UK Local Elections 2021

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,047
5,347
118
Australia
The Tories are also a power-driven party almost entirely untroubled with ethics. They understand that the bottom line is winning an election, and they do what's necessary to win it. The number of Tory MPs who deeply believe in anything and will really stand up for it is usually so small that "division" rarely impacts where it counts. Two thirds to three quarters of Tory MPs were against Brexit. And the minute the referendum passed, they happily fell in behind May and went about implementing a hard Brexit, derailed only by a small minority who weren't satisfied with how hard it was. And then in the final analysis, how many really stood up and said no to Johnson in 2019? 20? And what did that purge cost Boris?

Johnson is a lazy, incompetent and probably corrupt buffoon, albeit sort of popular. The Tory MPs knew that. If they didn't know before May made him foreign minister, they knew after: he was well known in political circles to not have been up to the task. And yet when May fell, they took a look around with their only real consideration who would win the next election for them: Boris had the right kind of popularity. Because fuck the country, they want to win and if they hand it over to a fool, so be it. They want to win so much, the Conservative and Unionist Party (to give it its full name) would betray its own values by driving Scotland to independence, because it sure as hell shows no apparent awareness of the crisis its actions are causing to the union.

And then we get Labour. There were all sorts of dodgy shenanigans in the 2010 leadership election that saddled it with the lacklustre Ed Miliband. And then Corbyn wins the Labour election, and the Labour centre sets about sabotaging him. Then Starmer comes into office, and the Labour left sets about sabotaging him. Labour is full of complacent, myopic, impractical ideologues more interested in their own internal power plays and hunting down supposed heretics amongst their own than delivering a better country for the British people.

To make this metaphor for the British Labour Party complete, imagine instead of Slaeeshi porn that the parchment contains progressive policies the electorate want.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,241
3,065
118
Country
United States of America
Seems like a bad trend. I don't know. And without a BBC smear campaign behind it.

 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
Seems like a bad trend. I don't know. And without a BBC smear campaign behind it.
It's definitely a bad trend.

Leadership approvals tend to follow party approvals. Starmer took charge whilst the Tories were not managing the pandemic well, so started with a "boost". As the vaccine rollout went well and the Tories rose in the polls and Labour slipped, so Johnson's approval correspondingly rose and Starmer's fell. But it's clearly not just that.

Another major part of it that the Corbynite / Momentum left - suspicious from the word go - have increasingly turned on him. If Labour voters are reading a substantial proportion of their own media and generally left-wing media laying into Starmer basically for not being Corbyn, that will bite.

And some of it his fault. The accusations that he has not set Labour a clear direction or program is a fair one. There are potentially good reasons why he hasn't (pandemic, major work in progress after the 2019 hammering, internal infighting, etc.), but we can hardly pretend it's a good idea to go into an election with people unclear what a party stands for beyond "opposing those guys". The latest approval poll is obviously a disaster, but within the context it's immediately after Labour has both had a pretty poor election and a PR crisis over a reshuffle, which is really going to hurt. That's probably temporary and I'd expect a partial recovery over a month or two just as memories fade, but it's going to require getting out there and inspiring people to get out of the negative.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
1) Male MPs have been physically assaulted rather regularly.
2) A female MP was stabbed to death and killed
3) Dianne Abbot get an extraordinary amount of people also defending her which comes off as racist lowered expectations because really the moment she says something dumb and is called out it's blamed on racism not treating her like anyone else would be by some people.
What on earth is the point you're attempting to make here? To argue that Diane Abbott has it easy because Jo Cox was murdered, male MPs occasionally get assaulted (rarely), and some people try to defend her? What's the argument?



Having tried my hand at teaching trust me you don't want everyone learning about the slave trade and stuff round it. A best you'll get a shit ton of the very low ability sets learning offensive words and using them, at worst you'll have class brawls starting due to it. There's a level of seriousness or responsibility needed for a class to be ok to learn about it before GCSE. It's not mandatory but it's one of the modular options in the school syllabus which teachers often choose to pick or avoid and that discretion is important because well it's a good way to make things worse if you're not careful. Kids in school often barely care about race. I taught at a school with 1 black student and as one teacher commented I don't think any of the students even realise she's black she's just one of them. I then was asked if I'd noticed anything of concern teacher her to which I had to ask who they meant cause honestly I'd not picked up on her being black either she was just another pupil lol
First off, who said "before GCSE"?

