The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[darrenm]

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

It is indeed hard to say Labour winning a lot of seats in Scotland in the current circumstances, which is why I'm bearish on their prospects. But without Scottish seats Labour would have to win every target up to including Jacob Rees-Mogg's seat in Somerset, and honestly that's no more likely than a Scottish recovery.

Yep that's my logic for getting to this conclusion.

 

[HanoiVillan]

2 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Yep that's my logic for getting to this conclusion.

 

There are alternative possibilities, including a complete Tory collapse due to an economic crisis, or a Lib Dem recovery that assymetrically damages the Tories, but it's a problem, no doubt.

[chrisp65]

Personally, I’d have said 325 from 650 was an easier ask than 300 form 600, given that so many of the 50 seats lost should be relatively easy pickings.

The SNP are proving themselves the more effective opposition to Westminster, Labour’s problem appears to be that they don’t want less Westminster, they just want to be in charge of Westminster.

 

[Demitri_C]

9 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Personally, I’d have said 325 from 650 was an easier ask than 300 form 600, given that so many of the 50 seats lost should be relatively easy pickings.

The SNP are proving themselves the more effective opposition to Westminster, Labour’s problem appears to be that they don’t want less Westminster, they just want to be in charge of Westminster.

 

Think labour will change their stance abit and support scottish independence. This gives them more of a chance for political reform in terms of the crap voting system here.

 

[darrenm]

I don't fully understand the mechanics of the vote with Scottish independence but it seems it's just like brexit: roughly 50/50 split and both sides very convinced they're right.

So it's the same problem for Labour. If it was easy enough to copy the SNP and support independence then Labour would have done that. But it isn't - in the same way it wasn't easy to just plonk down on one side of the brexit debate because losing 50% of your potential vote may not actually get you any further forward. 

But the Scottish people I've spoken to (yes, on Twitter) absolutely despise Labour for 'what they've done'. What have they done? Didn't support independence. Or supported independence. Take your pick. You could swap the word independence with leave and you'd have the story of Labour's disastrous brexit policy. Tories somehow seem to get off quite lightly and I haven't figured out how. 

[Davkaus]

The problem with Labour openly supporting even a referendum is that it'll be spun as them enabling the end of the union, as if England should get to keep the Scottish people hostage against their will. I doubt at this point openly supporting it would win them back many Scottish votes, but it'll cost them a lot in England.

Amusingly, in my experience, the throbbing helmets most intent on keeping Scotland in the UK regardless of the opinion of the Scots are Brexiteers. 

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

I don't fully understand the mechanics of the vote with Scottish independence but it seems it's just like brexit: roughly 50/50 split and both sides very convinced they're right.

So it's the same problem for Labour. If it was easy enough to copy the SNP and support independence then Labour would have done that. But it isn't - in the same way it wasn't easy to just plonk down on one side of the brexit debate because losing 50% of your potential vote may not actually get you any further forward. 

But the Scottish people I've spoken to (yes, on Twitter) absolutely despise Labour for 'what they've done'. What have they done? Didn't support independence. Or supported independence. Take your pick. You could swap the word independence with leave and you'd have the story of Labour's disastrous brexit policy. Tories somehow seem to get off quite lightly and I haven't figured out how. 

 

Perhaps it’s not independence they have to support?

Perhaps it’s independent policy. There is a place somewhere between just being an admin outpost for Westminster, and full on independence. Sturgeon is not the ultimate politician, she’s just looking a bit more competent than the idiot Johnson. Perfectly beatable, just maybe not from Westminster.

Labour appear to really struggle with this. Why not offer comparable policies on a National Care Service, comparable policies on nuclear, on jobs, on education and student grants. What Labour appear to me to be struggling with, is to ‘prove’ to Johnson and the Daily Mail that they won’t dissolve the union, they do this weird flag hugging thing and become overtly british once they are discussing Scotland. I know it was a one off and she’s a fool, but Lisa Nancy saying they had to deal with ‘separatists and nationalists’ just like Spain deals with Catalonia. Absolute madness. Drakeford in Wales declaring there was something inherently right wing about nationalists and their love of flags. Literally on the same day Chris Bryant was goading people with Howe many union jacks he had.

