Your keynote policy – the platform on which your campaign is to be built. What is it, then?
Here’s mine – a surefire vote-getter:
A vote for Saucecraft means a return to between-the-wars seasonal weather standards. A crisp, frosty winter with deep, clean snow at Christmas. A soft, delicate spring refreshed by sparkling rainfall, and an endless summer with clouds of butterflies, lapsing into a golden autumn scented by bonfires.
I’d vote for anyone planning to reverse man-made climate change.
@Tiggerlion
That would assume that there was a strategy capable of halting or even slowing it.
Sadly, the extreme weather the world has experienced these last three months would indicate our leaders have left it too late.
But that’s what HP is offering.
There’s a rather charming misunderstanding of how British democracy works apparent here – you can promise anything you damn well want, and get elected (or not) on that basis. What you do when you assume the mantle of power has little or nothing to do with this.
I can dream, can’t I?
@Tiggerlion
In fairness to HP, his manifesto promise (a return to
pre-war summers and sensibilities) is far more palatable
than my own (the inevitable end of civilization – a bad day
for AWers of all political persuasions, I think you will agree).
You’re sweating hard to get that WH Auden Prize, aren’t you?
You are the Liz Truss of this post, Moosey.
I’m certainly in favour of opening up new pork markets.
Stronger soapboxes, opening up pork markets … Fenty’s getting the popular vote so far.
Eeeeeeew!
We’ve left the Eeeeeeew, Do keep up, remoaners.
It’s called style, Moosey.
Keep reading, you might learn something.
“Keep” reading?
You’re learning!
It’s already all over; you spell civilisation with a z. We’re doomed.
I’d certainly vote for this here manifesto:
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50501411.amp
Is communis. Is no allow here. Go away.
This isn’t going too well. Maybe it’s asking too much of you? But here’s the brief from the “OP” again, in full, because so far Jaygee, Tiggerlion, and Gary have nothing to offer the electorate.
“Your keynote policy – the platform on which your campaign is to be built. What is it, then?”
Do at least try, for fuck’s sake, or you’ll only have yourselves to blame, again.
Okey-dokes, sorry for the misunderstanding, I’ll try again:
A vote for Gary means an end to all the kerfuffle and palavar. An end to strife and hassle. An end to all the piffle and tosh.
My favourite three music hall duos.
This was when Piffle toured with Hassel after a falling out.
I must admit I like the way that AI has coined the word Kierfuffle, which seems entirely fair.
Palavier…. have to say I prefer the ’98 to any of the more recent vintages. Good strong notes of chocolate, roast partridge and Esso Blue.
A vote for me is a vote to abolish the triple pension lock and introduce the quadruple lock.
The fourth new exciting lock is a link to MPs wages.
Excellent. Boring – but excellent.
You wanted “One Key Policy That Would Get The Great British Populace Off Their Fat Arses And Out To The Polling Station To Vote For YOU”
Boring maybe but I’m sure it would work.
That’s where its excellence come in.
An end to coloured vinyl and special editions. Every album to be released on one CD and black vinyl, and that’s it.
All downloads and streaming to be hi-res, and priced the same as lossy formats.
A new record pressing plant to be built in my garden shed. Every lunchtime Miles Showell asks me what I’d like to listen to that evening, and cuts me a half-speed mastered LP ready for when I knock-off work.
I’d vote for the first two points in your manifesto.
Not so sure about the third point – doesn’t seem to have much in it for the wider voting public…
For your third point, you seem to have confused winning elections with winning the jackpot on Euromillions. Are you a conservative?
Wonder if Sunak owns a turntable? Apropos of nothing?
You’ve a damned nerve, Moosey, criticising Fenty’s admirably detailed and thought-through platform, when you don’t even have a Farage-style soapbox to stand on.
I did but I went through it.
Yes… that’s it… stronger soapboxes. That is my platform. Liderally.
“Stronger soapboxes.” Hmm. Well, governments have been swept to power on weaker manifestos.
But not on weaker soapboxes
A soapbox on every corner and free soap on the NHS.
Rishi will also like a bit of everything from Coldplay to Fleetwood Mac. Very few politicians have decent musical preferences. It indicates their emptiness, if you ask me, triangulating to whoever their key markets are.
Like a lot of middle aged men, Rish! claims to be a Swifty.
Ah yes: but owning a turntable is not necessarily a sign of good musical taste…and that was my query.
Rishi’s a millennial, he probably thinks a turntable is something they have in Chinese restaurants.
I’m not sure about albums being released on one CD as that seems very limited.
Vote for me and end ambiguity.
A blanket ban on leaf blowers, with all other petrol-driven garden machinery to follow after the election.
All government spokespeople forced to justify their departments’ errant policies and behaviour (cf carer’s allowance, Post Office, Windrush) at a televised press conference in front of victims and hacks.
I mentioned this yesterday: all politicians and people connected with political activity will be banned from social media until after an election (or ideally for ever).
Lea and Perrins to stop watering down Worcester Sauce.