The reactions you're describing indicate a low level of maturity-- either really young pupils, or maybe a class with behavioural issues. I hardly think that any of that is reason to banish slavery from the entire curriculum. Should we ignore WW2 & 20th Century Fascism, too, because it sometimes provokes immature responses among the younger classes?

The only reason the slave trade, colonialism and Empire don't make up a significant portion of the history curriculum is that it's an awkward topic in Britain. We're not the "good guys". It provokes questions and analyses in which we might not come out smelling of roses.


60,000 people had signed.
6,000, not 60,000. The petition in question is here: https://www.change.org/p/leicester-city-council-remove-the-gandhi-statue-in-leicester

A website that had been used to identify and target statue to pull down.
...but nobody tried to pull the Gandhi statue down.

The 2nd is most definitely a shift one you made as you argued that the goal would be that it wasn't in response to a Labour comment when the 2nd one very much was in response to a labour comment.

As for the first well it's hardly a major frontbench person and you can see one side seemingly happily continuing it the other not so lol

Did you actually read the comments Labour made? They were nothing to do with the proportion of female candidates. All they did was flag articles the PM had written for the Spectator which contained racist/ homophobic comments. Which is perfectly relevant.

If you think the PM then promising that the Tory shortlists would be 50% female is a direct and relevant response to comments about his Spectator articles, then I don't know what to tell you.

And "hardly a major frontbench person" doesn't seem to matter to you, does it? You've been banging on about Diane Abbott and Florence Eshalomi.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
ok..? Labour's not exactly doing well in this timeline, so who should care?
Who should care... about what? Labour isn't doing well, so we should go back and endlessly re-litigate Corbyn again for some reason?

It's page 1 stuff. Because you can put it on page 1. And you will if your objective is to murder someone in the press.
Basic experience of the UK press will be enough to recognise that "Jeremy Corbyn doesn't say something about X" doesn't get even a fraction of the traction of "Jeremy Corbyn says it's all fake, and Starmer doesn't do anything about it, clearly disrespects EHCR, Labour still stuck in antisemitism crisis".

The former would run for possibly 1 day, on page 2 or 3 at the very most. The latter runs for weeks at least.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Agema

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
What on earth is the point you're attempting to make here? To argue that Diane Abbott has it easy because Jo Cox was murdered, male MPs occasionally get assaulted (rarely), and some people try to defend her? What's the argument?
Pretty simple.

People get all kinds of bullshit and if you start wanting to play "Oh woe is her" then you very much wouldn't like it played out full where you kinda end up having to argue rude words on twitter and worse than people physically assaulting MPs and their staff.



First off, who said "before GCSE"?

The reactions you're describing indicate a low level of maturity-- either really young pupils, or maybe a class with behavioural issues. I hardly think that any of that is reason to banish slavery from the entire curriculum. Should we ignore WW2 & 20th Century Fascism, too, because it sometimes provokes immature responses among the younger classes?

The only reason the slave trade, colonialism and Empire don't make up a significant portion of the history curriculum is that it's an awkward topic in Britain. We're not the "good guys". It provokes questions and analyses in which we might not come out smelling of roses.
Labour were arguing it should be part of the syllabus before History merely became an option among other options which would be prior to GCSE as History GCSE is only an option not compulsory as a subject.

Also I'd re-read what I said because I said Teachers should have that discretion to be able to pick modules to help avoid having to teach classes they do not think are mature enough certain subject matter. I didn't say bannish it.


