hey he was the chancellor of my uni strawberry float him
I generally worry that 'the left' will never do as well as the right because of mentalities like this - 'the right' seem much more willing to use opportunities where possible, even to the point of inconsistency and seemingly to have no morals.
In theory John Bercow defecting to Labour should be used to help push the narrative that the Tories are crumbling from within, which combined with the election loss this week could be a strong narrative to build momentum with. But instead you'll get some people going "I don't like him, and I would rather someone else joins instead. I'm going to talk about that.".
It comes down to 'what's your goal, and are you trying to achieve the goal". The Tories, for example, seem to have a goal of sticking in power at all costs, hence inconsistency. But saying you don't like someone who deflected to an opposition party - what's the goal there? Is there someone else you were hoping that would get the position, that would work better for Labour in the long term? Do you not think that trying to make the Tories look weaker is not a desirable goal - you can't just win elections by getting votes, you need to ensure they get less than you and get people to switch, after all.
Bercow has had a pretty amazing transformation across his life. He's gone from extremely right wing, calling for the repatriation of immigrants when he was in the Monday Club, to a gradually more centre-right Tory and now across to Labour.
hey he was the chancellor of my uni strawberry float him
I generally worry that 'the left' will never do as well as the right because of mentalities like this - 'the right' seem much more willing to use opportunities where possible, even to the point of inconsistency and seemingly to have no morals.
In theory John Bercow defecting to Labour should be used to help push the narrative that the Tories are crumbling from within, which combined with the election loss this week could be a strong narrative to build momentum with. But instead you'll get some people going "I don't like him, and I would rather someone else joins instead. I'm going to talk about that.".
It comes down to 'what's your goal, and are you trying to achieve the goal". The Tories, for example, seem to have a goal of sticking in power at all costs, hence inconsistency. But saying you don't like someone who deflected to an opposition party - what's the goal there? Is there someone else you were hoping that would get the position, that would work better for Labour in the long term? Do you not think that trying to make the Tories look weaker is not a desirable goal - you can't just win elections by getting votes, you need to ensure they get less than you and get people to switch, after all.
Honestly though, I think Bercow defecting to Labour says more about the state of the party than it does him, and is simply more evidence of Labour heading firmly back to the centre, being the party of nice wishy washy liberalism, rather than one that wants to fundamentally reform broken systems and actually address the root causes of inequality.
pjbetman wrote:That's the stupidest thing ive ever read on here i think.
Having a big Islamophobic tantrum in a fascist newspaper is certainly an unorthodox election campaign strategy for Labour in Batley. Let's see if it pays off!
That's not a growth wrote:I generally worry that 'the left' will never do as well as the right because of mentalities like this - 'the right' seem much more willing to use opportunities where possible, even to the point of inconsistency and seemingly to have no morals.
In theory John Bercow defecting to Labour should be used to help push the narrative that the Tories are crumbling from within, which combined with the election loss this week could be a strong narrative to build momentum with. But instead you'll get some people going "I don't like him, and I would rather someone else joins instead. I'm going to talk about that.".
It comes down to 'what's your goal, and are you trying to achieve the goal". The Tories, for example, seem to have a goal of sticking in power at all costs, hence inconsistency. But saying you don't like someone who deflected to an opposition party - what's the goal there? Is there someone else you were hoping that would get the position, that would work better for Labour in the long term? Do you not think that trying to make the Tories look weaker is not a desirable goal - you can't just win elections by getting votes, you need to ensure they get less than you and get people to switch, after all.
I am left wing. I am not a liberal, I am not a centrist, and I'm not centre left. What I want is representation of socialism in mainstream politics, and I almost had that during Corbyn's leadership (still more centre left but w/e) but Bercow defecting to Labour is very clearly indicative of the party shifting back towards the centre, which is the opposite of what I want. Honestly I would have this reaction towards any Tory joining Labour, and probably most Lib Dems too.
