[TobyD]

The tories are heading the same way as the Republicans: craven support of an idiot leader who sacks anyone who questions or criticises.

I don't like Boris Johnson's direction of government and I suspect hes an unpleasant man,  but I think it's wrong, and rather reductive to call him an idiot. That makes pretty much everyone in Labour an idiot too, since he totally handed it to them in the election. Johnson is a ruthless and persistent politician.  Self interested,  corrupt; possibly.  Lacking any moral or ideological compass, I'd say yes, but not an idiot.


Unfortunately in both cases (the conservative party and the Republicans) they'll totally get away with it because there isn't an effective opposition. My guess is that the government will face more concerted opposition from disaffected backbenchers on it's own side for some time. 

[BrutusTheBear]

Meanwhile an alternative way of thinking is thus...
There is/ was effective opposition but that kind of opposition is not ‘allowed’ to exist by the powers that be.  By capitulating with the mainstream narrative and working within the limited parameters of ‘allowed’ for discussion this will always be the case.  Those that continue to regurgitate this line are effectively shooting themselves in the foot if they truly believe in a fairer society and truly believe that climate change must be combatted immediately.
The empty term ‘effective opposition’ in this view means compromised opposition, for to have the approval of the powers that be and thus be deemed ‘effective’ requires the removal of values that don’t support the vested interests of those with power. 
The hardest thing for anyone to admit is that they are being ‘led’, that there own thinking could possibly be affected by the information thrown at them.  Ironically, many of those that deny this possibility would also suggest that those that voted for Brexit were manipulated in this way.

[Will Hunt]

The problem with your way of thinking there, Brutus, is that you've laid out your beliefs and stated that any contradiction to them must be false or corrupted in some way. This makes it impossible to argue with you, because no matter what argument or evidence is placed before you, it will be dismissed as in some way not valid. In a sense it's like watching the US creationists argue that fossils were placed by God to test us, or listen to flat-earthers who can easily ignore evidence that is contrary to their faith.

Perhaps we could ask, if Jeremy Corbyn's opposition was effective, what did he successfully oppose the Conservatives on? Which of their policies did he thwart? In what general elections did he win popular support?

[mrjonathanr]

Effective politicians gain power. Ineffective ones don’t.

Corbyn is the most ineffective Labour politician since 1935. As they say in football, the table doesn’t lie.

[TobyD]

Although you've put it more eloquently than it is often argued, Brutus, this is basically conspiracy theory is if not? I think that conspiracy theories and blaming 'the media' are non-arguements of radically left and right sides of the spectrum. Although some find radicalism alluring most people in a broadly ( and I know very broadly) comfortable country to live in just want a quiet life. If things are really bad, you get revolution, but I'm thinking like Syria, the Yemen or Germany in the 1930s, not the UK now which has a lot wrong with it, but is basically okay.
An effective opposition would be able to integrate their ideology with a realistic approach to solving actual problems and making people's lives better, and argue this coherently. There is no intrinsic barrier to that being done. 

[BrutusTheBear]

I hesitate to respond because I know I am out numbered but heh I have little to lose so I will attempt to address the above point by point.  I suspect you fellows will get what you wish for in the coming months and we’ll see how it all plays out in due course.

The problem with your way of thinking there, Brutus, is that you've laid out your beliefs and stated that any contradiction to them must be false or corrupted in some way. This makes it impossible to argue with you, because no matter what argument or evidence is placed before you, it will be dismissed as in some way not valid.

  I’d like to know how on earth you got here from my post and where exactly I stated that any contradiction is false or corrupted?  I am suggesting that the effective opposition that you seek, is something you’ve been talked into  and I am suggesting that opposition will be corrupted to broadly serve the interests of power and wealth (though a few more bones may be thrown to the poor). 

Effective politicians gain power. Ineffective ones don’t.

  Quite a statement, depends what effect you’re looking for.  Things are much more complex than this and I am sure you’re well aware of that.

Although you've put it more eloquently than it is often argued, Brutus, this is basically conspiracy theory is if not? I think that conspiracy theories and blaming 'the media' are non-arguements of radically left and right sides of the spectrum. Although some find radicalism alluring most people in a broadly ( and I know very broadly) comfortable country to live in just want a quiet life. If things are really bad, you get revolution, but I'm thinking like Syria, the Yemen or Germany in the 1930s, not the UK now which has a lot wrong with it, but is basically okay.
An effective opposition would be able to integrate their ideology with a realistic approach to solving actual problems and making people's lives better, and argue this coherently. There is no intrinsic barrier to that being done. 