6,000, not 60,000. The petition in question is here: https://www.change.org/p/leicester-city-council-remove-the-gandhi-statue-in-leicester



...but nobody tried to pull the Gandhi statue down.
People have in other countries

Also other ones in the UK were defaced



Did you actually read the comments Labour made? They were nothing to do with the proportion of female candidates. All they did was flag articles the PM had written for the Spectator which contained racist/ homophobic comments. Which is perfectly relevant.
And claimed he was in the dark ages due to lack of female MPs being represented

If you think the PM then promising that the Tory shortlists would be 50% female is a direct and relevant response to comments about his Spectator articles, then I don't know what to tell you.

And "hardly a major frontbench person" doesn't seem to matter to you, does it? You've been banging on about Diane Abbott and Florence Eshalomi.
Except it wasn't the PM in this case it was the head of party business as such
 

Breakdown

Oxy Moron
Sep 5, 2014
753
150
48
down a well
Country
Northumbria
Gender
Lad
Who should care... about what? Labour isn't doing well, so we should go back and endlessly re-litigate Corbyn again for some reason?



Basic experience of the UK press will be enough to recognise that "Jeremy Corbyn doesn't say something about X" doesn't get even a fraction of the traction of "Jeremy Corbyn says it's all fake, and Starmer doesn't do anything about it, clearly disrespects EHCR, Labour still stuck in antisemitism crisis".

The former would run for possibly 1 day, on page 2 or 3 at the very most. The latter runs for weeks at least.
The antisemitism crisis was bigger than Corbyn, it was really about discrediting the left wing elements of the Labour party. Corbyn's silence on this matter would be taken as a sign of guilt, which would then disadvantage the left wing elements of Labour in the future.

I mean, if Angela Rayner mounts a leadership challenge I would guess that she would be expected to distance herself from Momentum and from MPs like Rebecca Long-Bailey, to avoid accusations of antisemitism by association.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
Pretty simple.

People get all kinds of bullshit and if you start wanting to play "Oh woe is her" then you very much wouldn't like it played out full where you kinda end up having to argue rude words on twitter and worse than people physically assaulting MPs and their staff.
OK. But I wasn't playing "woe is her". You were the one who originally started this train of argument, by opining that she has it particularly easy. Even though she individually receives about a third of all abuse directed at MPs.

You were the one who started this tangent.


Labour were arguing it should be part of the syllabus before History merely became an option among other options which would be prior to GCSE as History GCSE is only an option not compulsory as a subject.

Also I'd re-read what I said because I said Teachers should have that discretion to be able to pick modules to help avoid having to teach classes they do not think are mature enough certain subject matter. I didn't say bannish it.
Teachers already have the "discretion" to pick what they want within the curriculum. Nobody is saying to treat them any differently.

And if you have a specific claim from Labour you want to dispute, post it. That stuff from Florence Eshalomi doesn't say that.


People have in other countries

Also other ones in the UK were defaced
Irrelevant to the fact that this statue was not under threat. People turned out to "defend" a statue because a petition got 6,000 signatures. You know, like fucking almost any petition about anything gets.





And claimed he was in the dark ages due to lack of female MPs being represented
No, this is untrue. The "dark ages" comment was nothing to do with the number of female MPs.

Except it wasn't the PM in this case it was the head of party business as such
No, this isn't true either. Johnson made the promise on 28th November 2019, after he'd been PM for four months. You really don't have a very good grasp of the details of what you're arguing.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
The antisemitism crisis was bigger than Corbyn, it was really about discrediting the left wing elements of the Labour party. Corbyn's silence on this matter would be taken as a sign of guilt, which would then disadvantage the left wing elements of Labour in the future.

I mean, if Angela Rayner mounts a leadership challenge I would guess that she would be expected to distance herself from Momentum and from MPs like Rebecca Long-Bailey, to avoid accusations of antisemitism by association.
Of course it was bigger than Corbyn. But Corbyn's response to it had become emblematic of how seriously the party was taking the issue: if the party leadership didn't credit it, then the party couldn't be said to be taking it seriously.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
I mean, if Angela Rayner mounts a leadership challenge I would guess that she would be expected to distance herself from Momentum and from MPs like Rebecca Long-Bailey, to avoid accusations of antisemitism by association.
She wouldn't need to go that far. She'd just need to lay down the law and slap down anyone who failed to meet standards efficiently.

