- Welcome to Languish.org.
Recent posts
#91
Off the Record / Re: Youtube Recommendations
Last post by HVC - July 17, 2025, 07:37:57 PMMore fodder for Italian tears, which is one of my favourite YouTube genres. Sorry, no math this time grumbler 
#92
Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...
Last post by Sheilbh - July 17, 2025, 07:36:27 PMSo one thing that also makes me think about Starmer and Hollande is that by all accounts Starmer genuinely is profoundly normal. He doesn't come across that way and even the things he is genuinely deeply invested in don't come across particularly authentically. But he really is a North London middle aged dad who plays 5 a side football and is a huge Arsenal fan. By all accounts he also isn't interested in talking about politics (apparently he is very interested in people's families and really talks about that), from people at the top of government by all accounts he is "really not political" and he kind of holds politics in contempt a bit - he doesn't like the briefings or the spin or any of that stuff. And in that he sounds like an incredibly normal middle aged professional. But I can't help but feel not being interested in politics and holding it in contempt might be okay if his career path had gone as expected and he became Attorney General in an Ed Miliband cabinet, but is possibly a big problem in a party leader and PM.
Two slight examples of what I mean by Starmer just not being good at politics which have stuck in my head. The first is that in the last year he has only actually voted on government legislation 8 times. Now obviously he's got a massive majority but I think it is helpful for the PM to vote (and Downing Street is literally a 2 minute walk to Parliament). But more importantly because votes in Westminster are done by literally going through a yes lobby and a no lobby, it's a really important way for leaders (or hopefuls) to press the flesh with their grassroots MPs - and, crucially, for those MPs to get a couple of minutes possibly with the leader or senior cabinet and flag things. Relatedly one of the MPs Starmer withdrew the whip from today said it was a surprise and also noted that Starmer hasn't spoken to him once since the election. Again there's a bit of MPs' precious egos here - but also politics is a people profession.
But also just thinking about the difference with Blair because in Blair's first year, he also passed some welfare cuts that were very unpopular with Labour backbenchers because of self-imposed fiscal constraints. There was a big (but nowhere near as big) rebellion over it. What's really striking though is Blair's approach - first he had an argument that was tied to his wider agenda for why it was right to make these cuts (basically welfare to work) as opposed to just saying "we need to make the sums add up or the economy will collapse". But also throughout Blair's time in office he actually made time to host backbench MPs who were opposed to various policies and in part it was to try and persuade them - but I think for Blair it was also about testing arguments and hammering out which ones worked best. It was always about trying to build the case that he could make to MPs but also to the country - and I just think there's no sense from Starmer that he needs to do that. There's no rolling the pitch for policies, there's no argument, there's no engagement with rebels or doubters. At best it's sort of saying what policies are without arguing for them and then withdrawing the whip from "serial" rebels (now up to 15 after 1 year).
Two slight examples of what I mean by Starmer just not being good at politics which have stuck in my head. The first is that in the last year he has only actually voted on government legislation 8 times. Now obviously he's got a massive majority but I think it is helpful for the PM to vote (and Downing Street is literally a 2 minute walk to Parliament). But more importantly because votes in Westminster are done by literally going through a yes lobby and a no lobby, it's a really important way for leaders (or hopefuls) to press the flesh with their grassroots MPs - and, crucially, for those MPs to get a couple of minutes possibly with the leader or senior cabinet and flag things. Relatedly one of the MPs Starmer withdrew the whip from today said it was a surprise and also noted that Starmer hasn't spoken to him once since the election. Again there's a bit of MPs' precious egos here - but also politics is a people profession.
But also just thinking about the difference with Blair because in Blair's first year, he also passed some welfare cuts that were very unpopular with Labour backbenchers because of self-imposed fiscal constraints. There was a big (but nowhere near as big) rebellion over it. What's really striking though is Blair's approach - first he had an argument that was tied to his wider agenda for why it was right to make these cuts (basically welfare to work) as opposed to just saying "we need to make the sums add up or the economy will collapse". But also throughout Blair's time in office he actually made time to host backbench MPs who were opposed to various policies and in part it was to try and persuade them - but I think for Blair it was also about testing arguments and hammering out which ones worked best. It was always about trying to build the case that he could make to MPs but also to the country - and I just think there's no sense from Starmer that he needs to do that. There's no rolling the pitch for policies, there's no argument, there's no engagement with rebels or doubters. At best it's sort of saying what policies are without arguing for them and then withdrawing the whip from "serial" rebels (now up to 15 after 1 year).
#93
Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...
