New Labour Leader

[sonyc 5,541]

10 minutes ago, Herman said:

What's that affliction/term for really stupid people that don't realise that they're really stupid?

Not sure but there will be an association with this Society ⬇️

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

16 minutes ago, Herman said:

What's that affliction/term for really stupid people that don't realise that they're really stupid?

The 'Dunning–Kruger Effect' and you and your ilk have it in spades..

I believe a poster called Shyster was the first to use the term at the Pink'Un.

[Nuff Said 5,254]

53 minutes ago, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

Lefties clear Lefty to work for Lefty shocker.. 🙃

Are you seriously going to suggest there’s no one of a right-wing persuasion in the Civil Service? It’s stuffed full of public school boys. The only reason Sue Gray is of note is that she appears to be a Labour supporter. Oh, and a woman.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,614]

5 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Are you seriously going to suggest there’s no one of a right-wing persuasion in the Civil Service? It’s stuffed full of public school boys. The only reason Sue Gray is of note is that she appears to be a Labour supporter. Oh, and a woman.

The Labour Party is full of public school boys and girls, not to mention many sending their kids to public schools.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1181493/labour-private-schools-how-many-labour-MPS-went-to-private-school-Jeremy-Corbyn

[Nuff Said 5,254]

14 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The Labour Party is full of public school boys and girls, not to mention many sending their kids to public schools.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1181493/labour-private-schools-how-many-labour-MPS-went-to-private-school-Jeremy-Corbyn

“Full”?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

48 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Are you seriously going to suggest there’s no one of a right-wing persuasion in the Civil Service? It’s stuffed full of public school boys. The only reason Sue Gray is of note is that she appears to be a Labour supporter. Oh, and a woman.

Serious about politics and Jools never appear in the same sentence. His only source of information or research is Guido.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,614]

42 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

“Full”?

'Full' by the 'standards' of a party that rates public schools about as highly as STDs as far as the rhetoric is concerned, yup. About 30% of Labour MPs went to public school, including good ole 'salt of the earth' Jeremy Corbyn.

Edited June 6, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[canarydan23 4,144]

1 hour ago, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

You're not wrong - Look at the following https://www.linkedin.com/posts/the-labour-party_internships-activity-7071465018059321344-rJum?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_android where Labour’s summer internship scheme is live, and they’re on the lookout for “applicants from ethnic minorities or lower socio-economic backgrounds“ -- To demonstrate the kind of fun in store for successful applicants, the job ad on LinkedIn features a picture of a dozen or so smiling faces stood outside an old, familiar-looking building:

 

Yes, that’s a picture of Tory interns stood outside 4 Matthew Parker Street, the home of… CCHQ 🤣

 

 

God you're dense. The image came from a link to the Patchwork Foundation, pulled from their own meta data, not Labour's. The Patchwork Foundation arrange political internships on behalf of all political parties, not just Labour. Do some ****ing research for once in your life rather than drawing conclusions on lies and incorrect assumptions.

And please, you are Dunning and Kruger's wet dream. You are to their theory what an apple falling on Newton's head is to gravity.

[canarydan23 4,144]

8 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

'Full' by the 'standards' of a party that rates public schools about as highly as STDs as far as the rhetoric is concerned, yup. About 30% of Labour MPs went to public school, including good ole 'salt of the earth' Jeremy Corbyn.

Slightly disingenuous when you consider that whilst he did go to the school his parents sent him too, he actually divorced his wife over an argument about whether their son should go to a selective grammar school or his local comprehensive.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,614]

1 minute ago, canarydan23 said:

Slightly disingenuous when you consider that whilst he did go to the school his parents sent him too, he actually divorced his wife over an argument about whether their son should go to a selective grammar school or his local comprehensive.

Point is, he came from a privileged, public-educated background, but is still a lefty, just like a lot of civil servants are from privileged backgrounds but still very much lefties. Nuff said's implication that public school = right winger doesn't hold water at all.

[Herman 9,865]

16 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

God you're dense. The image came from a link to the Patchwork Foundation, pulled from their own meta data, not Labour's. The Patchwork Foundation arrange political internships on behalf of all political parties, not just Labour. Do some ****ing research for once in your life rather than drawing conclusions on lies and incorrect assumptions.