And to be fair, IIRC she was pretty critical of Corbyn over his weakness on antisemitism first time round.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,685
2,879
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Not what happens though is it normally?

It's not treating people like everyone else when people are advocating for caving peoples heads in and the response is "Oh you're just being too sensitive, wanting to cave your head in is them criticising you but you calling them arseholes is silencing and oppressing them"
Need a citation on this one too

Yes, it VERY normal.

Remember during the First Gulf War when the Iraq Ambassador's daughter told some story about Hussein's Army going around murdering all the babies in incubators in Kuwait. They testified in front of Congress to get the US to go to war. You know, VERY similar to the stories told about WMD 10 years later

Joe Biden point out that this was all fabricated. And it totally was. He also called Bush Snr a monarchist, saying that he's breaking the war power bill that was meant to stop the extra-curricular shenanigans of the army by Reagan, Nixon and LBJ. He demanded that they do it properly with proper evidence. Guess what happened to him. They said he loved babies getting murdered, loved Hitler (because that's what Saddam was.) Dragged out in front of the media saying how evil he was. All because the government, with the media, fabricated evidence to get a war going.

He was cancelled so hard that the Biden before 91 looks nothing like the Biden after.

Forgot to add Edit: Yes. Its very normal
 
Last edited:

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
Need a citation on this one too

Yes, it VERY normal.

Remember during the First Gulf War when the Iraq Ambassador's daughter told some story about Hussein's Army going around murdering all the babies in incubators in Kuwait. They testified in front of Congress to get the US to go to war. You know, VERY similar to the stories told about WMD 10 years later

Joe Biden point out that this was all fabricated. And it totally was. He also called Bush Snr a monarchist, saying that he's breaking the war power bill that was meant to stop the extra-curricular shenanigans of the army by Reagan, Nixon and LBJ. He demanded that they do it properly with proper evidence. Guess what happened to him. They said he loved babies getting murdered, loved Hitler (because that's what Saddam was.) Dragged out in front of the media saying how evil he was. All because the government, with the media, fabricated evidence to get a war going.

He was cancelled so hard that the Biden before 91 looks nothing like the Biden after.

Forgot to add Edit: Yes. Its very normal
because it was a republican president starting the war.
Now Joe's happily bombing the middle east.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
OK. But I wasn't playing "woe is her". You were the one who originally started this train of argument, by opining that she has it particularly easy. Even though she individually receives about a third of all abuse directed at MPs.

You were the one who started this tangent.
Compared to a regular Joe public person she does.


Teachers already have the "discretion" to pick what they want within the curriculum. Nobody is saying to treat them any differently.

And if you have a specific claim from Labour you want to dispute, post it. That stuff from Florence Eshalomi doesn't say that.
Actually not entirely normally there are compulsory and optional things.


Irrelevant to the fact that this statue was not under threat. People turned out to "defend" a statue because a petition got 6,000 signatures. You know, like fucking almost any petition about anything gets.
So at what point are people allowed to turn up and defend something seemingly likely to be targeted? Do they need to wait until the rope is on it? When the statue is on the ground? Or when it's being dragged to the local canal?

Ghandi statues in other areas had been attacked and already a statue people objected to in another area had been pulled down. People were riled up and even with 6,000 signatures there weren't other statues getting that level of attention and demand for removal. It seemed like a likely next target so people turned up to defend it which for all we know put people off turning up to take it down when they found out people were defending it.


No, this is untrue. The "dark ages" comment was nothing to do with the number of female MPs.
Seems like it from the article


No, this isn't true either. Johnson made the promise on 28th November 2019, after he'd been PM for four months. You really don't have a very good grasp of the details of what you're arguing.
Citation needed for it being Johnson not a party chairperson. Your source only said a chairperson.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
Compared to a regular Joe public person she does.
Your lack of empathy for someone receiving mountains upon mountains of racial abuse is incredible.

Actually not entirely normally there are compulsory and optional things.
Your point being?

