Official general election thread


hah. easy there. waves at T-May’s snoopers it’s fine guys he’s joking.

also feeling a real total cunt about going weird at eric up there ^ sorry dude, was a full arsehole. nnnggg. :frowning:


Oh after getting nabbed protesting the Britain First idiots few weeks back I’m almost definitely being watched/making us all watched rn


oh god look man things have been going okay for me lately i don’t need this.*

*first they came for ruffers and i did not say anything because i was not ruffers


I only got so far with that before giving up in exasperation at its crass stupidity.

I mean, there is literally no discussion about the fact that huge numbers of these ‘new’ members are in fact returning ones, or ones who are young and would have been natural Labour voters/members in the past. And again there is the lazy, and inaccurate painting of these supporters as ‘hard-left’. It’s a sad state when mild redistributive social democracy can be painted as such by people claiming the soul of Labour.

And the bit about 50% of Labour members not voting for Corbyn is the most egregious deliberate simplification of a multi-party ballot that I have seen. Anyone polling near 50% in a ballot with four other candidates is delivering a crushing win with a massive mandate.

I gave up after that, because I could literally feel myself getting stupider trying to stoop to its level.


your second para is classic pure marckee conjecture with no stats, numbers, citations or anything else which i know you don’t have and will give me an irked reason for why that is other than ‘i can’t back that up’ all for you telling me it’s pure shite but i wonder how much of that is just you being angry without being able to quantify it.

your third para is solid, your fourth is sad.


i think he’s (rightly) painting that the new socialist-leaning younger sign-ups have nothing in common with, no connection with, and no interest in developing an interest in what makes a traditional supporter tick. but in the interests of fairness that’s my own conjecture.

but your full dismissal of that article out of hand is a good enough indicator of where the left is right now. i guess they carry on as they are eh bud? good luck etc.


Purely anecdotal on this, but from my experience with half a dozen local parties, I’d say about half of the post 2015 GE new members are returning members who left the party over the Iraq war and the other half are young new members who are by no means ‘entryists’.


okay. and tbf i’ll take that seriously because i suspect you’re more connected to on-the-ground labour than i am.

i definitely think the party is in turmoil even after you’ve removed the nasty media angles on it. and i think it’s being brushed over rather than mended (you can see how spiky i’m getting even by my standards, aware i’m bristling too hard again, sorry). but yeah. i’m not convinced. i think as i say it’s basically two separate parties with one name


The thing that really bugged me was that the article seemed to completely discount what happened to the membership between 1997 and 2015, and seemed to deliberately ignore the way the party treated members and it’s core voters in that period.


i think there’s a… i think i do this too (what the article is doing). i see ‘labour traditional’ as pre blair, and newbies post iraq being a whole other breed to those traditional union-centric supporters with no obvious connection point


with the blairites a third lost-in-the-void missing link/failed experiment i guess/


I disagree with much of this and think he does himself a disservice by taking a clear and hard position off the fence before demolishing Corbynism rather than addressing both sides on their merits.

Can’t really engage too much with the waffling on about different brands of Marxism/Trotskyism/Leninism as I don’t know or care enough about them, but my biggest problems with his piece are:

  1. He seems to spend his first section going into quite a bit of depth about how “Corbynites” aren’t all the same and then spends the next six treating them as if they’re one amorphous being with the same aims and goals as each other.

  2. He spends a lot of time talking about “commonplaces”, yet doesn’t address the elephant in the room of the counter-“commonplaces” spread by anti-Corbynites.

  3. He leans too heavily on the SWP and Morning Star as if they’re considered relevant by the majority of Corbyn supporters. While I suspect a large number of readers of both are probably Corbynites, I doubt many Corbynites read either with much seriousness (data here would be good)

  4. The flaw of speaking “for” the working class instead of to them is actually fundamental in explaining how Labour have reached this situation and it’s been a failing of theirs going back as long as I can remember being politically conscious (i.e. Blair for certain, probably further). It’s not unique to Corbynites, and arguably the fact that the Blair/Brown/Milliband leaderships failed so badly here is what allowed the room for Corbynism to be given a go by the membership.

It’s also quite disappointing in that he’s sprinkled references throughout quite liberally, but yet a lot of his assertions aren’t actually backed up with referenced data. The best thing he has is the YouGov poll, but for a piece with so many ideas in it, he needs more data like that and less anecdotal evidence.


Corbynites (for want of a better phrase) detest the SWP and their hijacking of progressive causes while shielding sexual abusers.


FWIW, I use the term Corbynite liberally throughout that in the same way the author does - as an umbrella term meaning “people who wholely or partly support Corbyn’s leadership”.


first: thank you for reading it through and giving me a fair reading from your point of view. i’m aware how antagonistic it is but i appreciate that. and

  1. yeah. i think there’s a general assertion that corbyn newbies are more concerned with a ‘higher calling’ than mere elections. again, no stats and a bit shit to believe that. 's my inkling still, however.

  2. yeah, okay yes.

  3. i mean i’m more alarmed at the very possible argument that nothing is considered relevant by the majority of sudden newbie corbyn supporters. i wonder not who they’re reading but if they are, to be frank. (basically: i’m being an old cynic, i know) and

  4. yeah. i think it’s not unique, and blair’s lot did it first, but the new wave seems to bolster that with righteous indignation.

all anecdotal. all me filling in gaps with assumptions. still a bit worried it’s true.


Oh, I forgot number 5… He doesn’t acknowledge what seems to me to be the increasingly popular view (again, I’d love to see data on this - not sure if there is any) of “yes, we agree Corbyn isn’t working out as we hoped, but there’s no other bastard in the party who seems any better equipped to do much at the moment.”


Watching Newsnight, seems like May’s latest vote-winning ideas are sacking off foreign aid to pay for submarines and getting rid of pensions.
Honestly boggles the mind how they’re even a party.


Like, everyone gets old, do people just fucking forget that?


It’s always been a broad church. However, under Blair and Mandelson the policies, the PLP and the party machine became more centralised and moved to the right because the attitude was that ‘they’ve got no where else to go’.

That was gross complacency, and by the end of the 00s the party had found itself in government but intellectually, logistically and financially running on fumes due to the hollowing out of its membership.

If anything, Corbyn tried to bring people into the tent when his party support was such that he didn’t need to. His attempts were rebuffed, and the party machine is still openly hostile to him and the membership.