Page 2 of 2
Re: Angela Rayner
Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2021 7:19 pm
by sheldrake
plodder wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 7:04 pm
maybe she was talking about actual Tory Scum, you know, the proper noun ones.
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.
Re: Angela Rayner
Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2021 4:29 pm
by Si_B
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.
Re: Angela Rayner
Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2021 4:54 pm
by plodder
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
Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2021 4:59 pm
by sheldrake
Rayner seems to be more focused on the shame right-minded people ought to feel when supporting scummy policies
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..).
Increasing the polarisation on purpose with abuse will just make her look mentally unstable and irresponsible, just like Corbyn etc..
Re: Angela Rayner
Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2021 5:03 pm
by plodder
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
Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2021 5:16 pm
by Si_B
plodder wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 5:03 pm
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.
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."
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
Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2021 5:27 pm
by sheldrake
plodder wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 5:03 pm
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.
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.
Re: Angela Rayner
Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2021 5:54 pm
by plodder
Si_B wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 5:16 pm
plodder wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 5:03 pm
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.
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."
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.
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.
Re: Angela Rayner
Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2021 6:03 pm
by sheldrake
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.
Re: Angela Rayner
Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2021 6:20 pm
by plodder
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
Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2021 6:22 pm
by sheldrake
plodder wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 6:20 pm
I thought the tone of Momentum was pretty compelling
Did you
really though? Which bits did you like?
Re: Angela Rayner
Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2021 6:30 pm
by plodder
sheldrake wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 6:22 pm
plodder wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 6:20 pm
I thought the tone of Momentum was pretty compelling
Did you
really though? Which bits did you like?
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
Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2021 6:40 pm
by sheldrake
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
Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2021 6:42 pm
by plodder
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.