I realise that’s four, not one, but single-issue parties never get elected.
Sparse applause, some coughing, from back of hall. A baby cries. A lady raises her hand from an otherwise empty row of primary school seats. Thep beams in gratitude. “A question, Madam?”
“Are there any biscuits?”
Lea and Perrins to be banned and replaced with the much nicer Hendersons Relish
“F*** Worcester Sauce
That shit’s no good for you
It tastes like F***in’ glue”
Vote for me and I will make it a law that all ballot papers have a “none of the above” option.
If this is the majority response, new candidates across the field must be sought.
If the “none of the above” percentage reduces, the quality of the political applicants must be improving.
Make the bastards fear the electorate’s cruel decisions. I never wanted the kids on the school council, toadying to the headmaster and the priests, running my life then, and still don’t like the equivalent.
I fear though that ‘none of the above’ will always win and the tories will therefore put up a candidate called ‘none of the above’ and win.
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2024-02-07/why-ap-called-the-nevada-gop-primary-for-none-of-these-candidates
https://ballotpedia.org/Nobody
I’m sure there are other worthier policies.
But I’d vote for anypne promising to invest a LOT more money in libraries – a library of some sort in anywhere village or bigger.
They were the first thing to get cut under austerity in 2010 and *spolier alert* the money’s never been put back and never will be. The average Afterworder is far too modern and cool to use them but they remain a vital lifeline for people at the sharp end in terms of getting support and information (and books of course).
The one really sickeningly criminal thing this government have done was the abolition of Surestart. To smirkingly destroy that and then talk about “levelling up” is the epitome of political hypocrisy. Will Keir bring it back? Of course not, because progressive.
Bring back the Enterprise Allowance Scheme and we could have another Half Man Half Biscuit.
Enough to make a whole man and a whole biscuit?
You may also get another Macc Lads
Financial penalties for being a fuckwit at gigs. Ticketmaster to bury it in the T&Cs that a venue can authorise them to deduct a further 50 quid from the ticketholder’s credit card – for being a fuckwit.
I’d vote for that.
You’re going to create a mechanism for Ticketmaster to make even more money?
Them that’s got shall get….
Er…how about it being a fuckwit “levy” to be paid directly to the band?
Too late. Your cover’s blown, Master Mister… sorry, Mister Master.
Is he the one we old timers used to refer to as “The Man”
More hoopla for my moopla, mister ticket man
Back to the OP; how would our peri-Mekong correspondent know we don’t?
…. anybody else now singing the theme song from Perry Mason?
Der – derrrrrr
Der – DUH!!
Der – derrrrrr
Der – DUHH!!!
Sounds more like the Mastermind theme
No it doesn’t. Not enough derrrs on the first line.
I pledge to Sort. The. Country. Out.
I don’t know how exactly, and I’ll leave the details to people who know about finance and resources and planning and, erm, whatever it takes to Get Stuff Done. But once I’ve finished, the country will definitely be Sorted Out.
My new party, The Right Way Party, will ban everything that is not done the right way. Milling around in a mob rather than queuing politely to get into an event? Banned! Talking in gigs and only stopping while you applaud when the singer hits the big note? Banned!! Standing in the middle of the pavement/shop doorway to look at your phone when I want to get past? BANNED!!! You get the general idea.
So, there will be the right way and the… Well, really, there will be only the right way.
They said that in 2010…. we won’t get fooled again, maaaan
(what am I saying, of course we will)
Wasn’t he in charge three PMs ago?
Who, Harry Enfield?
Of course, Harry Enfield has been in 10 Downing Street – he was in one of those 1997-8 parties, possibly the same one as Lord Gallagher. It gets better when you know that he got drunk and addressed Peter Mandelson thus: “Nobody likes you, why don’t you just leave?”
Bringing back dogshit on pavements would sort out the phone zombies who think they don’t have to look out for anything in the path in front of them. Those of us who do show some consideration (other than were the dog takes a dump), could avoid it, and in summer months, we can let it dry out so kids have those great little stones that explode into a cloud of dust then disappear.
This is both imaginative and something else. I’ll do some doorstopping on your behalf but I’m not sure it’ll help much.
Rather than run for office myself, I’m taking a leaf out of Homer Simpson’s
political rule book
Let’s simplify the tax system. Abolish all spending taxes (VAT, stamp duty etc) and fuse all income taxes (NI, capitol gains, bonuses etc) into one. The real living wage is zero tax, double that for 20%, double that for 40% and double again for 60%.
Free school meals for all pupils up to age 11
Rubbish – they’ll be too fat to get up the chimneys.
A disappointingly humane platform for chiz. I’d expected an “orphans valuable food source for poor” kind of thing.
As a newly citizened up Brit and as an aspiring politician I will demonstrate my craven abandonment of any principles or pride and declare that all Ashes series will be won by England and the term “ moral victory” will be utterly otiose.
Congratulations! I am renewing my UK passport this week. NZ citizenship is something I will do at some stage but I can have both so there’s no hurry really.