Last post by HVC - July 17, 2025, 07:36:03 PMIs dismissing a whip a common thing that stamer just getting extra flack for (as is the want of liberals to eat their own)? Sheilbh mentioned the number, maybe he just has shitty ones lol. Which can be another problem if he's the one picking them. I know nothing about Abbott, but the tidbits shared here isn't really the best defence of her. Mainly she sucks but he shouldn't have done it
#94
Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...
Last post by Valmy - July 17, 2025, 07:03:50 PMIs Starmer aware he was elected to save Britain, not plunge it into darkness?
#95
Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...
Last post by Josquius - July 17, 2025, 06:00:30 PMThe Abbot ban was so ridiculous.
She has said lots of stupid things in the past. She has some dodgy views.
But what it was over here was pretty factual. There is a difference between visible minorities and invisible minorities.
She could maybe have said she spoke a bit clumsily, but the core point is right .
She has said lots of stupid things in the past. She has some dodgy views.
But what it was over here was pretty factual. There is a difference between visible minorities and invisible minorities.
She could maybe have said she spoke a bit clumsily, but the core point is right .
#96
Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...
Last post by Sheilbh - July 17, 2025, 05:13:41 PMSo mentioned some fairly striking polls recently. Obvious caveats need to be said - we're one year into this parliament, the government have a massive majority (which, at some point, they may discover means they can do things 
), plus the Sultana press release was clearly premature as her and Corbyn have not formed a party yet (which will probably come out of Corbyn's "Peace and Justice Project"). Lots can and will happen, you can't just take one poll and widely extrapolate and you certainly can't use it to predict seats - having cleared my throat, I'll now do all of that 
However this poll did the rounds last week and is pretty striking:
One very small thing I'd note is that in the 2024 election broadly left-ish candidates (Labour, Greens, Gaza Independents and, generously, the SNP and Lib Dems) won about 60% of the vote. In this poll unambiguously right-wing parties are on over 50%. The volatility - and also increasing urgency of people wanting change - is pretty incredible.
But polling like this is catastrophic for Labour - and I'm fairly sure that the Corbyn Party would do an electoral pact with the Gaza Independents (who came close to winning several more seats at the last election) and could do one with the Greens, which would cause absolute carnage for Labour. I think the single biggest goal right now for the Tories is simply to survive - and we might be heading in a similar direction with Labour.
Now you can't and shouldn't just plug this in to a uniform swing calculator to see what seats fall. But if you did () it's pretty extraordinary. Labour would lose lots of seats in the West Midland cities. There'd be three way marginals in the North-West (Reform-Labour-Corbyn). And whole swathes of London including East London. Hackney, Poplar, Bethnal Green, Bow. I think in terms of emotional resonance and symbolism, losing the East End would have an even bigger impact than losing Scotland (in 2015) or the Red Wall (2017-19).
But even that would be cumulative. Currently Labour are third (
!) in the polls for next year's Senedd election with Reform and Plaid basically neck and neck for first. That would be the first time Labour haven't held the Welsh government in 27 years. Labour are also polling third in Scotland behind the SNP and Reform. So the next election could plausibly see Labour lose in their heartlands in Wales and Scotland (to Reform, Plaid and SNP), the Red Wall seats again (to Reform), the post-industrial towns and cities with large Muslim communities (to Reform and Corbyn), as well as London and the university towns (to the Greens and Corbyn). I'm not really sure what's left.
One slightly interesting thought I saw from someone is that in part this may just be the end of "labourism" as a force in Western politics. The age of the 20th century left whose power is derived from organised labour and the organised working class would be finally over. Instead you could see in a Corbyn Party the eventual triumph of the New Left and a case for Labour's more centre/liberal New Labour wing possibly cooperating with the Lib Dems to consolidate the centre and fight Reform (can't help but think of Hollande and what followed looking at these polls).
Which is the thing I find really interesting that arguably the big trend in British politics is its Europeanisation. For example a "generic candidate" poll for the French presidentials has RN on 35%, the centre right on 10%, Macron's Ensemble on 15-20% and both the PS and NFP (assuming they ran separately) on about 15%....Snap. Or Austria: FPO on around 30-35%, the centre right on 20-25%, centre left on 20%, liberals on 10-15% and Greens on 10%. Finally becoming something like the meme:
Separately as discussed I just don't think Starmer is up to it - I think he fundamentally has no sense of politics (I'm not sure Reeves or many of the people around him do either) and I'm not sure it's fixable.
), plus the Sultana press release was clearly premature as her and Corbyn have not formed a party yet (which will probably come out of Corbyn's "Peace and Justice Project"). Lots can and will happen, you can't just take one poll and widely extrapolate and you certainly can't use it to predict seats - having cleared my throat, I'll now do all of that However this poll did the rounds last week and is pretty striking:
One very small thing I'd note is that in the 2024 election broadly left-ish candidates (Labour, Greens, Gaza Independents and, generously, the SNP and Lib Dems) won about 60% of the vote. In this poll unambiguously right-wing parties are on over 50%. The volatility - and also increasing urgency of people wanting change - is pretty incredible.
