I think when it's a 'maybe' it's still a problem. If she'd said 'Boris Johnson is a scumbag' then that would be most unparliamentary, but I wouldn't care.
Angela Rayner
Re: Angela Rayner
Regardless of whether or not I agree with her (and I do to some extent), I think it was very unwise. It's all very well firing up your party base, but they will vote for you anyway.
If you actually want to do something as radical as win an election, then you have to persuade the people who didn't vote for you last time that you are someone they want to vote for. Calling them rude names is not necessarily the way I would go about it.
If you actually want to do something as radical as win an election, then you have to persuade the people who didn't vote for you last time that you are someone they want to vote for. Calling them rude names is not necessarily the way I would go about it.
"The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane." - Mark Twain
Re: Angela Rayner
It's becoming clear that Starmer and Rayner are forming a double act. Starmer has started to very deliberately call out Johnson personally - "a trivial man" etc, whereas Rayner seems to be more focused on the shame right-minded people ought to feel when supporting scummy policies. Rayner is always going to be less mealy-mouthed than Starmer, but that's not a problem - all successful leaders have an unpleasant henchman*.
Re: Angela Rayner
I don't think this will help their electoral prospects. People who vote for things like benefit reductions have already modelled those facing the cuts as workshy/moochers etc.. and so view people opposing the cuts as the immoral ones (e.g. enablers, people looking to build political careers with irresponsible populism etc..).Rayner seems to be more focused on the shame right-minded people ought to feel when supporting scummy policies
Increasing the polarisation on purpose with abuse will just make her look mentally unstable and irresponsible, just like Corbyn etc..
Re: Angela Rayner
No it won't, because she's correct - in the climate of increasing shortages, increases to heating costs etc, it does actually look increasingly scummy to cut benefits. I'm not sure "we must reduce the benefit bill" is a good look right now, especially in areas of high unemployment and poverty.
Re: Angela Rayner
I repeat: "If you actually want to do something as radical as win an election, then you have to persuade the people who didn't vote for you last time that you are someone they want to vote for. Calling them rude names is not necessarily the way I would go about it."plodder wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 5:03 pmNo it won't, because she's correct - in the climate of increasing shortages, increases to heating costs etc, it does actually look increasingly scummy to cut benefits. I'm not sure "we must reduce the benefit bill" is a good look right now, especially in areas of high unemployment and poverty.
People voted for Johnson - calling them names will make them justify their decision and retreat. They certainly won't vote for you (which is what you need them to do). Starmer's approach is the only sensible one.
I could never understand why the Corbynistas couldn't see that telling people that if they weren't ideologically pure enough to sign up for their whole programme then they were a Tory and should eff off and vote Tory (as I was told on several occasions) meant that many people did just that. They are not going to come back if you insult them.
"The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane." - Mark Twain
Re: Angela Rayner
I think remembering that those benefits were temporarily increased is important. Keep in mind that I'm not trying to convince you they're right, I'm trying to model what people who are currently Tory voters (especially people who aren't that rich themselves but who see themselves as hard working and self-reliant) might be thinking.plodder wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 5:03 pmNo it won't, because she's correct - in the climate of increasing shortages, increases to heating costs etc, it does actually look increasingly scummy to cut benefits. I'm not sure "we must reduce the benefit bill" is a good look right now, especially in areas of high unemployment and poverty.
Re: Angela Rayner
Starmer's the leader and he won't use language like that, so in the sense of putting people off *who don't think it's scummy* Rayner is largely irrelevant. It's the floaters, the ones who worry they're being scummy, the'll listen and get it.Si_B wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 5:16 pmI repeat: "If you actually want to do something as radical as win an election, then you have to persuade the people who didn't vote for you last time that you are someone they want to vote for. Calling them rude names is not necessarily the way I would go about it."plodder wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 5:03 pmNo it won't, because she's correct - in the climate of increasing shortages, increases to heating costs etc, it does actually look increasingly scummy to cut benefits. I'm not sure "we must reduce the benefit bill" is a good look right now, especially in areas of high unemployment and poverty.
People voted for Johnson - calling them names will make them justify their decision and retreat. They certainly won't vote for you (which is what you need them to do). Starmer's approach is the only sensible one.
I could never understand why the Corbynistas couldn't see that telling people that if they weren't ideologically pure enough to sign up for their whole programme then they were a Tory and should eff off and vote Tory (as I was told on several occasions) meant that many people did just that. They are not going to come back if you insult them.
Re: Angela Rayner
Don't you see parallels for how you saw the 'true believers' in Momentum ?
Generally speaking if somebody is on the edge but they're told 'You're a worthless lowlife if you don't agree with us' they tend to get defensive and recoil.
Generally speaking if somebody is on the edge but they're told 'You're a worthless lowlife if you don't agree with us' they tend to get defensive and recoil.
Re: Angela Rayner
I thought the tone of Momentum was pretty compelling, it was the inept way they approached being competent that did my nut in. Someone here was very recently bemoaning the identikit thinking that typified much of modern discourse... I can't think who.
Re: Angela Rayner
The "enough is enough" stuff. Pretty stirring. Lots of other people thought so too. I just didn't think for a minute they'd be any good at it. Lots of other people thought that, too.
Re: Angela Rayner
I'm not familiar with it. Doing a google search gives me a confusing range of stuff that relates to the labour party or social justice but which look like separate things. What was it?
Re: Angela Rayner
just the general gist, it was nice and refreshing. It's just it was being promoted by incompetents and obviously malevolent people like John McDonnell.