|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
Northern Ireland26669 Posts
On February 28 2026 01:02 Nebuchad wrote:
What was the reasoning for not letting him run?
He was angling for a leadership challenge, rather obviously. He’s talked about it in the past but he needs elected as an MP to do so.
Not a massive fan of that call myself, equally I don’t think it’s beyond the pale outrageous or anything. Things are somewhat fractious as is so I can somewhat understand not wanting a mid-term leadership bid to happen, although I’d personally welcome it. It’s also somewhat hypocritical given how much Starmer and his crew worked to fuck over Corbyn
|
United States43934 Posts
Labour’s administration has been basically fine, easily the best we’ve had in a decade. A lot of the problems they’re dealing with are legacy issues. And yet somehow they’re judged to be failing which leaves me wondering, “against what bar?” What possible measurement could you be using to find them so deficient?
|
On February 28 2026 01:10 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2026 00:42 Nebuchad wrote:
What's with the funeral this is one of the best news worldwide in a long while It’s a single seat by-election win from a party that’s very much a small parliamentary factor.
It has a lot of weight symbolically, it goes directly against the narrative that Labour will present that they're the only alternative available to Reform. The centrism plan is always to run on nothing and use Reform being scary as a justification for why you can't run on anything. Having evidence that you're beating Reform while running on something, and maybe more importantly having Labour getting third place with their strategy, is very good. It can be used. It may even have impact on Keir's strategy - but probably not.
Of course if it's just that alone it won't save y'all, but now there's at least an available path. You may not have to follow the US in its downward spiral.
(You still likely will, it's just that there's a chance now)
|
On February 28 2026 01:02 Nebuchad wrote:
What was the reasoning for not letting him run?
He's ambitious and far more popular than Starmer
|
United States43934 Posts
I mean if Labour could stop fighting each other for a minute that’d be fucking great.
|
On February 28 2026 01:29 KwarK wrote:
Labour’s administration has been basically fine, easily the best we’ve had in a decade. A lot of the problems they’re dealing with are legacy issues. And yet somehow they’re judged to be failing which leaves me wondering, “against what bar?” What possible measurement could you be using to find them so deficient?
Their biggest problems are:
a) How they go about things. I'll give an example. Their disability benefit reforms that they came up with left the entire disabled community feeling utterly betrayed and millions of people said 'never again' to voting Labour. Then they backed out of the reforms but it was too late, the sense of betrayal was already there and backing out doesn't really change that.
b) Their PR is fucking awful. They aren't telling us what they are succeeding at, meanwhile everyone else is telling us all the things that they aren't very good at. It leaves a huge impression on the public.
c) Starmer himself has looked weak for a long time now and you feel like he's hanging on to power that shouldn't be his.
oh and d) Peter Mandelson
|
On February 28 2026 01:56 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2026 01:10 WombaT wrote:On February 28 2026 00:42 Nebuchad wrote:
What's with the funeral this is one of the best news worldwide in a long while It’s a single seat by-election win from a party that’s very much a small parliamentary factor. It has a lot of weight symbolically, it goes directly against the narrative that Labour will present that they're the only alternative available to Reform. The centrism plan is always to run on nothing and use Reform being scary as a justification for why you can't run on anything. Having evidence that you're beating Reform while running on something, and maybe more importantly having Labour getting third place with their strategy, is very good. It can be used. It may even have impact on Keir's strategy - but probably not. Of course if it's just that alone it won't save y'all, but now there's at least an available path. You may not have to follow the US in its downward spiral. (You still likely will, it's just that there's a chance now)
Ahhh, now I see why it is getting the reactions it is.
|
Northern Ireland26669 Posts
On February 28 2026 01:29 KwarK wrote:
Labour’s administration has been basically fine, easily the best we’ve had in a decade. A lot of the problems they’re dealing with are legacy issues. And yet somehow they’re judged to be failing which leaves me wondering, “against what bar?” What possible measurement could you be using to find them so deficient?
I saw a poll the other day where either a large minority or majority of those queried, cannae remember exactly, believed that net migration or w/w had increased under Labour, where the exact opposite is true. To a not insignificant degree too. I mean unlike some my soul isn’t consumed with immigration as a topic anyway, but for many their’s are and they’re just wrong in their perception.