And please, you are Dunning and Kruger's wet dream. You are to their theory what an apple falling on Newton's head is to gravity.

Dunning-Kruger.👍 That was the answer. Nice one Dan.

[canarydan23 4,144]

52 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Point is, he came from a privileged, public-educated background, but is still a lefty, just like a lot of civil servants are from privileged backgrounds but still very much lefties. Nuff said's implication that public school = right winger doesn't hold water at all.

Do you genuinely not believe that privately educated people are not proportionately more right-wing relative to the general population?

That there are plenty of privately-educated in the Labour Party doesn't change the fact that most privately-educated people are likely to be Tory.

That's just obvious, isn't it?

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

59 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

God you're dense. The image came from a link to the Patchwork Foundation, pulled from their own meta data, not Labour's. The Patchwork Foundation arrange political internships on behalf of all political parties, not just Labour. Do some ****ing research for once in your life rather than drawing conclusions on lies and incorrect assumptions.

And please, you are Dunning and Kruger's wet dream. You are to their theory what an apple falling on Newton's head is to gravity.

So the Labour Party put up a photo of Tory interns on the Linkedin Labour Party page requesting Labour internships and it's everyone else who is dense?

You idiot.

[canarydan23 4,144]

1 minute ago, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

So the Labour Party put up a photo of Tory interns on the Linkedin Labour Party page requesting Labour internships and it's everyone else who is dense?

You idiot.

No, you complete ****ing drip. It's not everyone else who is dense, just you.

I explained in the previous post what has happened, can you not read? Or is it comprehension of pretty basic English you struggle with?

Now, listen up, I won't explain it again, nor can I make it any simpler without crayon and paper.

The Labour Party put a post on the Labour Party LinkedIn page.

The post referred to an internship program they are offering through The Patchwork Foundation.

The Patchwork Foundation run internships for ALL political parties, including the Tories, with the aim of increasing diversity in politics.

Having referred to The Patchwork Foundation in their post, the Labour Party included a link to The Patchwork Foundation's page on internships.

That link pulled an image from The Patchwork Foundation's website database; the Labour Party had no choice or say over the image. Posting the link automatically inserted that image.

Do you have a LinkedIn page? If you do, add https://patchworkfoundation.org.uk/our-work/internships/ to your post and look at what image appears. The same thing would also happen if you pasted that link into a Facebook post.

Having you finally now reached a state of understanding about something?

If so, this could be an enlightening moment for you. You see, what you have done here is a perfect example of the cognitive dissonance you badly suffer from. You saw something that you thought made the Labour Party look a little bit stupid and immediately jumped to a conclusion that fitted comfortably within your existing perspective. So you ignored reality and clung to your original assumption, even after I explained it to you in pretty simple terms. Now, think about other times this may have happened to you. How many other occasions have you read or seen something that at first glance fueled your weird outlook but not actually digested what it is in front of you, and then let that initial reaction impact your thinking and ultimately your opinions? It's happening to you all the time, and it's why people think you're a bit slow.

You can do better.

[Barbe bleu 837]

7 hours ago, sonyc said:

He is unlike Blair, who had a personality on show. Blair was more 'box office' to use that cliché. The problem is that we now increasingly live in a celebrity culture. People dislike technocrats and more boring older grey men. Burnham appears to be a kind of leader in waiting and has more force of personality.

Agree completely. Burnham is the more obvious 'leader' but a period of 'management' won't go amiss in my book. There's quite a few lingering issues such as social care or the primary care system that need plodding and detailed resolution.   To be honest over a five year parliament I'd much rather starmer dropped some of the proposals that PC and others suggest makes him a radical and concentrates on a smaller number of more important things;  I suspect that is what he will do come the manifesto.

I'm not sure why you say that he is a conviction politician.  I'd say that is is closer to the opportunistic and pragmatic sides of the triangle than say a truss or a corbyn.  He had a very late entry to parliament and happily served corbyn before denouncing him, and the policy set seems to be in flux as he works out what's going to work and what won't. Its Interesting to me that you have come to a different view and I'd like to know more about where this had come from.

[Nuff Said 5,254]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Point is, he came from a privileged, public-educated background, but is still a lefty, just like a lot of civil servants are from privileged backgrounds but still very much lefties. Nuff said's implication that public school = right winger doesn't hold water at all.