. It’s definitely not a conspiracy theory and suggesting such doesn’t address anything specifically.  Things are not ‘basically OK’ for large sections of our society, I suspect that you have little or no contact with these groups, so could easily be drawn into this assumption.  I will also suggest that implying that I or people like me are in anyway ‘radical’ is a falsehood that you have bought into.
I have very deliberately not included anything Corbyn related because I believe this is not to do with individuals.  I am more interested in suggesting that our bastion of democracy isn’t functioning effectively and that our democracy is thoroughly corrupted.  (It is evidential, that in recent times, In order to win an election the amount of cash behind you needs to be the most.  In order to get the big money behind you, you will need to give something back).  The fact that things were so close in 2017 is incredible given the disparity in financial backing.
I know that the things I am saying are probably largely predictable to you and likewise your responses are too.  I often lurk here wishing someone would challenge the consensus and generally conclude if no one else does then I will. .  I doubt I can change your minds but if there are other lurkers around thinking the same at least they get to see an alternative.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this gentlemen;  If it is not possible to influence the thinking of the masses, to change outcomes of elections, for us to be fallible to propaganda and induced modes of thinking, what are organisations like Cambridge Analytica in existence for?

[Oldmanmatt]

I read and Andy Adonis quote earlier (I’ll find the article later, if I can), he said (something like) “for Labour, the last eleven elections have been: Loss, loss, loss, loss, Blair, Blair,Blair, loss, loss, loss, loss.”


Doesn’t seem like a very effective opposition.

Also, there are as many pro-Labour/Left leaning media outlets as there are right leaning. It’s simply that not enough people want what Labour is selling.

[Oldmanmatt]

Actually, that’s not the clearest refutation of your conspiracy Brutus.

~43% of the voters in 2019, chose the Cons.
~32% chose Lab.

Even discounting SNP voters, that left enough middle ground (just call that the Green and LD’s) to swing the election. I’d bet none of them were Sun/Telegraph/Mail/Express readers, but most were Guardian and Mirror readers. Trying to say that all of them were scared away from voting Labour by the evil oligarchs is a tad silly.
Labour, as always, shot themselves in the foot.

[TobyD]

Brutus, I object to you saying that I have no idea or contact with sectors of British society that don't have a comfortable life, I certainly do, I work in the community for the NHS and it's basically what I do for a job. My point is that it's not bad enough to force people to radical politics and revolution, whereas, for example life for a lot of Palestinian people or Iraqi people probably is.

[mrjonathanr]

Brutus, you might change my mind if you put forward an effective argument.

When was there an effective opposition? Labour’s support for the very right wing project of Brexit has made it the handmaiden of a whole host of ills that have barely begun. It’s calamitous. There will be a reduction in standards across the board and the watering down of standards and protections will mean huge profits for the few and straitened circumstances for the many.

When a party achieves the exact opposite of what it pretends to and enables, rather than hinders, its political opposition, it’s egregious nonsense to describe it as effective.

With regards to blinkered thinking due to media influence, well sure, there is a lot of propaganda masquerading as information. The information we consume shapes our perceptions and habits of thought to a degree. Depending on the person, their biases and willingness to be critical, sometimes more, sometimes less. It’s a big issue in modern society as you rightly suggest.

To come up with suggestions about what political positions we are ‘allowed’ to adopt or even consider- I imagine TobyD had that comment in mind when he referred to conspiracy theories- seems a gross oversimplification. It’s nothing new; for as long as we have had democracy people try to influence the voters towards outcomes favourable to them. That’s the -often dark- business we call politics.

I don’t see that as an adequate defence of failure to gain power though. As OMM, observes, too few bought the package.

Edit -waffle removed.

[tomtom]

Brutus - I feel some of your pain on this - but think MrJ above is on the money...

