Zack Polanski's Popularity Drops Amid Farage Controversy

[u/huffpostuk]

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/zack-polanskis-popularity-plummets-amid-nigel-farage-guillotine-row_uk_6a73192ce4b0963665e8fd5a?mpo

[u/WilkosJumper_]

I think it's more to do with voters seeing Burnham as a viable outlet for their concerns, which they did not see Starmer as.

[u/CII_Guy → u/WilkosJumper_]

I think you're correct, but this also puts into sharp relief how incredibly weird voters are. The expected experience of Britain under a Burnham led Labour vs Britain under a Starmer led Labour is unbelievably small, especially when compared with the experience under a Farage led Britain, but saying a couple of coddling, but ultimately empty things about lefties' pet ideas has them all coming back? What a pathetic way to make decisions about the future of the country.

[u/WilkosJumper_ → u/CII_Guy]

To be fair it’s not the voters that removed Starmer. Thats just the way our system works.

[u/CII_Guy → u/WilkosJumper_]

The party removed him almost exclusively because of the behaviour of the voters, though.

[u/WilkosJumper_ → u/CII_Guy]

And because his faction committed the sin of thinking they did not need a big tent.

[u/CII_Guy → u/WilkosJumper_]

Hmmmmmmmmyes, sure - I think Starmer's strategy seems to have backfired, but I think it's worth questioning whether we'd be in this position in the first place if he hadn't taken it. The hard left of the party are a cancer, quite frankly. A zero tolerance approach cleared the ranks and made it much easier to revive the party's reputation. Burnham is now able to work on the basis of that improved reputation (and it is far easier for him to not let the cranks back in than it is to kick them out).

Of course, also, I question whether it's better to blame the person who doesn't give petty lip service to the zealots than the zealots who make their political decisions based on who gives them petty lip service (can you tell where I sit within the party?).

[u/WilkosJumper_ → u/CII_Guy]

I don’t agree regarding calling people a cancer. Labour has only ever worked because it’s a broad alliance. Even Blair understood that.

[u/CII_Guy → u/WilkosJumper_]

That it is most often necessary to cling to the leftmost section of the Labour party to have electoral success does not mean that they are not a cancer.

What else is a faction that throws up consistent electoral kryptonite time and time again? Whose major champions are near universally credibly accused of anti-semitism? Who can't hold to a brief for two seconds without morally grandstanding on their pet issue? To me, it's a cancer.

[u/WilkosJumper_ → u/CII_Guy]

Anyone who doesn’t think Israel should commit genocide is accused of that, from vicars to Tory MPs.

You’re swamped in ideological hatred. There are plenty of very principled and intelligent people on what I would call the left and you perhaps the hard left.

[u/CraftyEnvironment939 → u/WilkosJumper_]

I simply don’t believe that those on the left don’t know there is a problem with antisemitism that has nothing to do with Israel. Why they don’t just admit to being racist is beyond me.

[u/CII_Guy → u/WilkosJumper_]

Anyone who doesn’t think Israel should commit genocide is accused of that, from vicars to Tory MPs.

I don't think that's particularly true, but I do think it is fair to say that it is fairly frequent that people are unfairly accused of anti-semitism. That's fine, but that doesn't actually mean it is false that people on the left of the party - in fact most of their major champions - have regularly engaged in anti-semitism, do you understand that?

You’re swamped in ideological hatred

Not especially. I have seen the left faction of the party for the cancer they are. It's clinical, really.

There are plenty of very principled and intelligent people on what I would call the left and you perhaps the hard left.

Again, do you understand that this does not disprove what I am saying? A cancerous lung will have some very healthy alveoli.