I would put money on the majority of people who have a public school education tending to vote Tory. Of course, not every ex-public school pupil will vote Tory, and I would also expect a fair few of them who might have done so in the past won’t be doing so at the next election. But it will always be possible to find an exception - that doesn’t disprove the general point. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,614]

1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

Do you genuinely not believe that privately educated people are not proportionately more right-wing relative to the general population?

That there are plenty of privately-educated in the Labour Party doesn't change the fact that most privately-educated people are likely to be Tory.

That's just obvious, isn't it?

It's not about belief. I know from personal experience. I've got one friend from uni who was President of the JCR who was a major green nut at uni, vegetarian, socialist etc. She's senior in the Cabinet Office now. She wouldn't vote Conservative if you put a gun to her head. That's the highest flying example, but there are others, mostly from privileged backgrounds.

Leaks from the civil service, bullying accusations, what on Earth has ever led you to believe that there's much alignment between the Conservatives and the civil service? Even go back to John Major's day and there was practically a permanent line of communication between civil servants wanting to leak stuff and the Labour front bench. The idea that the civil service is stacked with Conservatives is nonsense.

More generally, uni was about 50/50 public sector v state school when I was there on the late 90s, but the student population was significantly left-leaning.

Edited June 6, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[canarydan23 4,144]

7 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's not about belief. I know from personal experience. I've got one friend from uni who was President of the JCR who was a major green nut at uni, vegetarian, socialist etc. She's senior in the Cabinet Office now. She wouldn't vote Conservative if you put a gun to her head. That's the highest flying example, but there are others, mostly from privileged backgrounds.

Leaks from the civil service, bullying accusations, what on Earth has ever led you to believe that there's much alignment between the Conservatives and the civil service? Even go back to John Major's day and there was practically a permanent line of communication between civil servants wanting to leak stuff and the Labour front bench. The idea that the civil service is stacked with Conservatives is nonsense.

More generally, uni was about 50/50 public sector v state school when I was there on the late 90s, but the student population was significantly left-leaning.

More made up stuff. Nice.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,614]

1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

More made up stuff. Nice.

Guy Burgess: Son of a banker, Eton-educated, Cambridge-educated, British Foreign Office, Soviet spy. Similar backgrounds to Kim Philby and the rest of the Cambrdidge five who were all Communists to the extent they betrayed their country as senior civil servants, regardless of their privileged backgrounds. You don't need to take my word for that. Your notions about political leanings among public school kids are just bunk; you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[dylanisabaddog 5,062]

From what I can ascertain, no one has ever run an opinion poll based on educational background. Yougov did a survey based on social groups (among other things) after the 2019 election, see link below. The issue is that everything has changed in the last 10 years, probably due to the most corrupt and generally incompetent Tory party we've ever seen. It will be interesting to see what happens when they see sense and drain the swamp. 

I know quite a few Senior Civil Servants. The ones I know are generally moderate in their views. They wouldn't have voted for Corbyn but none of them voted for Johnson either. I have a friend whose high flying daughter is quite senior in the Bank of England who says her colleagues used to be Conservative but aren't any more. 

What is astonishing from this survey is how much support the Conservatives get from social groups at the bottom of the pile. Turkeys voting for Christmas springs to mind. 

What should terrify the Tories is that the more educated we become the more likely we are to vote Labour. It doesn't terrify them of course because they haven't got the faintest idea which way the wind is blowing. For some considerable time they have concentrated solely on just surviving the day. 

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

Edited June 7, 2023 by dylanisabaddog

[TheGunnShow 6,106]

5 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

From what I can ascertain, no one has ever run an opinion poll based on educational background. Yougov did a survey based on social groups (among other things) after the 2019 election, see link below. The issue is that everything has changed in the last 10 years, probably due to the most corrupt and generally incompetent Tory party we've ever seen. It will be interesting to see what happens when they see sense and drain the swamp. 

What is astonishing from this survey is how much support the Conservatives get from social groups at the bottom of the pile. Turkeys voting for Christmas springs to mind. 

What should terrify the Tories is that the more educated we become the more likely we are to vote Labour. It doesn't terrify them of course because they haven't got the faintest idea which way the wind is blowing. For some considerable time they have concentrated solely on just surviving the day. 