[BrutusTheBear]

I guess that is where we differ.  I take a Chomskian view that democracy is broken, essentially western social and political systems are now rigged such that they primarily serve the interests of wealthy, elite, powerful, big business etc.. to a lesser or greater degree but primarily this.  The moment those interests are at risk of being challenged too far the flack starts flying. Hence, loss, loss, loss, Blair...  In some ways I agree that Labour will only be in position to win, with backing of the system if we are prepared to engage with business and the likes of Murdoch as Blair did.  Yes, we may then get better funding for public services etc. But at what cost? Illegal wars, further deregulation of the financial sector followed with crash and burn.?  I’m personally not up for this kind of compromise and clearly I am not alone.  So I guess that is partly  why we are where we are.   
Times are such that very soon we will need government globally to take decisions that could be unpopular with business, in the meantime I think it is fairly likely that we will have the ‘centrist’ version of the LP and we will be able to see how effective that is as opposition.
Toby apologies for my assumption, there are plenty of people here in dire situations, perhaps not enough or enough people that care to start a revolution but I would maintain that we’re not basically okay.

[teestub]

How about something like:
Step 1: Labour win election on a moderate (by UK not world standards) socialist platform (moderate increases in benefits and public services expenditure, infrastructure spending etc.). Make a success of 5 years in government bringing genuine improvements to all across society.
Step 2: Campaign for next 5 years with a similar agenda, but a bit more of the same. Again show that small increases in taxes can be used to improve life for all in the country and that it’s not a zero sum game.
Step 3: By this point a decade of successful governing down the line, the labour govt. will have gradually moved to the Nordic model of social democracy without anyone really noticing, as everyone in the country has been reaping the rewards.
Step 4: Socialist paradise.

[BrutusTheBear]

   Yes, please.

Essentially use Tory tactics, lie to gain power, get a big majority, then proceed to do wtf you want.  Although having garnered support from big business/ Uber wealthy donors, there maybe some sort of backlash when they realise they’ve been shafted and will have to pay their taxes.  I like the idea of beating them at their own game though.

[petejh]

People in dire situations.. Stats for poverty are on the full fact site if you want to check. Any is too many, but according to the stats the numbers living in 'absolute poverty' have been on a general downward trend for a long time in the UK. At worst, by some measures the trend for absolute poverty in the UK has been flat for the last ten years, it hasn't increased as claimed by some. 'Relative poverty' has gone up in some age groups notably the young, but relative poverty seems to be a misleading stat.

That to me doesn't suggest a hugely corrupt system causing widespread deprivation, as depicted by those on the further left. It suggests an imperfect system, that works 'well-enough' so that most people aren't impacted by it enough to feel moved to elect a small, quiet, gentle grey-haired old man, apparently severely lacking in the sort of conventional leadership traits most of us are predisposed to (for good or bad) find inspiring, to entirely change the system. AKA if it ain't broke (enough) don't fix it.
Could a more socialist system along the nordic lines suggested above by teestub, work? Sure, with a charismatic-enough leader to showcase it and a group of inspiring people behind them to implement it. I'd be fine with that provided they didn't end up doing the leftist (and fascist) thing of persecuting anyone who disagreed with their ideology.
But Corbyn was an uninspiring individual leading an uninspiring political party, with an ideology that was a solution looking for a problem that a majority of people don't believe exists. Not enough at least to want to be bothered to let Corbyn and his band of ditherers do anything about it. You're almost insulting people's intelligence by suggesting they're wrong, but then again I can see why you might insult some people's intelligence..

[TobyD]

People in dire situations.. Stats for poverty are on the full fact site if you want to check. Any is too many, but according to the stats the numbers living in 'absolute poverty' have been on a general downward trend for a long time in the UK. At worst, by some measures the trend for absolute poverty in the UK has been flat for the last ten years, it hasn't increased as claimed by some. 'Relative poverty' has gone up in some age groups notably the young, but relative poverty seems to be a misleading stat.

That to me doesn't suggest a hugely corrupt system causing widespread deprivation, as depicted by those on the further left. It suggests an imperfect system, that works 'well-enough' so that most people aren't impacted by it enough to feel moved to elect a small, quiet, gentle grey-haired old man, apparently severely lacking in the sort of conventional leadership traits most of us are predisposed to (for good or bad) find inspiring, to entirely change the system. AKA if it ain't broke (enough) don't fix it.

Yes that's basically what I was saying. If things were really that bad, there'd be people blocking roads with burning tyres, rioting and willing to do almost anything to change their political system. See Hong Kong, the Middle East...

