially in the media.

Labour are not taken seriously anymore, and it doesn't help the fact that Starmer might aswell be Tory, he's a complete snakey tool and I don't like him.

[arista]

John McDonnell
said on Marr BBC1HD
he (Starmer) needs to give Jeremy Corbyn back his whip?

[LeatherTrumpet]

SIR – There is an irony to Labour losing its core “working-class” vote in the Hartlepool by-election.

The party was created to defend the rights of workers against the elite ruling class but has evolved to become the party of and for that class, now made up of (among others) university-educated metropolitans, the judiciary, education institutions, the Civil Service and the BBC.

Dr David Slawson
Nairn

SIR – Sir Keir Starmer stood shoulder to shoulder with Jeremy Corbyn, seeking to make him prime minister in full knowledge of his economic illiteracy, contempt for patriotism and support for anti-Semitic factions. He voted to remain in the EU – and, had things gone his way, we would be part of its vaccine programme.

What judgment. The British people have no difficulty in seeing him for what he is: a master of hindsight and opportunism.

David Crigman QC
Birmingham

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Gender and general identity philosophy, race issues, issues relating to and interwoven with mental health (slightly more complex and highly related to identity politics)... to give specific examples... but it’s broader than that.

As a summing up, it’s whenever and wherever someone is deciding what “feels right” and then creating the intellectual structures to prove that it is in fact right after the fact. Deciding on the conclusion and then developing the thinking to fit the conclusion rather than the other way around. Then the secondary aspect where it becomes about group identity; it becomes not even about deciding what feels right as a starting point, but rather “accepting the group consensus on what is right” and going from there. It doesn’t apply to everyone who holds any opinion or set of opinions obviously but it is easy to spot because people immediately fall apart when asked to elaborate. They can’t offer any real advice on reaching their conclusion because they didn’t reach the conclusion for themselves, so the result is frustrated (often young) people insisting “what I think is right, you just think as I think!” Whilst being totally unable to tackle the “why?”.

Again that’s where my thoughts on it get complicated. Often the conclusions are perfectly sound and reasonable. But the aggression that comes with frustration at being unable to justify those conclusions when pushed is significant and offputting . So people have to be categorised, and some people are right, and some are wrong, and they are the enemy.

It’s not a partisan left-right issue it applies across the board. A gammon is no better-reasoned than a woke. But the key point is that both are fundamentally positive that they are RIGHT, based mostly on things they have been told rather than their own reasoning, and being asked for their reasoning is deemed an offensive challenge and will most likely see you labelled as [something] and others warned that you are [something].

But yeah basically my observation (worry?) is that I see a lot of the same types of people with the same types of thinking (or lack of thinking) right across the political spectrum, and that is the real problem. That is the massive well of emotion-driven crude oil that the politicians are more than happy to exploit.

The major differences are that the driving factor on the left is the concept of moralism and group-wellbeing whereas the right tends towards impulses for selfishness and individualism.

I’d argue that that’s why the right finds it so much easier to “get the numbers” too... at the base level, humans are instinctually driven towards selfish gains; the survival of self first and foremost and then small groups with close ties. Genuine concern “for mankind” or larger groups isn’t something that comes to people easily and actually REQUIRES a deeper level of philosophical and introspective thought. Divide and conquer is part of it but divide and conquer isn’t even difficult when all you actually have to do is distract and people will automatically tend towards self-interest.

There are definitely areas of both agreement and disagreement here, but I'm going to say we need to break them down further. For example, what is the moral absolute you think is objectional when it comes to racial equality, and what thinking argument needs to be made to justify it? Because for me, that's a pretty surface level issue, it also ignores the fact that these arguments have been back and forth for centuries, and all the previous eugenicist arguments have been completely debunked.