They just appear bereft of any idea beyond giving up and allowing the break up, or doubling down on being Westminster Brit Nats.

Far be it from me to tell them how to do their job in Scotland, but seriously, 5 Labour MP’s in Scotland? That looks like an absolute lack of self belief. Can’t blame it on independence, that’s still only 50/50 even now.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

Labour appear to really struggle with this. Why not offer comparable policies on a National Care Service, comparable policies on nuclear, on jobs, on education and student grants.

I don't understand exactly what you mean here. Could you expand a bit?

[chrisp65]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't understand exactly what you mean here. Could you expand a bit?

OK, so I threw those ideas in off the top of my head.

The only one I’ve actually just looked at in detail is the Social Care. The SNP have introduced legislation and are already integrating the NHS and Care Services, bringing more Care in to the public sector making it free to access. Labour’s 2019 manifesto appears to pledge to do that, when its already been done.

But confession time: I went off down a rabbit hole, comparing the two manifestos and trying to cross check stuff and the more I read, the more confusing it got and the more it felt like neither of them were exactly being transparent. The Labour one constantly referring to what a UK government would do for Scottish health care, when in reality, it’s a devolved power so a UK Labour govt couldn’t do anything other than supply more money generally to Scotland. But then the SNP appearing to offer care workers an enhanced Scottish Living Wage, which was actually set at exactly the same as it is everywhere else.

So I’ve got an hour of notes and learnt the square root of **** all.

I’ll have another dabble later.

 

[chrisp65]

4 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't understand exactly what you mean here. Could you expand a bit?

With the risk of it getting boring...

Education and Student Grants.

Again, actually a bit tricky for Scottish Labour as part of a UK govt., because again Education is devolved. But Uni fees in Scotland are set at £1,820 but even then the majority don’t pay them. This isn’t referenced at all in the Labour manifesto. They state SNP have let down past students by not cancelling debt, but don’t state they’d cancel debt If elected. I’ve read over their policy a few times and there isn’t anything there. 

So I think what I’m trying to say, is perhaps they need to ‘accept’ that there is a Scottish government and embrace it. Rather than having a Scottish manifesto that references on every page what a UK govt would do UK wide, why not embrace the difference and offer something different for Scotland. If Labour say they would do something different in Scotland from the rest of the UK it could counter the ups of the SNP as it were. Match their bespoke policies, rather than offering SNP or Westminster. More devolution, more difference, UK safety net.

[ml1dch]

12 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

With the risk of it getting boring...

Education and Student Grants.

Again, actually a bit tricky for Scottish Labour as part of a UK govt., because again Education is devolved. But Uni fees in Scotland are set at £1,820 but even then the majority don’t pay them. This isn’t referenced at all in the Labour manifesto. They state SNP have let down past students by not cancelling debt, but don’t state they’d cancel debt If elected. I’ve read over their policy a few times and there isn’t anything there. 

So I think what I’m trying to say, is perhaps they need to ‘accept’ that there is a Scottish government and embrace it. Rather than having a Scottish manifesto that references on every page what a UK govt would do UK wide, why not embrace the difference and offer something different for Scotland. If Labour say they would do something different in Scotland from the rest of the UK it could counter the ups of the SNP as it were. Match their bespoke policies, rather than offering SNP or Westminster. More devolution, more difference, UK safety net.

While I'm pretty sure that the analysis is sound on a "making things work smoothly" level, surely the broader problem is that Labour (and everyone else) is having to play a different game on a different pitch.

It's pretty clear that someone in the SNP (probably around July 2016) realised that to get what you want is to let the other side argue politics and policy, while you hammer away at the emotional message. 