So at what point are people allowed to turn up and defend something seemingly likely to be targeted? Do they need to wait until the rope is on it? When the statue is on the ground? Or when it's being dragged to the local canal?
People are "allowed" to turn up whenever and wherever they want. But if they turn up to something that's not under any threat whatsoever, and start "symbolically defending" it against nobody, then they're absolute morons.

Seems like it from the article
Read the article again. Because no, it's quite obviously not.

If you don't actually know the context of the comments, then I have to ask: why are you just mouthing off about it? Do you feel no compulsion to learn even the basic details of an event before complaining?

Citation needed for it being Johnson not a party chairperson. Your source only said a chairperson.
No, it didn't. Johnson was specifically quoted.

Direct Quote from Boris Johnson said:
Whilst we might have led the way in terms of female representation, it is vital we keep that up. That is why I am committing to the biggest drive of female member, activist and candidate recruitment, and why it is my ambition that half of Conservative candidates on our list for future parliamentary elections are women.
I genuinely don't understand why you choose to fight every little detail, contest every fact, without bothering to read or research anything whatsoever about the topic.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,241
3,065
118
Country
United States of America
Who should care... about what?
Your observation that we're talking about a counterfactual.

Labour isn't doing well, so we should go back and endlessly re-litigate Corbyn again for some reason?
Well, when you get something very wrong... yeah, history matters.

Basic experience of the UK press will be enough to recognise that "Jeremy Corbyn doesn't say something about X" doesn't get even a fraction of the traction of "Jeremy Corbyn says it's all fake, and Starmer doesn't do anything about it, clearly disrespects EHCR, Labour still stuck in antisemitism crisis".

The former would run for possibly 1 day, on page 2 or 3 at the very most. The latter runs for weeks at least.
even though it's mostly fake and the 'crisis' is that there is not enough deference shown to an ethnic cleansing apartheid state.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,241
3,065
118
Country
United States of America
That's probably temporary and I'd expect a partial recovery over a month or two just as memories fade, but it's going to require getting out there and inspiring people to get out of the negative.
I would also expect a partial recovery after such a dip. Is Keir Starmer actually capable of getting out there and inspiring people, though?
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
Your lack of empathy for someone receiving mountains upon mountains of racial abuse is incredible.
Which I already pointed out is pretty mitigated by the fact she can pretty badly screw up time and again and have people rush out to defend her on racial grounds when plenty of other people would be thrown to the wolves over it.

Your point being?
Labour wanted it in the compulsory part.


People are "allowed" to turn up whenever and wherever they want. But if they turn up to something that's not under any threat whatsoever, and start "symbolically defending" it against nobody, then they're absolute morons.
Oh right because there is only a threat to it when people actually are there with ropes and or hacksaws right?



Read the article again. Because no, it's quite obviously not.
But the promise came as Labour flagged controversial articles the Prime Minister wrote for the Spectator in the 1990s, which they claimed showed his attitude towards women was "straight out of the dark ages".

If you don't actually know the context of the comments, then I have to ask: why are you just mouthing off about it? Do you feel no compulsion to learn even the basic details of an event before complaining?
Because the one not in response to a Labour party comment was a chairperson.


No, it didn't. Johnson was specifically quoted.
Grant Shapps, the Conservative party chairman, boasted that one in three of the party’s candidates were female, claiming it showed the party was “breaking records” by having “more women than ever before in our history”.

I genuinely don't understand why you choose to fight every little detail, contest every fact, without bothering to read or research anything whatsoever about the topic.
Considering the claims you've made and bits of information you seem rather shockingly unaware of that add context to things I should be the one more rightfully asking that question of you.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
Your observation that we're talking about a counterfactual.
...you tell me; I was merely pointing out that you usually dismiss hypotheticals out-of-hand if they raise uncomfortable possibilities.

If you've come around to their value, that's great!

Well, when you get something very wrong... yeah, history matters.
I see. So, seeing as Hartlepool has nothing whatsoever to do with antisemitism, and Labour's antisemitism scandal hasn't been in the press for over a year, what lessons do you want to learn from going back to fight that battle again?