In reply to teestub & Brutus, surely all successful parties use a manifesto to get into office, and then wheel out their ideology once they've got a big majority. If Johnson had said that he was going to blow hundreds of billions on HS2 before the election, he'd probably have lost votes.
Teestub, yes that's basically what Labour should do, and fast.

[BrutusTheBear]

In reply to teestub & Brutus, surely all successful parties use a manifesto to get into office, and then wheel out their ideology once they've got a big majority. If Johnson had said that he was going to blow hundreds of billions on HS2 before the election, he'd probably have lost votes.
Teestub, yes that's basically what Labour should do, and fast.

Surely case and point for our democracy being completely dysfunctional, get elected do wtf you want without any accountability to the people that put you there.  Standard response is ‘well the electorate can make their feelings known at the next election’ by electing another group of politicians that will do whatever they wish.

Entirely agree that poverty doesn’t affect enough voters to have an impact, requires compassion for others from those that are OK.   

Pete.. Fullfact are shysters and chancers I personally wouldn’t trust any data coming from them.

[petejh]

Bonkers.

Having regular opportunities to vote out politicians we don't like isn't democracy because.. (you don't like the outcome of people's choices and believe the people are wrong..?)

Your better alternative is.. (a left-wing dictatorship..?)

Fact-checking site is untrustworthy because.. (its conclusions sometimes conflict with your beliefs..?)


The world doesn't work as you wish it would. Doesn't mean its 'wrong'. Try China you might prefer it there.

[ali k]

Yes that's basically what I was saying. If things were really that bad, there'd be people blocking roads with burning tyres, rioting and willing to do almost anything to change their political system. See Hong Kong, the Middle East...

I think that general dissatisfaction and anger is there among a lot of people (and will grow in the next 10-20yrs as the young continue to realise they no longer have the prospects of home ownership, decent wages and will be working long into their 80s).

But I also think it’s been masked by a) the worst affected generally being the disenfranchised who gave up on voting a long time ago, and b) Farage, Cummings et al in recent years successfully turning the country in on itself so instead of blaming the government people have just been squabbling among themselves. Classic divide and rule.

I do agree with Brutus that we’re trending to a broken democracy. The government is moving towards autocracy with its attempts to limit oversight by the media and judiciary. And social media has allowed outright lies and misinformation to be propagated by those with the money to pay for it.

It’s hard to have a functioning democracy when the masses are not presented with the truth.

[TobyD]

Yes that's basically what I was saying. If things were really that bad, there'd be people blocking roads with burning tyres, rioting and willing to do almost anything to change their political system. See Hong Kong, the Middle East...

I think that general dissatisfaction and anger is there among a lot of people (and will grow in the next 10-20yrs as the young continue to realise they no longer have the prospects of home ownership, decent wages and will be working long into their 80s).

But I also think it’s been masked by a) the worst affected generally being the disenfranchised who gave up on voting a long time ago, and b) Farage, Cummings et al in recent years successfully turning the country in on itself so instead of blaming the government people have just been squabbling among themselves. Classic divide and rule.

I do agree with Brutus that we’re trending to a broken democracy. The government is moving towards autocracy with its attempts to limit oversight by the media and judiciary. And social media has allowed outright lies and misinformation to be propagated by those with the money to pay for it.

It’s hard to have a functioning democracy when the masses are not presented with the truth.

A very reasonable post, and I wouldn't disagree. I think that Euroscepticism has been inserted as a proxy for dissatisfaction by a minority in Westminster and presented to a credulous nation as the answer to their ills.
This administration is showing signs of being profoundly undemocratic and I'm genuinely concerned about their growing restrictions on press freedom.  However the point on broken democracy in how parties present themselves at elections I'd disagree with. In the last election,  though I dislike them,  the conservatives managed the media well, whereas Labour's media strategy was totally incoherent. The biased media argument doesn't really hold as even traditionally strongly left leaning publications couldn't support them. With people like Karie Murphy deciding that they should try to fight every seat in the country they had no chance. In any election you still need an organised strategy and intelligent allocation of available resources.