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election

Can see some of the tactics again in my news feed from the Telegraph, Mail and Express. A lot of kicking down in their reporting all of a sudden.

Instead of keeping the focus in the only logical place, which is the political powers that be/those in charge, it's just kicking at those at the bottom of the pile. 

[Yellow Fever 3,852]

12 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

What is astonishing from this survey is how much support the Conservatives get from social groups at the bottom of the pile. Turkeys voting for Christmas springs to mind. 

What should terrify the Tories is that the more educated we become the more likely we are to vote Labour. It doesn't terrify them of course because they haven't got the faintest idea which way the wind is blowing. For some considerable time they have concentrated solely on just surviving the day. 

This !!!!

I think the support for the Tory party though is not just one group. There are the traditional rural (farming) Tories who cant imagine or have the wit to vote otherwise - and now the 'populist' simplistic right wing (yes often at the bottom of the pile). In some areas they overlap.  

All that said, education tends to favour those parties that are rational and with competent policies. Not tribal loyalties

 

[sonyc 5,541]

12 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

I'm not sure why you say that he is a conviction politician.  I'd say that is is closer to the opportunistic and pragmatic sides of the triangle than say a truss or a corbyn.  He had a very late entry to parliament and happily served corbyn before denouncing him, and the policy set seems to be in flux as he works out what's going to work and what won't. Its Interesting to me that you have come to a different view and I'd like to know more about where this had come from

I've read a few sources that led me to my view Bb. The most recent was from this Hutton article a few months ago (see at the foot of my post).

It is a great read:

(a) It really paints a very convincing blueprint for a better country. I doubt there would be many who would disagree. It's a version of a new Beveridge plan - the kind that I've called for a few times.

(b) Hutton's piece is very balanced in telling us about how the socialist dream has failed - and why. He also looks at how radical a more right wing government can be and has been and why the Tories have been so successful. There are some things that really chime with YF's recent post above.

It is a long term plan too Barbe. Just what is needed. The five national missions are given a little more space here (a health service based on wellbeing, the Great British Energy plan .....) as well as reform of the Lords.

Anyway, I commend this article to all. For anyone thinking he is not radical, think again about the changes that might take place in the country, given adequate time. I can certainly see a vision there. And I like it very much.

Add to it closer relationships with our EU neighbours and reform of the electoral system (it WILL happen) and I will be encouraged again. The last 13 years have been a terrible waste of time. We've gone backwards and at a great rate. We've had the worst of politicians (I include a few of the opposition). The quality of Labour's shadow cabinet looks far more competent in comparison at this moment. Business thinks so too.

Many of the big social and economic indicators have got worse under this Tory rule. That's not a political statement to make, it is reality. Even bloody life expectancy has got worse under this mob as has absolute poverty and regional wealth disparities. Levelling Up my a*se.

I hope we don't get too many sound bites like we have had under  Johnson et al. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/26/ignore-detractors-keir-starmer-radical-transform-country

Edited June 7, 2023 by sonyc

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

17 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

No, you complete ****ing drip. It's not everyone else who is dense, just you.

I explained in the previous post what has happened, can you not read? Or is it comprehension of pretty basic English you struggle with?

Now, listen up, I won't explain it again, nor can I make it any simpler without crayon and paper.

The Labour Party put a post on the Labour Party LinkedIn page.

The post referred to an internship program they are offering through The Patchwork Foundation.

The Patchwork Foundation run internships for ALL political parties, including the Tories, with the aim of increasing diversity in politics.

Having referred to The Patchwork Foundation in their post, the Labour Party included a link to The Patchwork Foundation's page on internships.

That link pulled an image from The Patchwork Foundation's website database; the Labour Party had no choice or say over the image. Posting the link automatically inserted that image.

Do you have a LinkedIn page? If you do, add https://patchworkfoundation.org.uk/our-work/internships/ to your post and look at what image appears. The same thing would also happen if you pasted that link into a Facebook post.

Having you finally now reached a state of understanding about something?