We do find agreement when it comes to gender especially. I rarely ever comment myself in those threads (as an example) because I'm still trying to work out where my own positions on the subject fall. I know what my positions are, but it's where my positions lead where my issues are revealed. For example, I'm for transgender equality, but I don't think they should be taking part in sports, but then exclusion from sports, especially within schools is also pretty damaging imo, but sports are also exclusionary for someone with the wrong body size, or an odour issue. I just haven't seen any satisfying arguments for how these additional issues are resolved, and I do think there is a certain left wing orthodoxy here so i do take your point. Just for a bit of context though, people didn't just start banging out about these rights for a laugh, it was in response to the "blokes in women's bathrooms" brigade. Which of course was a fully thought out, fully reasoned, intellectual discipline.

Same as antifa, which is actually a good example, because if you got 5 lefties in a room, I'd be amazed if you only received one opinion, but to the wider point, antifa didn't just spring up for a laugh, it was in response to the increasing popularity of neo-nazis and fascism, which now holds power over one of the 2 parties in America.

I do think there are issues where morality exists and where simple right and wrong are in combat, but cognitive dissonance is a thing for a reason, and I do think you've both-sides this a little too far.

Finally, I'd just like to thank you for taking part in a good faith discussion, an increasingly and depressingly rare thing these days on here.

[joeysteele]

I can agree with lots of points made by Slim and TS.
I find both fascinating in their posts because they analyse in generally a positive way.

Labour has big problems in my view at present however not beyond turning around.

I was no supporter of Corbyn myself.
I make no secret that I see someone like Andy Burnham or even Wes Streeting as people I'd vote for leader of the party.

However I loved Corbyn's policies, in 2017, on the doorsteps people really liked the vision of them.
Hence his removing May's overall majority.

I was dismayed that after over a year, Starmer hasn't made a major policy statement.
You don't need to be in a hall with your invited audience to do that.

I feel Labour would be even more foolish to dump a lot of Corbyn's policies.

However, voters need to hear something.
Starmer has as yet neither thrown out all the last manifesto and hasn't created any new one either.

Of course Labour like Britain but Britain is a very divided place all round.
To its Nations and the regions of England too.

I can't say I've been impressed with a good proportion of voters in England lately.

However, and on this thread too.
As a Labour party member, we need to hear the criticisms as well as any praise.

I know Slim's views, and many others.
I know Slim is disappointed re the loss of Corbyn.

So as a member of Labour, learning the thinking of those on here I agree with and don't, is important.

The post above from LT too, who it's no secret I usually disagree bigtime with.
As to the first letter in it.
I think has much relevance and truth there.

I am happy to say I'm confused where Labour are at present, and have no idea where we're going on policy.

I wish Labour was more like the SNP with clear direction and policies.
The SNP moving more left than right, with it's social policies, independence issue aside.
Has been in power after the last 4 elections.
Being clear and decisive with an incredible in my view leader.

Why Labour faffs about, saying loads of words that go over voters heads.
Rather than get the short sharp message slogans to get interest, I haven't a clue.

In the party, I and many others are pushing to get PR adopted as policy.
That would be a start.

It would send the Cons into absolute panic.

However, I'm looking forward on this thread and others, as being in the Labour party, I'm too close to the problem, so can't see the solutions.
So it's interesting to read others views, not just praise but the criticisms too.
Because that's where learning comes from.

I mean, that anyone, foe or friend of Labour even needing to ask does Labour like Britain.
Is worrying in itself.
However, with the thinking you can take voters for granted by some in Labour, and thinking like Starmer that publicity stunting, is how to capture support, with vague and even incomplete policy making.
I'm not even surprised at the question.

So thanks to those offering their observations, from the polar opposite view to Labour and from those who I still think would, like myself, who would like to have a party again to be proud of as still Labour supporters, and those who aren't any longer but who could be won back.
If they see a genuine effort and credibility.
Neither of which I now fear will come from under Starmer's leadership.

[parmnion]

If hating anyone with a different opinion is hating the uk.

Then yeah, I guess they and their supporters do.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by parmnion

If hating anyone with a different opinion is hating the uk.

Then yeah, I guess they and their supporters do.

Except for this comment of course as usual which I refute completely.
Because I've had massive personal insults for my support of Labour on here by hard-line Con supporters.

Funny how the Cons wouldn't be accused of not liking Britain though.