[Offwidth]

Latest

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/16/boris-johnson-bans-press-photographers-downing-street

I'm a social liberal and I agree with much of the basic thrust of what Brutus is saying. The mainstrem press has always been mostly biased against the left, so nothing new there. What is new are worrying signs that UK democracy is breaking up and getting worse fast. Many liberal obsessions, especially with how terrible Corbyn was, are a dangerous red herring when we are now under a  popularist majority government very likely sleep-walking Britain into disaster. If the election went differently and Corbyn was running a minority government (he'd most likely have been forced to stand down) none of his socialist fantasy could ever have been enacted without centrist support from the other parties and even most of his own party. Despite a 6% majority of mostly well educated progressive voters in the UK, Boris was elected with this big majority and he now has a mandate to do what he wants.  I really hope I'm wrong, but, if anything things are going downhill faster than even I expected. Many of the liberal minded are enjoying themselves seeing Cummings get defeated on HS2 but to me he is one of the last independant minded intelligent persons of power left in this government. On this point, Toby picked me up the use of "idiot", I maintain that Boris IS an "idiot leader" as his ego driven path is leading the country into trouble for the sake of maximising his power. The money is going down the toilet with the self harm of Brexit and the grandstanding on the HS2 white elephant. He is attacking press freedom on many fronts, mainstream public factual challenge of his huge lies is failing, he is leading us further away from old style cabinet concensus with a PM as a first among equals, and is damaging democracy, including attacking judicial limits. The signs for ecological and food standards outside the EU look much bleaker. I really, really hope I'm wrong and he turns out to be a Hesletine style leader in complete disguise (as he hinted at) but all indications are this one nation idea is just another big lie.

If people want some insight into those struggling in modern Britain, the BBC is showing a series at the moment on the future of Universal Credit.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m000f1xj/universal-credit-inside-the-welfare-state

A dehumanised policy hard to navigate even for healthy people of average intelligence in relatively stable situations  (so pity those with complex lives, learning difficulties, disabilities, poor individual  financial skills  and  addictions) and managed by an understaffed and undertrained workforce. The change programme is led by someone who comes across as as woefully inadequate for such a huge project. The aim is for more than 10% of our population to be on this if things go to plan.

I remember past UK riots... especially those in the mid 80s. If people think the young poor will behave themselves as they are screwed over by the state, they are deluded. 

[BrutusTheBear]

Bonkers.

Having regular opportunities to vote out politicians we don't like isn't democracy because.. (you don't like the outcome of people's choices and believe the people are wrong..?)

Your better alternative is.. (a left-wing dictatorship..?)

Fact-checking site is untrustworthy because.. (its conclusions sometimes conflict with your beliefs..?)


The world doesn't work as you wish it would. Doesn't mean its 'wrong'. Try China you might prefer it there.

Bonkers?! Thanks.
You have misinterpreted.  I wasn’t quibbling the idea of having elections.  I was quibbling the fact that once politicians are elected they are largely unaccountable and do as they or their paymasters wish, part of the reason why many choose not to vote. Broken democracy.
Better system? Some ideas... End political donations, have people’s forums or members of public on select committees, end private sector funded lobbyists, anything to ensure that politicians remain accountable to the electorate once they have their seat.
This ‘fact checking site’ in particular, is untrustworthy because (like many or our politicians) of where it gets it’s money from.
I’m imagining saying to a group of children “This world is yours, it’s your future...’ ‘If it doesn’t work they way you wish it to work it doesn’t mean it’s wrong!’
As for the China comment, what you seem to be saying is as a citizen of this ‘democracy’ I can’t put forward different ideas or be critical of the status quo, if I don’t like it F off to China. Bonkers!

[Fiend]

Yeah come on Pete, Brutus needs to wait for the coronavirus to settle down at least....

[petejh]

You mean so-called coronavirus, which really is a US-sponsored black ops biological weapon?   

Brutus, why not just end private enterprise and have done with the source of all your perceived ills.

[ali k]

This administration is showing signs of being profoundly undemocratic and I'm genuinely concerned about their growing restrictions on press freedom.  However the point on broken democracy in how parties present themselves at elections I'd disagree with.

I see the two going hand in hand though. By controlling the media to an ever greater degree and therefore the narrative that is drip fed to the electorate for the next 4 years at least (a narrative based on plain untruths most of the time), weakening judicial oversight and generally avoiding any scrutiny it’s hard to imagine an effective opposition being mounted in coming elections in the face of that.

That’s not to say it’s impossible for Labour to win the next election (and I wholeheartedly agree that they had a strategy that was destined for failure regardless at this election) but by weighting the odds massively in favour of the incumbent administration by allowing them to control information to such a degree is to weaken democracy IMO and is in danger of breaking it.