If so, this could be an enlightening moment for you. You see, what you have done here is a perfect example of the cognitive dissonance you badly suffer from. You saw something that you thought made the Labour Party look a little bit stupid and immediately jumped to a conclusion that fitted comfortably within your existing perspective. So you ignored reality and clung to your original assumption, even after I explained it to you in pretty simple terms. Now, think about other times this may have happened to you. How many other occasions have you read or seen something that at first glance fueled your weird outlook but not actually digested what it is in front of you, and then let that initial reaction impact your thinking and ultimately your opinions? It's happening to you all the time, and it's why people think you're a bit slow.

You can do better.

Hey, Dan, a quick update: Labour have deleted the advert -- They've deleted the advert because they made a silly mistake and are embarrassed about it -- The same way as you should feel embarrassed about your condescending drivel above.

The Labour Party can count their blessings that the conservatives have failed to fulfill any of their manifesto promises, because the former really are the gift that keeps on giving through incompetence.

[Nuff Said 5,254]

27 minutes ago, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

Hey, Dan, a quick update: Labour have deleted the advert -- They've deleted the advert because they made a silly mistake and are embarrassed about it -- The same way as you should feel embarrassed about your condescending drivel above.

The Labour Party can count their blessings that the conservatives have failed to fulfill any of their manifesto promises, because the former really are the gift that keeps on giving through incompetence.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,614]

8 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

This !!!!

I think the support for the Tory party though is not just one group. There are the traditional rural (farming) Tories who cant imagine or have the wit to vote otherwise - and now the 'populist' simplistic right wing (yes often at the bottom of the pile). In some areas they overlap.  

All that said, education tends to favour those parties that are rational and with competent policies. Not tribal loyalties

 

Not just that, but urban culture imposing itself on rural culture tends to alienate rural areas. Fox hunting remains popular throughout rural areas as part of the culture while urban dwellers get all upset because they grew up on Beatrix Potter instead of coming out to a devastated chicken coop in the morning.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

32 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Not just that, but urban culture imposing itself on rural culture tends to alienate rural areas. Fox hunting remains popular throughout rural areas as part of the culture while urban dwellers get all upset because they grew up on Beatrix Potter instead of coming out to a devastated chicken coop in the morning.

Except the farmers and smallholders I know just shoot Foxes. 

[ricardo 7,447]

32 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Except the farmers and smallholders I know just shoot Foxes. 

The hunting ban never had anything to do with protecting foxes.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,614]

10 hours ago, sonyc said:

I've read a few sources that led me to my view Bb. The most recent was from this Hutton article a few months ago (see at the foot of my post).

It is a great read:

(a) It really paints a very convincing blueprint for a better country. I doubt there would be many who would disagree. It's a version of a new Beveridge plan - the kind that I've called for a few times.

(b) Hutton's piece is very balanced in telling us about how the socialist dream has failed - and why. He also looks at how radical a more right wing government can be and has been and why the Tories have been so successful. There are some things that really chime with YF's recent post above.

It is a long term plan too Barbe. Just what is needed. The five national missions are given a little more space here (a health service based on wellbeing, the Great British Energy plan .....) as well as reform of the Lords.

Anyway, I commend this article to all. For anyone thinking he is not radical, think again about the changes that might take place in the country, given adequate time. I can certainly see a vision there. And I like it very much.

Add to it closer relationships with our EU neighbours and reform of the electoral system (it WILL happen) and I will be encouraged again. The last 13 years have been a terrible waste of time. We've gone backwards and at a great rate. We've had the worst of politicians (I include a few of the opposition). The quality of Labour's shadow cabinet looks far more competent in comparison at this moment. Business thinks so too.

Many of the big social and economic indicators have got worse under this Tory rule. That's not a political statement to make, it is reality. Even bloody life expectancy has got worse under this mob as has absolute poverty and regional wealth disparities. Levelling Up my a*se.

I hope we don't get too many sound bites like we have had under  Johnson et al. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/26/ignore-detractors-keir-starmer-radical-transform-country

Trouble is, it doesn't matter how radical the agenda, in a two-party system then once the Conservatives are back in then everything can and will be undone. This is how the cycle goes.

[Barbe bleu 837]

41 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Trouble is, it doesn't matter how radical the agenda, in a two-party system then once the Conservatives are back in then everything can and will be undone. This is how the cycle goes.

You may have mentioned this before...