That’s rather sudden, @junior-wells! What brought that on? (Apart from having the qualifications, obviously.) I’m toying with the idea of applying for Oz citizenship – now I’m never out of the country for more than 3 months at a time I may finally qualify.
Either the introduction of a well thought out system of proportional representation. I would probably copy somewhere in Scandinavia. Or;
That the UK join some kind of regional trade association enabling free movement of goods and people.
Either would be good, so I would offer people a choice (survey monkey) as to which one.
Sorry, Leedsie, but I blacked out after “well thought out system”. Let’s hope the electorate is made of sterner stuff than I!
On reflection, I wouldn’t use those words. How about a British invented system (and I can then copy a Scandinavian system after electoral success?). That also sounds duplicitous enough to charm the electorate.
In a straw poll carried out here, Vincent is overwhelmingly the popular choice, followed by Fentypants.
For the dogshit or ‘none of the above’ option? Maybe run on a dual policy?
I’m pretty sure it was the dogshit. Can’t go wrong with that at election time.
Something about eggs, I’m still working on the detail…
Ban them!
I think keeping it vague – “addressing the egg issue will be our number one priority” is the way to go.
That’s it, in a nutshell.
Or eggshell.
Addressing the nut issue will be our number two priority.
A radio report today said that in a year, the House of Commons library lent only about 200 books to our 650 or so MPs. Clearly there are a lot of MPs who are not keen readers, which might explain a lot.
It also said that among the titles that were checked out were “How to Be a Minister” and “How to Be an MP”. That might explain a lot more.
My new party will have one important policy: you must pass an intelligence test to be an MP.
Perhaps combined with a genuine belief in public service…
(…oh dear, I seem to have gone all “West Wing”…)
I should think they’re already up to their ears in reading material, what with Bills, White Papers, Green Papers, Policy Documents, Reports, letters from constituents etc.
The ones that’re actually doing the job, that is.
nadine dorris has just finished colouring in the book she borrowed a few years ago.
Two key policies for my party,,,,
– a simplified tax system whereby income tax is based on a sliding scale above the tax free allowance – no bands so that you get a slight pay rise and end up worse off. Very minimal tax personal tax deductions (maybe only for caring for elderly / children) and so no loopholes. There will be the usual complaints about it will discourage rich entrepreneurs / trickle down economics (which is bollocks anyway) but deal with that in corporate tax. Oh and scrap inheritance tax – it’s double taxation.
– more controversial (and a probable vote loser if I think about it)… bring back National Service – not in the traditional military sense, but a year a so that both male and female do which can be military, nursing, care services, community services etc etc. The payback is that the government would then provide free education to university level if required. This would (a) provide a sense of community spirit (b) help address the University funding issues (c) help provide workers in key industries that are desperately short (and there will be a proportion that stay in that industry). All funded by closing all the tax loopholes above.
“An eye for an eye
A tooth for a tooth
Vote for me and I’ll set you free!!”
Rap on brother, rap on.
I would send any 16 year olds that finished a sentence with ‘innit’ or ‘you know what I mean’ back to school for a full year of being exposed to how annoying it is along with evening classes in raising the tone of your voice at the end of every sentence as if you’re asking question.
Stop it now!
I am 76.
Does that also include those who start a sentence with “And …” or “So …”
I realise there are times when those starting phrases are justified, but not for every frigging utterance.
See also: addressing anyone old enough to be their father as “Bro”. I thought “mate” was bad enough.
Worse than “pal”?
I struggle not to respond, in an icy tone: “I am not your mate”.
I like chum. (And I am not a dog.)
I’d considered public floggings for anyone using “faux” (or, less frequently now) “ersatz” for fake, “schadenfreude” for gloating, and starting internet comments with “well”. But these are measures more wisely adopted after coming to power, perhaps in the small print addenda to some bill about motorway verge maintenance.
Those – mostly Americans – who use “karma” for revenge, or justice, would be put into giant air fryers where their dying agonies could be viewed (and live streamed!) by their families through a cinema-size heatproof window. How’s that “karma” workin’ for ya now, bitches?
Each of these arguments carry the “faux”ny weight of a “karma”chanic. Well, unless you forget the (waggle) inverted commas. Isn’t it.
Reposition that “well” and you’ve earned yourself a ride in the Air Fryer Express To Hell.
Air Fryer Express to Hell – wasn’t that by Blue Oyster Cult?
Well spotted! From their Dömesticus Appliancicus Dæmonicus album.
Picture of hamper, please! Can it contain some Melton Mowbray pork pies? In fact, just Melton Mowbray pork pies? They’re illegal out here because a particularly crusty one knocked a General’s hat off in 1972.
Stop gloating. And Jung was more schaden than Freud.
Abolish the monarchy. Sell all ‘royal’ property to the highest bidder and allow the successful buyer to either rent them back to the current occupants or sling them out and make them work for a living.