To take one example from rather a lot. It’s a very uphill battle for Labour in this regard, even when they deliver on what the public is clamouring for, not only do they not get credit but folks think the exact opposite of reality is the case.
|
On February 28 2026 03:36 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2026 01:29 KwarK wrote:
Labour’s administration has been basically fine, easily the best we’ve had in a decade. A lot of the problems they’re dealing with are legacy issues. And yet somehow they’re judged to be failing which leaves me wondering, “against what bar?” What possible measurement could you be using to find them so deficient? I saw a poll the other day where either a large minority or majority of those queried, cannae remember exactly, believed that net migration or w/w had increased under Labour, where the exact opposite is true. To a not insignificant degree too. I mean unlike some my soul isn’t consumed with immigration as a topic anyway, but for many their’s are and they’re just wrong in their perception. To take one example from rather a lot. It’s a very uphill battle for Labour in this regard, even when they deliver on what the public is clamouring for, not only do they not get credit but folks think the exact opposite of reality is the case.
That is a weird thing nowadays. People have their perception of reality, that often doesn't really correlate with reality, but that perception is still "real" for them, and they base their decisions off of that. It is true in so many situations, and it leads to so many problems.
And i have no clue how to deal with that. They also refuse any information that is contrary to their perceived reality.
|
Northern Ireland26669 Posts
On February 28 2026 03:46 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2026 03:36 WombaT wrote:On February 28 2026 01:29 KwarK wrote:
Labour’s administration has been basically fine, easily the best we’ve had in a decade. A lot of the problems they’re dealing with are legacy issues. And yet somehow they’re judged to be failing which leaves me wondering, “against what bar?” What possible measurement could you be using to find them so deficient? I saw a poll the other day where either a large minority or majority of those queried, cannae remember exactly, believed that net migration or w/w had increased under Labour, where the exact opposite is true. To a not insignificant degree too. I mean unlike some my soul isn’t consumed with immigration as a topic anyway, but for many their’s are and they’re just wrong in their perception. To take one example from rather a lot. It’s a very uphill battle for Labour in this regard, even when they deliver on what the public is clamouring for, not only do they not get credit but folks think the exact opposite of reality is the case. That is a weird thing nowadays. People have their perception of reality, that often doesn't really correlate with reality, but that perception is still "real" for them, and they base their decisions off of that. It is true in so many situations, and it leads to so many problems. And i have no clue how to deal with that. They also refuse any information that is contrary to their perceived reality.
Yeah it’s a real fundamental problem. At least back in the day it was explicable because not everyone devoured newspapers and current affairs TV material like saddos such as myself did. An ignorance of omission, nout wrong with that.
Nowadays it feels like a rather deliberate ignorance, ignorance by intransigence if you will.
I don’t really know what you do with that, I really don’t. Indeed I doubt people who claim they do have an answer to this problem that’s realistically actionable.
I mean better messaging helps, but it doesn’t feel it fully circumvents this phenomenon. Which I think broadly hurts left-leaning politics more than right-leaning ones, but absolutely not exclusively.
|
Aren't we starting to see a massive swing against social media in Europe due to the problems it causes in politics, crime, for youths etc? You have places like X that has algorithms actively pushing right wing content when tested by universities/news. Facebook creating echo chambers reinforcing the views etc.
If the current anti US sentiment goes far enough we might get rid of the US social media platforms and in that gap create legislation similar as for news. Where lying carries consequences. It is also politically feasible right now as a negotiation tool against US pressure and has been used by the EU as they started enforcing legislation instead of letting it slide.
|
Imo the influence of social media is overstated. The theory starts with the assumption that there is something wrong going on, and then looks for new parameters to explain it. Social media is new, so it's the issue... But I'm not certain the assumption is correct, that there is something wrong going on. The capitalist/billionnaire class keeps getting more and more money and they use it to buy more influence and power. They capture politics and then we have to break free with some sort of FDR figure (or in the case of Europe, a World War). All of it feels very in line with expectations to me. The parallels with other periods of history where the right was strong are often very easy to make, and they didn't have social media.
|
On February 28 2026 04:42 Nebuchad wrote:
Imo the influence of social media is overstated. The theory starts with the assumption that there is something wrong going on, and then looks for new parameters to explain it. Social media is new, so it's the issue... But I'm not certain the assumption is correct, that there is something wrong going on. The capitalist/billionnaire class keeps getting more and more money and they use it to buy more influence and power. They capture politics and then we have to break free with some sort of FDR figure (or in the case of Europe, a World War). All of it feels very in line with expectations to me. The parallels with other periods of history where the right was strong are often very easy to make, and they didn't have social media.