But polling like this is catastrophic for Labour - and I'm fairly sure that the Corbyn Party would do an electoral pact with the Gaza Independents (who came close to winning several more seats at the last election) and could do one with the Greens, which would cause absolute carnage for Labour. I think the single biggest goal right now for the Tories is simply to survive - and we might be heading in a similar direction with Labour.
Now you can't and shouldn't just plug this in to a uniform swing calculator to see what seats fall. But if you did (
) it's pretty extraordinary. Labour would lose lots of seats in the West Midland cities. There'd be three way marginals in the North-West (Reform-Labour-Corbyn). And whole swathes of London including East London. Hackney, Poplar, Bethnal Green, Bow. I think in terms of emotional resonance and symbolism, losing the East End would have an even bigger impact than losing Scotland (in 2015) or the Red Wall (2017-19).But even that would be cumulative. Currently Labour are third (
!) in the polls for next year's Senedd election with Reform and Plaid basically neck and neck for first. That would be the first time Labour haven't held the Welsh government in 27 years. Labour are also polling third in Scotland behind the SNP and Reform. So the next election could plausibly see Labour lose in their heartlands in Wales and Scotland (to Reform, Plaid and SNP), the Red Wall seats again (to Reform), the post-industrial towns and cities with large Muslim communities (to Reform and Corbyn), as well as London and the university towns (to the Greens and Corbyn). I'm not really sure what's left.One slightly interesting thought I saw from someone is that in part this may just be the end of "labourism" as a force in Western politics. The age of the 20th century left whose power is derived from organised labour and the organised working class would be finally over. Instead you could see in a Corbyn Party the eventual triumph of the New Left and a case for Labour's more centre/liberal New Labour wing possibly cooperating with the Lib Dems to consolidate the centre and fight Reform (can't help but think of Hollande and what followed looking at these polls).
Which is the thing I find really interesting that arguably the big trend in British politics is its Europeanisation. For example a "generic candidate" poll for the French presidentials has RN on 35%, the centre right on 10%, Macron's Ensemble on 15-20% and both the PS and NFP (assuming they ran separately) on about 15%....Snap. Or Austria: FPO on around 30-35%, the centre right on 20-25%, centre left on 20%, liberals on 10-15% and Greens on 10%. Finally becoming something like the meme:
Separately as discussed I just don't think Starmer is up to it - I think he fundamentally has no sense of politics (I'm not sure Reeves or many of the people around him do either) and I'm not sure it's fixable.
#97
Off the Record / Re: Israel-Hamas War 2023
Last post by grumbler - July 17, 2025, 04:42:02 PMQuote from: DGuller on July 17, 2025, 03:05:33 PMThe issue with selective protesting is the same as with selective law enforcement. It raises questions as to whether the law is being enforced out of principle, or because it is a convenient tool to achieve an unrelated end. It's not always whataboutism to dig into why things are done selectively.
The issue with selective protesting is the same as the issue with selective prosecution. The DA knows that he cannot prosecute every crime, so he focuses on those crimes where he likely can secure a conviction. If he does not prosecute a suspected murderer because of lack of evidence, that doesn't mean he approves of murder.
Yes, one can look for any kind of reasoning behind the decision to join a protest, but Occam's Razor suggests that the reason most likely is what that person says it is.
#98
Off the Record / Re: Israel-Hamas War 2023
Last post by Sophie Scholl - July 17, 2025, 04:30:09 PMI don't think we have any Saudi apologists either for what its worth. I agree with HVC. Things tend to get more protesting and coverage when there are vocal and numerous proponents on both sides.
#99
Off the Record / Re: Grand unified books thread
Last post by Admiral Yi - July 17, 2025, 04:10:24 PMWho's doing the invading in the Leninist version?
#100
Off the Record / Re: Israel-Hamas War 2023
Last post by Admiral Yi - July 17, 2025, 03:42:02 PMQuote from: HVC on July 17, 2025, 03:30:52 PMIf you want to use languish as an example I have one toowe've had posts about the Chinese horrendous mistreatment of the uyghurs. Everyone agrees it's a heart breaking horrible situation and we moved on. Not because the actions were acceptable, but because there's no argument. We also have a thread about Israel that won't die because Raz vociferously defends Israel's actions against Palestinian civilians. Continuous dialogue (or protest as the case may be) isn't always tied to the nature of what's being discussed but also because of the side that defends those actions. The stronger the defence the stronger the counter protest.
Yeah, Jake's thing was one and done. You may have a point.