I don’t see having a hereditary monarch as any worse than the alternative of electing some clapped-out superannuated political hack as head of state.
I do think the institution should be drastically slimmed-down though.
King or queen, their consort and their heir and that should be it.
No other royal titles or privileges.
To hell with princess Anne and princes Andrew and Edward, and all of their tribe of leeches. To hell with Prince Harry, Megan and their offspring. Nothing particularly against any of them (except Andrew, obvs) but let them sort out their own funding etc.
The king’s recent health crisis and the heir’s wife being similarly indisposed showed how threadbear that arrangement is. Mind you, even without them being unable to carry out their ‘duties’ the world somehow kept on turning.
The monarchy is the fruiting body of the fungal system that threads unseen through all of society. Cut off the mushroom and others will grow to take its place.
The system is perpetuated through many institutions that enhance inequality. Change and improve those and the nature of the ‘rulers’ will evolve to less obviously toxic and glass prison dwelling poor little rich people, whether 38th generation descendant of William the Bastard, or clapped-out superannuated political hack.
In any case, the current medical travails don’t seem to have inhibited the Royals from continuing their main economic function – existing and consuming while feeding the unquenchable maw that is UK tabloid journalism.
We’ve had this discussion many a time and I always say the same, on account of me being predictable. Here I go again, look: Having lived in a Monarchy and a Republic I definitely find the Republic preferable. The Queen was incredible at maintaining her dignity for so many years (I can barely manage a whole day!) but a monarchy can’t guarantee such character and I certainly don’t see it in Charlie or many of the others. Anne and William, perhaps, but Andrew and Harry were both second in line to the throne at various points in time and imagine either of them as king. Doesn’t bear thinking about. Whereas every single Italian President for the last 40 years (6 in total) has been, imho, never anything less than thoroughly admirable, 100%. I’m not sure a Republic could be similarly successful for the UK as the British public is used to seeing its Head of State as a celebrity, a regular in the tabloids, and would probably want a President to be the same. In Italy, the Pope fills that celebrity role (and we finally have one who seems a fairly decent chap!). If Britain could handle a non-celebrity Head of State then I’d say President is the way to go, but I’m not convinced it could.
“the British public is used to seeing its Head of State as a celebrity, a regular in the tabloids, and would probably want a President to be the same”
changing the mushroom – I’m not really interested, as it doesn’t change the system underpinning it, but as you replied to me not dkrbrit, I’ll respond to you, because that’s what this place is for, um…
The narrative has been royalty=celebrity, but that is something the tabloids want (pushing base emotions being their business model), the royals themselves seem not to want, and the public? Since when have they (we) been amorphous?
Nissan Maindealer got a lot of love for being a good bloke, and modest. Douglas Adams’s’s’ idea of choosing the person who least wants to be ruler to be ruler seemed to go down well with his readers. The Queen herself was not a celebrity – she appeared, she waved, she spoke, she listened, she went home. I don’t think she frequented Annabel’s in Mayfair.
‘The British’ if we must stereotype ourselves, seem to (have) like(d), pre-Diana/Blair, people to be understated in their expression – basically just to be ‘nice’, which I think is the model followed in Ireland, Germany and possibly in Italy.
As the most important thing for a Head of State to do seems to be to speak nicely, I suggest a speech competition between RADA, RSC, LAMDA – whoever wins, gets to be Head of State (parrot) for 5 years.
Sorry Sal, my reply wasn’t intended to you specifically, but as a general comment on the subject at hand.
To respond to you: If you’re saying that find the monarchy objectionable as symbolic of (and thereby underpinning) the idea of inherited status and power, I couldn’t agree more. But as regards the idea of royalty as celebrity, I think we’re looking at the things from different angles.
The Royals get in the tabloids for their garden parties, their hobnobbing with actors and rock stars, their interviews on Panorama and other shenanigans. And of course for their public displays of pomp and ceremony. And, of course, the British public are very used to this approach.I can’t imagine any of the former Presidents of Italy doing anything similar. (The Pope takes that role, getting in the tabloids for cosying up to Bono etc.) When the issue of replacing the monarchy arises I find someone always asks who should replace them and then list, disparagingly, either famous politicians or celebrities.
Italian Presidents have always struck me for their dignity, but also for their intelligence (something no royal has ever impressed me with). They don’t often speak publicly on political issues, but when they do I always find it considered and intelligent.
To give some examples, looking up the current President Sergio Mattarella’s most recent escapades here are the results:
https://www.ansa.it/english/news/politics/2024/04/12/unis-to-be-free-even-in-dissent-from-power-mattarella_5e03a7a5-76e0-49ad-bf04-f93aab422370.html
https://gna.org.gh/2024/04/piracy-illicit-trafficking-can-be-countered-through-cooperation-president-mattarella/
https://www.santegidio.org/pageID/30284/langID/en/itemID/57049/President-Mattarella-visits-the-Community-of-Sant-Egidio-in-Abidjan–Thank-you-because-you-have-a-dream-that-becomes-reality-through-hope.html
https://www.euronews.com/2024/01/27/italys-president-denounces-antisemitism-at-holocaust-remembrance
Ps. What’s the Nissan Maindealer reference? Was that a predictive text thingy?
