[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 4 points 10 hours ago

Sorry the proles aren't behaving the way you'd like, boss.

24

TL;DR: arguably.

13

Starmer responds to questions from the Big Issue journalists and from vendors. Nothing particularly groundbreaking here but it all sounds good.

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 days ago

Is the message here supposed to be, both men did photoshoots at potteries, therefore they are politically aligned? Because if so I think you need a few more steps to actually make this case.

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net -1 points 2 days ago

That's about one tenth of the annual MP's salary. So, he has a far greater financial motive to remain an MP than he does to lose and collect the bet.

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 days ago

Even if his only incentives were financial, he will make more money by winning than by losing, because an MP's salary and expenses are pretty good. So, even taking into account the innumeracy of your average MP, he does not have a financial incentive to lose.

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 days ago

"In the 2005 election, I busted a gut to win. I expected to lose. I had a bet on myself to lose in the 2005 election, and my bet went down the pan."

He didn't throw the '05 election, even when he bet against himself.

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net -4 points 3 days ago

Right, but they weren't doing that. There's no evidence they were and no motive for them to do so. The comparison with athletes is not apt. A pro footballer who bets on himself and manipulates the outcome is still a pro-footballer afterwards. A politician who bets on themselves and deliberately loses is not a politician afterwards. It does not make sense to do it.

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 days ago

In Britain, being nominated as a local election candidate simply involves signing some forms

They're not local election candidates.

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

It requires huge amounts of work to be a candidate. I know people who've run for parliament. One of them had previously run as a total no-hoper on multiple occasions, in order to prove he knew how to campaign well enough to get selected for a seat where he had a chance. He was so burned out by the selection process that having won the selection, he actually turned down the nomination, then quit politics altogether. The idea that he'd have deliberatey thrown any of those elections is ridiculous.

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net -2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

The idea that anyone would put in all the work to get selected as a candidate, then decide it was a smart move to place a bet against themselves and throw the election to make a quick buck is ridiculous. There's no way you could make enough money from the bet to make it worthwhile.

7

A slightly too wordy and too long article that I nonetheless basically agree with. Key paragraphs:

Starmer’s strategic sense has been impressive, from opening his leadership consensually with qualified support for, and constructive criticism of, lockdown, to encouraging Boris Johnson to get his denials of Partygate on the record and leaving them there, to, most of all, his relentless focus on the voters he actually needs to win, rather than the ones who make the most noise.

This, of course, is the source of the biggest criticisms of Starmer from the left: that he won the leadership by relentlessly focusing on the voters he needed to win within the Labour Party, and then pivoted towards the national electorate rather than sticking with a prospectus whose chief appeal was to people who had already been shown to be a minority of a minority. I am not wholly unsympathetic to this view: his ten pledges were mostly bad, and he shouldn’t have made them; but dropping bad policies is better than sticking to them, and winning is better than losing.

After all, Jeremy Corbyn didn’t keep any of his promises, which may be why a recent election leaflet endorsing his bid to be the independent MP for Islington North gives so much prominence to his role in saving the Number 4 bus route.

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 days ago

This idiot might well be the difference between Sunak holding his seat and losing it.

7

Refreshing sanity from Conservative Home, of all places!

There's no equivalence between what Kevin Craig did (placed a bet on himself to lose) and what Craig Williams is accused of (using inside information to place a bet), and no need for a new law, given that what Williams is accused of is already illegal.

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 8 points 5 days ago

Takes a while before he gets to his actual suggestions, which are as stupid as you'd expect:

We know what a coherent right-wing agenda would look like: Net Zero immigration, energy sanity, a massive programme of planning reform, and housebuilding. We also know how to get there: identify, train, and promote talented people, primarily from the private sector, and smash the barriers to governing.

  • 'Net zero immigration' - dystopian, unworkable, self-destructive
  • 'Energy sanity' - meaningless, nobody thinks of themselves as proposing energy insanity, do they? I assume what he means is 'Keep exploiting fossil fuels even though revenues are falling, prices are rising, there are obvious alternatives and climate change is accelerating', which doesn't strike me as 'sane'. In any case, Labour's plans are sane: accelerate the transition to the cheapest, cleanest forms of energy and keep using fossil fuels to keep the lights on while we're managing the transition
  • 'massive programme of planning reform, and housebuilding' - exactly what the Tories have failed to deliver and what Labour are proposing, which he assumes they'll fail at for no discernible reason

And his plans for how to get there are just as asinine:

  • 'identify, train, and promote talented people' - again, meaningless. Who could oppose this?
  • 'primarily from the private sector' - why? Because. Sunak is 'from the private sector'. So was Boris Johnson. How's that worked out? And notice the weaselly 'primarily', too. Is that most? Some? All?
  • 'smash the barriers to governing' - again, just meaningless waffle, something the Tories have continuously promised and found themselves unable to deliver. Brexit was meant to do this. It didn't. Is this because, perhaps, the main 'barriers to governing' are that the Tories are totally detached from reality?
40
37
49

This is according to research by Get Voting. Seems worth sharing just to potentially have Liz Truss lose her seat!

21

This is what's keeping me up at night, and also exactly why I think all the predictions of four or five hundred seats for Labour are overblown.

10

The left is only able to demand that an apparently imminent Labour government be bolder in office because Starmer has got the party to the brink of victory – and has done it by doing the very things they opposed.

Never have I 'this'ed so hard.

32
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by frankPodmore@slrpnk.net to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk

The 2024 Labour Manifesto is now online!

I am genuinely excited by loads of it, especially the green policies and the expansion of workers' rights, but probably the most important part of it is the stuff aimed at economic growth.

What do you think? Love it? Hate it? Inspired to volunteer? Some more sensible, moderate emotion?

8

I've read a fair bit of philosophy and Hegel is the first time I've felt like the stereotype of philosophers, where they're being deliberately obscure to hide the fact that their arguments don't actually follow, might actually apply.

Now, most likely, I'm just being stupid, so I was wondering if anyone here actually got anything much out of Hegel and, if so, what?

I'm most of the way through the Phenomenology of Spirit, if that's any help.

36

... But great news for Britain!

Hartlepool is on track to lurch back to Labour in the election. Reform UK is in second spot

Came across this via LabourList, so giving them a shout, too.

view more: next ›

frankPodmore

joined 1 year ago