Thoughts on Colin Brazier’s critique of Labour’s performance

[PinkFruitbat]

Former journalist Colin Brazier provides a forensic dissection of Labour’s inadequacy.

https://x.com/outpoststudios/status/2080684432730825084?s=46&t=wjgj9AHysRwn3YQi4vJFdw

Well worth a watch.

It's a fantastic analysis. You will get a lot of pushback on here if people bother to listen to it. Or will they dismiss it as biased garbage? It's true, Labour is a spiteful party whose MPs operate on victimhood. It's no wonder many of their voters do the same - the party they admire enables that. Loved his discussion about Ann.

Thanks, haven't got time to watch right now, will come back to it later.

We're dealing with inadequacies all over the place. Political interviewers for example, where are the likes of Brian Walden and Robin Day? No one holds politicians to account anymore. When did it start? With Blair? Government by soundbite.

Thank you so much for the link, I didn't know he had a YouTube channel.
It's a scathing analysis but founded and true.

I’d prefer not to hear the views of someone who put their producer in hospital and saw fit to tamper with a colleague’s luggage.

Did you Google that to get dirt on him?

Of course. I google everyone I’ve never heard of.

😆 😅

He doesn't really say anything of any consequence.Nothing of note, nothing with any weight behind it. Just a lot of waffle proclaiming my side good, their side bad. It's a huge stretch to call it "analysis".

You mean the former Conservative party member that had his own show on GB News and then joined Reform UK last year?

As Mandy Rhys-Davies said "well, he would say that, wouldn't he?"

@PinkFruitbat what did I tell you? Predictable, aren't they.

This show isn't 'forensic dissection' or 'analysis', it is political opinion. That's fine, but it's important to recognise the difference.

Can you see it anywhere but X?

I wish our new PM would be interviewed by Andrew Neil.

If I linked to an interview excoriating the right by someone you had never heard of, would you not want to find out something about that person? Isn’t that what people do?

I’ve watched it. It is an articulate and well delivered opinion piece. The key word is “opinion”. I’d be interested in having the “forensic” element pointed out to me. There are posters on the right on Mumsnet who are more fact based and forensic!

The sectarian denial brigade is out and about I see, fighting its last battles.

When he compares the backgrounds, skills and achievements of former politicians and today's, is it opinion or facts? It's facts.

So do I. But perhaps not for the same reasons as you.

Is it facts? There are figures detailing the academic achievement of current and past MPs. An unsubstantiated claim that working in the charity sector is not a good background for being an MP- (while, incidentally, suggesting that being a professor of Greek is!) Details of some exceptional people from the past who produced significant literary work- on retirement. And the usual snide reference to “blue hair”. As I said- plenty of opinion, to which he is, of course, entitled. But no facts. If you can extract facts from his piece I’d be very happy to address them.

Incidentally, I am sure you will be happy to dismiss my views because of what you perceive to be my ideological standpoint. Why do you think Brazier’s ideological standpoint is irrelevant?

And of course one person's achievement is another person's 'how could they be so stupid as to do this?'

It's all subjective.

Of course, the moment facts get in the way, it’s all subjective.

Do you know that when you put beliefs over truth, it has more to do with religiosity than politics or intellectual debate?

Your ilk is like religious zealots at this stage, probably why the left sees no issue allying itself with non-secular religions.

I think facts are incredibly important. That’s why I’m asking you to point me to the facts Brazier gives!

Well I gave it 16 minutes which was all I could stand and it’s very selective with the few facts it contains.

The Bradford Riots in 2001 were a reaction to a proposed National Front march that was banned by David Blunkett, then Home Secretary. Some NF sympathisers then met outside a pub (why?) and an Asian man was stabbed. That was the trigger point. None of this is mentioned.

There were 1000 police officers there in total with 300 injuries, not 1000 injured.

I guess most of the people lapping this piece of propaganda up won’t bother to fact check it.

It's an anti-Labour piece from a right-leaning journalist but that doesn't mean there isn't a kernel of truth. Labour used to have MPs from genuine working-class backgrounds - now it's Angela Rayner and a bunch of people who worked as SPADS or in the third sector. At the last election the majority of the party's support came from voters in the ABC1 (professional and non-manual) sector so in reality its MPs reflect their voters ... middle management and clerical types.

It doesn't mean that Labour have to throw in the towel but perhaps MPs from the current generation have less sense of what a Labour government is supposed to be for.

It’s a very odd take - why are facts only facts if they are on your “side”?

What facts are presented here then? Because if you can't identify them, that rather supports the idea that things are facts if you agree with them, and opinions (or zealotry) if you don't.