The former President of South Africa – it’s the punchline of a silly joke.
My point would be that the Royals are, yes, symbolic of (most visible example of) inherited wealth and power, but underpinned by (not underpinning) it.
The whole Ruritarian element of the overblown imperial hangover that are the coronations, funerals and weddings would be what needs to go first, before even thinking about what form the Head of State should take.
Because otherwise, asked to suggest who should replace the Royals, I think people immediately think of someone pompous, overblown and self impotent (I’ll leave that typo) as BORIS Johnson.
I actually think the prize idiot would have made a more entertaining President than Prime Minister – if it was a non-job with no executive function. It never seemed to stop the Duke of Edinburgh, the surly impatient bastard, from finding favour with his politically incorrect, off the cuff asides.
Astute governments, recognizing the UK’s changed (i.e. smaller) role in world affairs, should gradually trim away at the fat of policies and practices that suggest an ever- existing empire, until one day the country wake up to find its actually for a bicycling monarchy, and the whole shabby lot can be replaced by Chris Boardman or Bradley Wiggins without any public murmur.
Roundabouts here our departing council have erected a statue in memory of some eighteenth century bread thief and if we judge them on how much severance pay they’ve awarded themselves we can be sure they have few qualms about theft.
Some form of spending oversight might win a few votes maybe.
I would introduce legislation where all MPs have to have worked in the public sector for a minimum of five years before being eligible to stand. And not 5 years in a cushy well paid non-profit either, an actual local authority. If you’re going to be making decisions on how the public sector will be funded at least have the good bloody grace to have spent some years at the coal face.
I don’t know why – you’d think I’d know better by now – but I saw this thread as being an opportunity to be a bit daft – an opportunity only understood and grasped by a minority of free thinkers. I didn’t expect lengthy and sincere attempts to set the country aright through ethical social policies that would address the inequalities in society. But I’m sure they will have a positive effect on the electorate, changing minds where minds needed to be changed, and opening up avenues of debate enabling real difference-making going forward. In conclusion, there is no “I” in “TEAM”, and it’s all opinion, innit? So well done you! Tea and biscuits on the refreshment table at the back, and please help with stacking the chairs.
Will NO-ONE think of the egg issue??
I have, BAN THEM!
The problem is HP we have a government that is plain daft and have to live/suffer with them. When an ex pm (the shortest time serving in history) brings out a book on how to save the west after she tanked the uk economy then be thankful you live where you do.
Er … I live in the “world’s oldest fledgling democracy.” Basically, a military dictatorship in league with the king. There’s very little the young (or anyone who thinks there might be a better way of doing things) can do to change the system, short of getting shot in the streets – last time this happened was very recent.
The problem – and it is your problem – is not that you *have* to live with your government. The problem is that not enough intelligent and committed Brits are willing to do the work to get themselves elected – those that could and should, just don’t. Because reasons. A cabinet could be formed from the ranks of the Afterword. Hasn’t, won’t. Don’t blame the government, blame the electorate for its keep calm and carry on/the government always gets in no matter who you vote for approach. In Siam, it *really* doesn’t matter who you vote for; opposition is at best an ineffective show, at worst a bloodbath. The U.K. electorate is democracy in action, and a damn shabby thing you made of it, you lazy, cynical sods!
“A cabinet could be formed from the ranks of the Afterword.”
Well, perhaps – but it would never agree on anything, so nothing would get done.
I disagree with that.
A dictatorship formed from the body would be fun. With regular coups from disaffected agitators to replace that weeks Il Duce. Couldn’t be any worse than the cradle of parliament, or whatever we are.
Every car to be fitted with a rear-mounted laser-guided missile which only ever hones in on BMW logos within a ten yard perimeter.
Can you add an Audi setting?
Or indicator-less cars
I wonder of “boring” Kier Starmer is hoodwinking everyone and intends to reintroduce all that stuff he promised when elected party leader and then dropped afterwards..
Kinda weird how people who preferred Corbyn over Johnson were called (among many other things) “Corbynistas” loyal to a “personality cult”, when he was doggedly consistent in his policies, while people who prefer Starmer over Sunak, regardless of all his policy changes, don’t get any of that bullshit nonsense.
I would say it’s because he was ‘doggedly consistent’ that Corbyn’s loyalists were (and are) called Corbynistas – my perception is they are dogmatically persistent in their defence of him, brooking no argument and hearing no criticism.
As to people who preferred Corbyn over Johnson, there’s an overlap, but preference and loyalty are very different things. Would you prefer a bowl of bland, poorly cooked organic red lentils, or an oven-ready shit sandwich?
Who are the Corbyn’s “loyalists” to whom you refer? The Momentum supporters? Because I know a lot of people (including myself) who would’ve liked to have seen him as PM -especially so when the alternative was Johnson- who never had any interest whatsoever in Momentum or “loyalty” to Corbyn.