I think the main thing that makes this different to me is that the left is weak. If the problem is billionaires (which I agree is a large issue) then why doesn't the left gain popularity as easily as the right? The core of the left wing is to move money from the rich and even out the benefits. Why would the right gain more votes in a climate rife for the left wing?
|
United States43934 Posts
On February 28 2026 04:57 Yurie wrote:
I think the main thing that makes this different to me is that the left is weak. If the problem is billionaires (which I agree is a large issue) then why doesn't the left gain popularity as easily as the right? The core of the left wing is to move money from the rich and even out the benefits. Why would the right gain more votes in a climate rife for the left wing?
You've answered your own question.
I'll put your question another way.
"If the hypnotoad has really gained control of our town then explain why everything seems to support hypnotoads. Surely if the hypnotoad was real then we'd expect to see people rallying against it. I can't reconcile the idea that the hypnotoad is exerting undue influence on our society with the fact that nobody seems to mind."
|
On February 28 2026 05:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2026 04:57 Yurie wrote:
I think the main thing that makes this different to me is that the left is weak. If the problem is billionaires (which I agree is a large issue) then why doesn't the left gain popularity as easily as the right? The core of the left wing is to move money from the rich and even out the benefits. Why would the right gain more votes in a climate rife for the left wing? You've answered your own question. I'll put your question another way. "If the hypnotoad has really gained control of our town then explain why everything seems to support hypnotoads. Surely if the hypnotoad was real then we'd expect to see people rallying against it. I can't reconcile the idea that the hypnotoad is exerting undue influence on our society with the fact that nobody seems to mind."
I personally support unreasonably large subsidies for the brain slug planet.
|
On February 28 2026 05:33 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2026 05:18 KwarK wrote:On February 28 2026 04:57 Yurie wrote:
I think the main thing that makes this different to me is that the left is weak. If the problem is billionaires (which I agree is a large issue) then why doesn't the left gain popularity as easily as the right? The core of the left wing is to move money from the rich and even out the benefits. Why would the right gain more votes in a climate rife for the left wing? You've answered your own question. I'll put your question another way. "If the hypnotoad has really gained control of our town then explain why everything seems to support hypnotoads. Surely if the hypnotoad was real then we'd expect to see people rallying against it. I can't reconcile the idea that the hypnotoad is exerting undue influence on our society with the fact that nobody seems to mind." I personally support unreasonably large subsidies for the brain slug planet.
Is there such a thing as unreasonably large when it comes to the brain slugs?
|
United States43934 Posts
Long shot but you know how Carney was the governor of the Bank of Canada and then we headhunted him and brought him in as the first non British governor of the Bank of England. Well, he’s currently PM of Canada and he seems to be competent. If we still have his email we should look into whether we can airdrop him into a safe seat. Or technically there’s no rule against a PM coming from the Lords so we could just anoint him if it came to that.
|
Northern Ireland26669 Posts
On March 03 2026 00:40 KwarK wrote:
Long shot but you know how Carney was the governor of the Bank of Canada and then we headhunted him and brought him in as the first non British governor of the Bank of England. Well, he’s currently PM of Canada and he seems to be competent. If we still have his email we should look into whether we can airdrop him into a safe seat. Or technically there’s no rule against a PM coming from the Lords so we could just anoint him if it came to that.
The people here continually like to demonstrate that they don’t like things like boring technocratic competence. If we’re raiding Canada for the next Premier may as well grab Mike Myers or something
|
On March 03 2026 01:43 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2026 00:40 KwarK wrote:
Long shot but you know how Carney was the governor of the Bank of Canada and then we headhunted him and brought him in as the first non British governor of the Bank of England. Well, he’s currently PM of Canada and he seems to be competent. If we still have his email we should look into whether we can airdrop him into a safe seat. Or technically there’s no rule against a PM coming from the Lords so we could just anoint him if it came to that. The people here continually like to demonstrate that they don’t like things like boring technocratic competence. If we’re raiding Canada for the next Premier may as well grab Mike Myers or something
On the other hand, the British historically love taking valuable stuff from foreign places. And what could be more valuable than a ruler? Lots of money is called a "Kings ransom" after all. So maybe if you frame it as stealing foreign artifacts, you could do it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
