frankPodmore

joined 1 year ago
 

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour 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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 13 hours ago (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

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

They're not local election candidates.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (6 children)

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.

 

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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 [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

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?

 

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.

 

... 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 ›