“Dogmatically persistent in their defence of him”? Would you say the same of Starmer’s supporters? Or Miliband’s? Or anyone else’s? Like the majority of the 10 million or so who voted for Corbyn in the last GE, I’m no more more politically dogmatic than any other average punter. I do feel Corbyn was very wrongly and unfairly maligned (there’s plenty of evidence for that) and worse, his supporters were also wrongly maligned, but that doesn’t mean that I or the 10 million or so should be considered as “dogmatically persistent in their defence of him, brooking no argument and hearing no criticism”. That’s just nonsense.
Would I prefer “a bowl of bland, poorly cooked organic red lentils, or an oven-ready shit sandwich”? The former.
I think Corbyn is a decent chap whose views I largely agree with, who probably would have been a crap PM but would have held a second referendum on Brexit. I think Johnson was obviously and predictably completely crap in every way possible. And in the UK elections, the way things stand, you only realistically have two choices for PM.
So you are a big fan of Corbyn and think he would have been a good PM? You really should have said something.
I didn’t want to tarnish my reputation as a Johnson acolyte.
I see now that you think he wouldn’t have made a good PM, apologies. I had a bad case of Corbyneyeglazeoveritis.
Yeah, I think he’d probably have been crap. I did like his manifesto a lot, but how much of it he’d have been able to deliver is highly debatable.
He’d have been nowhere near as crap as Johnson though, that’s for sure. Not the highest of bars to judge by though.
Plus (sorry for repeating myself) he was a chance to stop the insanity of Brexit.
Who are the Corbyn’s “loyalists” to whom you refer?
The ones who draft strident 233 word responses to any perceived criticism of him.
The Momentum supporters?
Sure, if you like, among others. Wanting to see someone as PM is kind of loyal, wouldn’t you say?
“Dogmatically persistent in their defence of him”? Would you say the same of Starmer’s supporters?
No
Or Miliband’s?
No
Or anyone else’s?
Obviously yes. Taylor Swift and Gerry Rafferty have very strong, living fanbases.
I’m no more more politically dogmatic than any other average punter.
Good for you.
I do feel Corbyn was very wrongly and unfairly maligned (there’s plenty of evidence for that)
Every left of centre political figure in the UK gets unfairly maligned – that goes with the territory. He was very bad at dealing with it – ignoring or petulantly complaining – neither a good look.
and worse, his supporters were also wrongly maligned
see above.
that doesn’t mean that I or the 10 million or so should be considered as “dogmatically persistent in their defence of him, brooking no argument and hearing no criticism”. That’s just nonsense.
Where does 10 million come from? Did their fan club membership get them a fluffy John McDonald badge with swively eyes as well as the metallic Corbyn one? You seem to be confusing preference with loyalty.
Would I prefer “a bowl of bland, poorly cooked organic red lentils, or an oven-ready shit sandwich”? The former.
Good choice. Though you missed out on two slices of deliciously textured granary.
I think Corbyn is a decent chap whose views I largely agree with, who probably would have been a crap PM but would have held a second referendum on Brexit.
You’re really selling the guy.
I could go on, but I won’t.
“Strident” 233 word responses
I replied. I like interesting discussions about politics as much as other subjects. I don’t mean to be argumentative or provocative and I’m sorry if I come across as such, but really I’m just happy to discuss issues raised when I have nothing better to do (which is a lot of the time).
Wanting to see someone as PM is kind of loyal, wouldn’t you say?
No, not really. Everybody wants to see someone as PM. Whether it be Miliband, Starmer or whoever they choose to vote for. It’s, as you rightly say, usually an indication of preference rather than loyalty. Except people who preferred Corbyn were frequently labelled as being loyal to a personality cult.
Good for you
Ouch.
Every left of centre political figure in the UK gets unfairly maligned – that goes with the territory. He was very bad at dealing with it – ignoring or petulantly complaining – neither a good look.
I’d say Corbyn was maligned by the press more than any other party leader in my voting lifetime. I agree he was very bad at dealing with it.
Where does 10 million come from? Did their fan club membership get them a fluffy John McDonald badge with swively eyes as well as the metallic Corbyn one? You seem to be confusing preference with loyalty.
I think the majority of the 10 million or so who voted for him didn’t feel particularly loyal to him, but got wrongly portrayed as such.
“You’re really selling the guy.”
I’m not trying to. To me, Corbyn comes across as a more principled human being than Starmer, but a worse politician. (I think he lacks the necessary ruthlessness, for one thing.) I replied to Mike’s comment because I thought it inadvertently highlighted the difference between how people have reacted to Starmer’s ever-changing policies vs Corbyn’s -in my opinion, admirable- consistency.
I could go on, but I won’t.
It’s only a discussion, Sal. Like the one above about the monarchy. If you find it interesting discussing these type of things here, there’s no reason not to.