The right being less choosy about how they decide to stay in power is indeed a problem, but it is also their own moral failing and I have no interest in doing what they do. I stand by the idea that left wing politics is simply more rational; and as such we do not need to operate in the manner that right dictates.
was Vtheyoshi on (S)ONM. V I was, V I remain sig made by the venerable Krik
That's not a growth wrote:I generally worry that 'the left' will never do as well as the right because of mentalities like this - 'the right' seem much more willing to use opportunities where possible, even to the point of inconsistency and seemingly to have no morals.
In theory John Bercow defecting to Labour should be used to help push the narrative that the Tories are crumbling from within, which combined with the election loss this week could be a strong narrative to build momentum with. But instead you'll get some people going "I don't like him, and I would rather someone else joins instead. I'm going to talk about that.".
It comes down to 'what's your goal, and are you trying to achieve the goal". The Tories, for example, seem to have a goal of sticking in power at all costs, hence inconsistency. But saying you don't like someone who deflected to an opposition party - what's the goal there? Is there someone else you were hoping that would get the position, that would work better for Labour in the long term? Do you not think that trying to make the Tories look weaker is not a desirable goal - you can't just win elections by getting votes, you need to ensure they get less than you and get people to switch, after all.
I am left wing. I am not a liberal, I am not a centrist, and I'm not centre left. What I want is representation of socialism in mainstream politics, and I almost had that during Corbyn's leadership (still more centre left but w/e) but Bercow defecting to Labour is very clearly indicative of the party shifting back towards the centre, which is the opposite of what I want. Honestly I would have this reaction towards any Tory joining Labour, and probably most Lib Dems too.
The right being less choosy about how they decide to stay in power is indeed a problem, but it is also their own moral failing and I have no interest in doing what they do. I stand by the idea that left wing politics is simply more rational; and as such we do not need to operate in the manner that right dictates.
Do you not think a lesser of two evils approach might be at least somewhat useful though?
I would consider myself left wing but aside from a complete revolution I don't really see how it's a feasible option at this point. Although I guess maybe that means I'm part of the problem.
That's not a growth wrote:I generally worry that 'the left' will never do as well as the right because of mentalities like this - 'the right' seem much more willing to use opportunities where possible, even to the point of inconsistency and seemingly to have no morals.
In theory John Bercow defecting to Labour should be used to help push the narrative that the Tories are crumbling from within, which combined with the election loss this week could be a strong narrative to build momentum with. But instead you'll get some people going "I don't like him, and I would rather someone else joins instead. I'm going to talk about that.".
It comes down to 'what's your goal, and are you trying to achieve the goal". The Tories, for example, seem to have a goal of sticking in power at all costs, hence inconsistency. But saying you don't like someone who deflected to an opposition party - what's the goal there? Is there someone else you were hoping that would get the position, that would work better for Labour in the long term? Do you not think that trying to make the Tories look weaker is not a desirable goal - you can't just win elections by getting votes, you need to ensure they get less than you and get people to switch, after all.
I am left wing. I am not a liberal, I am not a centrist, and I'm not centre left. What I want is representation of socialism in mainstream politics, and I almost had that during Corbyn's leadership (still more centre left but w/e) but Bercow defecting to Labour is very clearly indicative of the party shifting back towards the centre, which is the opposite of what I want. Honestly I would have this reaction towards any Tory joining Labour, and probably most Lib Dems too.
The right being less choosy about how they decide to stay in power is indeed a problem, but it is also their own moral failing and I have no interest in doing what they do. I stand by the idea that left wing politics is simply more rational; and as such we do not need to operate in the manner that right dictates.
Do you not think a lesser of two evils approach might be at least somewhat useful though?
I would consider myself left wing but aside from a complete revolution I don't really see how it's a feasible option at this point. Although I guess maybe that means I'm part of the problem.
The lesser of two evils moves in the same direction though, just at a slower pace. The centre ground and the debate with it is still controlled by the right