So for every wavering voter who is convinced by a line-by-line reading of education policy, there will be four convinced by "but at least it's no the bastards in Westminster screwin' it up, eh?"

Until Labour (and others) can find an emotional reason for unionism to counter the emotional reason for nationalism then the nuances between different levels of possible devolution aren't really going to win their voters back.

[chrisp65]

9 hours ago, ml1dch said:

While I'm pretty sure that the analysis is sound on a "making things work smoothly" level, surely the broader problem is that Labour (and everyone else) is having to play a different game on a different pitch.

It's pretty clear that someone in the SNP (probably around July 2016) realised that to get what you want is to let the other side argue politics and policy, while you hammer away at the emotional message. 

So for every wavering voter who is convinced by a line-by-line reading of education policy, there will be four convinced by "but at least it's no the bastards in Westminster screwin' it up, eh?"

Until Labour (and others) can find an emotional reason for unionism to counter the emotional reason for nationalism then the nuances between different levels of possible devolution aren't really going to win their voters back.

 

I don’t think it’s an emotional message to point out that more local government has worked better than Westminster. I think that’s far from emotional, it’s practical. To be able to point out there was a one size fits all message generated in London, that’s not worked brilliantly, we did it different and here are our stats to show our idea was better.

This isn’t about war paint and rallying troops. It’s two options, and right now the regional options have an argument that they are working better. Be that on Covid measures, or University costs or subsidised bus routes.

It’s nowhere near perfect and there are stats involved, so you can always play statistic tennis. But right now it does look like where power has been devolved, things are more tailored for the local population.

Your last line again is part of the problem, this talk of unionism versus nationalism? I really don’t understand it. What is not ‘British Nationalist’ about that argument? It’s self defeating. I genuinely don’t see people simply rallying to a different colour flag, so trying to get them more interested in giving up genuine political difference and advantage in order to be more british? That’s a flawed argument, it’s most definitely a flawed argument if the people you think you are trying to win over, switched sides through a sense of Scottish nationalism.

People are inherently selfish, they will vote for the people offering them the best deal. I genuinely don’t think there are vast numbers voting based on flags. But that is definitely what I think Westminster Labour, Tory and LibDem think they are seeing.  People have had a taste of not needing to simply follow the rules of Boris Johnson, Mat Hancock and Gavin Williamson and right now, that looks like a bloody good option not to have to listen to them. Different policy on Covid and working from home, different policy on education, different policy on health. That’s got nothing to do with Braveheart or the annual rugger game.

You give the North of England or the South West of England the same option, I bet they go the same way.

 

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

You give the North of England or the South West of England the same option, I bet they go the same way.

I kind of disagree with the whole premise of your post here - I just don't think that most of the 45%+ of the Scottish population who want independence are really interested in the nitty-gritty of policies, over and above their desire for independce which they understand can only be realised by voting SNP - but just on the quoted, I would be willing to bet the opposite. Every time devolution has gone before an electorate in England it has failed. People who want devolution in England keep hoping that their imagined regions will form a coherent demos, but it just never happens. London is the only - and even then partial - exception.

Edited September 3, 2020 by HanoiVillan

[chrisp65]

45 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I kind of disagree with the whole premise of your post here - I just don't think that most of the 45%+ of the Scottish population who want independence are really interested in the nitty-gritty of policies, over and above their desire for independce which they understand can only be realised by voting SNP - but just on the quoted, I would be willing to bet the opposite. Every time devolution has gone before an electorate in England it has failed. People who want devolution in England keep hoping that their imagined regions will form a coherent demos, but it just never happens. London is the only - and even then partial - exception.

That’s fair enough, it’s all conjecture and I cannot claim any knowledge of Yorkshire or Devon politics.

But, I would say that the first devolution vote in Wales, in 1979, is was rejected 4:1 by the voters. The second devolution vote, ‘yes’ won with 50.3% of the votes, literally less than 7,000 votes in it in total.