“Strident” 233 word responses
I replied. I like interesting discussions about politics as much as other subjects. I don’t mean to be argumentative or provocative and I’m sorry if I come across as such, but really I’m just happy to discuss issues raised when I have nothing better to do (which is a lot of the time).
I was teasing you.
Wanting to see someone as PM is kind of loyal, wouldn’t you say?
No, not really. Everybody wants to see someone as PM. Whether it be Miliband, Starmer or whoever they choose to vote for. It’s, as you rightly say, usually an indication of preference rather than loyalty. Except people who preferred Corbyn were frequently labelled as being loyal to a personality cult.
You need to separate out preference from loyalty. You didn’t. The Corbynistas are the die-hard loyalists – which may not include you.
I’d say Corbyn was maligned by the press more than any other party leader in my voting lifetime. I agree he was very bad at dealing with it.
I disagree. And I am right (Hee hee)
I think the majority of the 10 million or so who voted for him didn’t feel particularly loyal to him, but got wrongly portrayed as such.
Again – focus on the Corbynistas, not the 10 million who held their noses and voted for the least worst option.
I replied to Mike’s comment because I thought it inadvertently highlighted the difference between how people have reacted to Starmer’s ever-changing policies vs Corbyn’s -in my opinion, admirable- consistency.
You suggested all people who voted Corbyn rather than Johnson were/are labelled Corbynistas – that just simply isn’t true.
I could go on, but I won’t.
It’s only a discussion, Sal. Like the one above about the monarchy. If you find it interesting discussing these type of things here, there’s no reason not to.
I didn’t want to bore you, but as you seem to like being bored, let’s keep on playing
I was teasing you.
Soz, my bad. As happens so often, hard to tell in print. (And yet, despite that, I’m adamantly not a fan of emoticons.)
The Corbynistas are the die-hard loyalists – which may not include you.
Certainly doesn’t. And to be honest I don’t know and have never met anyone who was a die-hard loyalist (hardly surprising, not living in UK).
I know a few people who, like me, supported Corbyn, but they’re all moderate, liberal, Guardian-reading types. Normal, reasonable people. And yet it seems to me, looking back, that all his supporters were lumped together as obsessive fans. On Twitter, in the press, even here.
I think the vast majority of his supporters/voters just felt he was a breath of fresh air in the political arena and a decent chap, but felt they were increasingly being labelled as obsessive die-hard loony fans. I could be wrong, that might just be how I was made to feel (and I certainly was) but I think that must be how most of his vocal supporters and 10 million voters must have felt reading Twitter comments and newspaper columns.
I think the true “Corbynistas” are/were a small minority, but tarring all his supporters with that brush was a useful tool for his enemies on the Right.
I disagree. And I am right (Hee hee)
I just did 3 google image searches: Corbyn tabloids, Miliband tabloids, Starmer tabloids. The results speak for themselves. Really, no comparison. (And it’s no mystery why the very wealthy tax-avoiding press barons feared Corbyn so much.)
Again – focus on the Corbynistas, not the 10 million who held their noses and voted for the least worst option.
But my whole point, right from the beginning and my comment after Mike’s, was how people who preferred Corbyn over Johnson were called (among many other things) “Corbynistas” loyal to a “personality cult”. A personality cult would surely entail supporting a leader completely regardless of his policies even if they’re constantly changing. As per Starmer.
You suggested all people who voted Corbyn rather than Johnson were/are labelled Corbynistas – that just simply isn’t true.
I honestly don’t think anyone who spoke up in support of Corbyn was allowed to believe it was just a common or garden political preference. Everyone got lumped together and derided as a radical leftie (and a lot worse!). On Twitter, in the press (and, yes, even here.) And, ironically, I don’t even think Corbyn’s ideas were very radical.
I didn’t want to bore you, but as you seem to like being bored, let’s keep on playing
I very rarely get bored by anything except work, weddings and airplane travel.
I was teasing you.
Soz, my bad.
Although – this is all getting very verbose.
I think the true “Corbynistas” are/were a small minority, but tarring all his supporters with that brush was a useful tool for his enemies on the Right.
Sure, but it’s a fool who leaps into the path of the brush.
The results speak for themselves. Really, no comparison.
Miliband – the sausage roll, the Ed-stone, vilifying his dad. Starmer – pizza and beer over many Daily Mail front pages, Saville accusations, It happened to all of them.
(And it’s no mystery why the very wealthy tax-avoiding press barons feared Corbyn so much.)
I don’t think they like anyone who threatens the inequality in the UK.
people who preferred Corbyn over Johnson were called (among many other things) “Corbynistas” loyal to a “personality cult”.
Name-calling is like that. Best not to rise to it, or react in a way that suggests it’s accurate.
A personality cult would surely entail supporting a leader completely regardless of his policies even if they’re constantly changing. As per Starmer.
I don’t think there are any Starmer cultists. The Labour lead is to do with how bad the Tories are, not how gear Keir is.
The Labour lead is to do with how bad the Tories are, not how gear Keir is.
Yep, on that we deffo agree.
Hurrah! Let’s drop it while it’s hot.
Sure. It’s been an interesting discussion, so ta. I like discussions like this.
I just looked up Corbyn on here and interestingly (or perhaps not) I found this comment written by yourself in 2015 (402 words):
I really like Jeremy Corbyn. ‘Speakjng’ as a pacifist Quaker with green tendencies, I guess that’s kind of inevitable, but I just find him SO refreshing. It’s like WOW! – here is a politician who treats questions seriously and answers them with a thoughtfulness I haven’t seen since John Smith died; who is so reticent about and antipathetic to personality politics that his whole campaign is about addressing the catastrophe of austerity economics and its dire effect on most British people as ‘we’, not ‘I’, (evidenced by meetings where yes he give his speech, but then wants to hear from the audience their views), coupled with an apparent disinterest in winning the leadership vote, but in contributing to the building of a reinvigorated, re energised Labour Party that means something to and takes its inspiration and drive from its members.
The lazy painting of him as a hard left Marxist by the right wing press is totally gainsaid by his openness to a broad church shadow cabinet. Yes, he has principles and a clear position on many issues, both domestic and international, but he refuses to engage in slashing off other people, and seems to genuinely seek to find the best in those he engaged with. When LBC asked the 4 candidates if they would have Ed Miliband in their cabinet, the other candidates all prevaricated and gave the typical non answer that makes politicians despised when they use it in Question Time, etc. Corbyn said he thought Miliband had made a decent job as Environment Secretary and would slot him in there (or sounding like that – I’m not quoting verbatim, here).
There are so many important political issues that need addressing with a serious adult mentally, that doesn’t disintegrate to game playing and the mind-numbing psephological caution of capturing the fractional number of vote in the swing seats that depend on bland focus grouped nonsense to capture a perceived middle ground as enforced by the fucking awful abomination of a voting system the UK suffers under. I was sorely tempted to register as a Labour supporter just to have some chance of helping to break the stalemate of the current system. Good luck to all those who took that step and vote well. The philosophy of social justice and moderate cooperation could be what the country needs to defuse people’s passivity in the face of the boot stamp of neo liberalism.
“Ginger, get the popcorn!!”
Wow, you have dug deep! Check the date, though – that was around the time he was standing for Labour leader and shortly after. He soon proved (a) very disappointing as a political strategist (b) dogmatic in his views (c) entrenched in the left of his party, and far from the broad camp approach he suggested when campaigning to be leader.
Sure, (some of) the values he holds I would adhere to – but as a campaigner rather than as a practical politician. If I was a mainstream figure in his party (not some serial rebelling obscure backbencher for decades), I would take a more consensual approach. Wrong person for the time.
I think he was more the wrong person for his country than the wrong person for his time, though I never found him as radically left wing as he was made out to be and certainly a lot less wrong than the alternative. I don’t think he changed after becoming leader, I think the public perception of him changed due to the relentless press campaign.
From what I read in the press and social media these days, nationalisation of railway and water in particular now seem a pretty good idea.
country/time – potayto/potarto
Maybe not pitchforks at the palace radical, nor even more radical than Scandi social democrats, but at the left edge of the UK Overton Window.
You can’t separate temperament from beliefs. He alienated people, and the press built on that.
He must be amazing if he didn’t change after becoming leader – or amazingly dim. It SHOULD change you as a person. He failed.
He did fail, there’s no denying that. He could have and should have responded far better to the press annihilation and smears. He should have played the political game and engaged in the spin.
I was just now following today’s PMQ’s on Twitter. It really does represent everything Corbyn wasn’t able to do well. Caroline Lucas tweeted her reaction: As Gaza starves and tensions in Middle East threaten to spill over, there’s not a mention from Sunak and Starmer, who are more interested in trading jibes over Truss and Rayner. “Trading jibes.” That just about sums up the political game his was crap at and also one of the reasons people like me turned towards Corbyn.
PMQs is theatre. I like Caroline Lucas more than any other politician, but that’s how parliament rolls.
I think she is wise to leave it behind and focus on more effective ways for enabling positive change. Corbyn was a fool to think he could effectively lead his party from a position of inflexibility and inability to engage properly with the public and parliament.
I’d like to apologise for starting all … this. If it’s any use at this late stage, I’d like to donate the hamper (WHICH I NEVER GOT ANYWAY) to Inclusive Pronoun Concern, a registered charity.
“I‘d like to apologise…”, “If it‘s any use…”, “I‘d like to donate…” “Which I never got…”
Can’t you use “they” instead of these person and object-specific pronouns? It’s* 2024, ffs.
*oops
Once again, the relentless drive for hampers leads (however inadvertently) to political unrest amongst the glitterati…
Hampergate Howevermany. They won’t let it lie.
Can I raise a practical question at this point? Are we gonna do Stonehenge tomorrow?
A huge tax on tea to finance male prime ministers’s children baby-sitting and education costs.