Currently, 67% prefer Cardiff government to London government. That in a country, where 27% self identify as english. I personally do not read that as the rise of nationalism. So I agree they may not immerse themselves in policy, but I think they know enough, to know they are getting a slightly better deal.

How many in Manchester would now vote to scrap the Mayor?

[blandy]

3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

You give the North of England or the South West of England the same option, I bet they go the same way.

Nah. There's a reason why not, too. Whether it's the North of England or the SW or the Midlands etc people don't really define themselves that way. In the South West the Cornish define themselves as Cornish and definitely not the same as Devonians, and Somerset was just miles and miles away.

Scousers and Mancs define themselves as that, not as some sort of generic "North West". So it's all kind of hyper local, and then the next step above that is English (or British) and governed from England's capital. But Scotland has the local (Embra, Weegie etc.) then Scotland as a distinct nation that significantly defines itself as "not English" , but partly governed by "the English". The SNP play on that, and it chimes with people in Scotland, much more than people in the North of England (as much as we're clearly better than shandy drinking southerners) are not so fussed about the detail of local authority government.

Labour's problem, and I agree with Darren, is that with Tories in power, Scotland is only going to get more and more nationalist, politically - Tories aid the SNP's cause by being both utterly incompetent and also arrogantly dismissive of pretty much anywhere other than London and the home counties. So with the Tories being an asset for the SNP, Scotland is lost to Labour.

There would need to be a non-tory gov"t for that situation to change. What Labour says, or what its policies are "for Scotland" are for the Scottish parliament, and they're not much different to the SNP, apart from being against Independence.  If they were to go pro independence, then they're just another SNP - why buy an imitation when you can have the real thing?

Local government with a large degree of actual power will almost certainly do things better than national level government run by tories, but that's news to absolutely no-one.

[chrisp65]

6 hours ago, blandy said:

Nah. There's a reason why not, too. Whether it's the North of England or the SW or the Midlands etc people don't really define themselves that way. In the South West the Cornish define themselves as Cornish and definitely not the same as Devonians, and Somerset was just miles and miles away.

....

Local government with a large degree of actual power will almost certainly do things better than national level government run by tories, but that's news to absolutely no-one.

That’s fair enough, like I say, I’d be the last person to try and claim to know how someone from Devon or Lancashire thinks.

But there’s a contradiction, that you think the people of, for instance, the North West of England wouldn’t want a regional assembly for more localised control, when it’s news to no-one, that a more powerful localised government would do things better than Westminster. 

Do you think the people of Manchester and Carlisle and Blackpool  would think, well London doesn’t represent me, it cocks up a few things, but at least they ain’t Liverpool, and there’s no way we could do better. 

I guess people are just complicated contradictory animals.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Do you think the people of Manchester and Carlisle and Blackpool  would think, well London doesn’t represent me, it cocks up a few things, but at least they ain’t Liverpool, and there’s no way we could do better. 

I guess people are just complicated contradictory animals.

Kind  of that, yeah. I think people will and have in some places voted to have elected mayors, who wield some power, for some cities. Even then turnout was pretty low. But embiggen it to regions and there’s next to no interest or enthusiasm at all for another layer of politicians or government. 
It’s like “politicians are all crap, why would we want more of the buggers?”  One mayor for our city, fine, but not another government.

[HanoiVillan]

I'd love it if there was a way to overcome this dynamic, because it would definitely help the left if there were other visible models of governance other than Westminster. Sadly though, I'm not optimistic.

[bickster]

6 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'd love it if there was a way to overcome this dynamic, because it would definitely help the left if there were other visible models of governance other than Westminster. Sadly though, I'm not optimistic.

I think a couple of the regional mayors are having a slight impact here. Burnham and ROtherham do seem to be having a positive effect and they are making changes. Can't comment on any of the others though

[HanoiVillan]

Interesting fact emerging from the Pogrund/Maguire book: