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

[ml1dch]

12 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

If Starmer wins in four years, it won't be because he's level today.

I think in my original post where I say "means nothing at the moment" very much covers this point.

Edited September 27, 2020 by ml1dch

[HanoiVillan]

The actual most substantial Labour news story yesterday was this IMO:

Guardian types have no problem with this, because when push comes to shove, they fundamentally prefer 'left wing' parties to be funded by billionaires, rather than by trade unions, but there's no need to be naive about what this will mean in terms of whose voices get listened to.

[markavfc40]

34 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Guardian types have no problem with this, because when push comes to shove, they fundamentally prefer 'left wing' parties to be funded by billionaires, rather than by trade unions, but there's no need to be naive about what this will mean in terms of whose voices get listened to.

No doubt there is going to be a shift in Labour under Starmer but I think if we are to see a Labour government coming out of the next election there needs to be.

I am 46 years old and in the 28 years I have been able to vote only one Labour leader has won an election. Since Blair Labour shifted to the left under Miliband and failed to overturn a Tory government following five years of austerity and savage cuts, then shifted further to the left under Corbyn and failed to win two elections to arguably the worst, most incompetent/destructive/corrupt/evil Tory government ever losing the last election by a landslide. 

I think the choice is simple for all Labour supporters isn't it. Either accept the party needs to shift to the centre or accept being forever in opposition and seeing the Tories continue to destroy all that is good with this country and create further division.  Personally I'd love to see a more socialist government than the last Labour government but that has been rejected three times now and the country is shifting further to the right. Let's start by trying to drag it back to the centre and build from there.

Edited September 27, 2020 by markavfc40

[HanoiVillan]

8 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

I think the choice is simple for all Labour supporters isn't it. Either accept the party needs to shift to the centre or accept being forever in opposition and seeing the Tories continue to destroy all that is good with this country and create further division. 

Honestly, no, I don't accept that dichotomy.

EDIT: I should add that it's quite funny that I posted a story about how Labour are shifting to 'pay to play for billionaires' as a funding strategy, and your immediate response was essentially 'thank God they're moving to the centre'. It's quite revealing about what the centre of British politics conceives of itself as.

Edited September 27, 2020 by HanoiVillan

[darrenm]

23 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

No doubt there is going to be a shift in Labour under Starmer but I think if we are to see a Labour government coming out of the next election there needs to be.

I am 46 years old and in the 28 years I have been able to vote only one Labour leader has won an election. Since Blair Labour shifted to the left under Miliband and failed to overturn a Tory government following five years of austerity and savage cuts, then shifted further to the left under Corbyn and failed to win two elections to arguably the worst, most incompetent/destructive/corrupt/evil Tory government ever losing the last election by a landslide. 

I think the choice is simple for all Labour supporters isn't it. Either accept the party needs to shift to the centre or accept being forever in opposition and seeing the Tories continue to destroy all that is good with this country and create further division.  Personally I'd love to see a more socialist government than the last Labour government but that has been rejected three times now and the country is shifting further to the right. Let's start by trying to drag it back to the centre and build from there.

I don't think anyone could watch the Murdoch documentary on BBC and not come to the conclusion that Murdoch has decided the outcome of every election since the 80s and it makes no difference what policies any party has, if you're a friend of Murdoch, you win the election.

The only Labour leader in 40 years to win an election was backed by Murdoch. Every other leader wasn't and lost. The closest anyone has come to breaking that cycle was Corbyn in 2017.

How that translates to now with Murdoch almost dead and his influence potentially waning I'm not sure. Starmer appears to be trying to impress the same people that Blair did and appealing to the billionaires with a "you don't need to worry, your money will be safe and we don't have the problem of a load of disaster capitalist weirdos like the Tories". It could well be a winning formula but will it fix anything or is it enough to fix the ever increasing array of emergencies we face? Not for me.

[blandy]

35 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I don't think anyone could watch the Murdoch documentary on BBC and not come to the conclusion that Murdoch has decided the outcome of every election since the 80s and it makes no difference what policies any party has, if you're a friend of Murdoch, you win the election

I do. I think you could as validly say "Murdoch identifies who he thinks will win, and wanting influence with them, then gets onside. He doesn't decide, he boards their ship.

Which isn't to say his "help" is of no impact. But it's ever diminishing and also in some instances (i.e. with many people) counter to the interests of those he supports.

[markavfc40]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Honestly, no, I don't accept that dichotomy.

EDIT: I should add that it's quite funny that I posted a story about how Labour are shifting to 'pay to play for billionaires' as a funding strategy, and your immediate response was essentially 'thank God they're moving to the centre'. It's quite revealing about what the centre of British politics conceives of itself as.

If my post came across as thank God they're moving to the centre then that wasn't my intention. I think I am just being realistic in saying that they need to change and move back to the centre as for three elections now they have moved further and further to the left, been up against increasingly worse Tory leadership/governments, and have lost every time.

In fairness to you I think you were right to pull me up on quoting your pay to play for billionaire post and I probably replied to/shouldn't have quoted your post as really I was trying to make a wider point that Labour needs to change if it is to get into power again.

Edited September 27, 2020 by markavfc40

[darrenm]

I've come to the very sad conclusion that the UK is actually very right wing and it's incredibly depressing. I always thought that underneath it all, the UK is quite left wing because of the welfare state and the reformers. But I guess that when people keep voting for the right, when the working class are the ones who vote for a more unequal society and tell the more educated who vote for the left that they don't want their help, then at some point you can no longer deny it.

[chrisp65]

5 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I've come to the very sad conclusion that the UK is actually very right wing and it's incredibly depressing. I always thought that underneath it all, the UK is quite left wing because of the welfare state and the reformers. But I guess that when people keep voting for the right, when the working class are the ones who vote for a more unequal society and tell the more educated who vote for the left that they don't want their help, then at some point you can no longer deny it.

8 unionist MP’s from 22 seats in Northern Ireland

14 Tory MP’s from 40 seats in Wales

13 Tory MP’s from 59 seats in Scotland

 

 

[darrenm]

3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

8 unionist MP’s from 22 seats in Northern Ireland

14 Tory MP’s from 40 seats in Wales

13 Tory MP’s from 59 seats in Scotland

 

 

So I can probably get away with moving to Wales or Scotland instead of Norway

[chrisp65]

2 minutes ago, darrenm said:

So I can probably get away with moving to Wales or Scotland instead of Norway

Scotland as first choice.

They’ll be first to break away, Wales will watch for another three or four General Elections and then decide to follow suit by a margin of 52% /48%.

Independence for my twilight years.

Bet your house on it.

 

 

[sharkyvilla]

27 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I've come to the very sad conclusion that the UK is actually very right wing and it's incredibly depressing. I always thought that underneath it all, the UK is quite left wing because of the welfare state and the reformers. But I guess that when people keep voting for the right, when the working class are the ones who vote for a more unequal society and tell the more educated who vote for the left that they don't want their help, then at some point you can no longer deny it.

I'm not sure it's necessarily right wing, I think most of the middle class are socially liberal and financially quite conservative, which I'd call centrist.  You then get anti-immigrant, pro-Brexit people at the opposite ends of the spectrum that have united over the past few years to push through Brexit and Boris.  It's why I agree with @markavfc40 that Starmer needs to go towards the centre to win over the middle class voters who were put off by Corbyn as there are potentially millions of votes to take there, as Blair showed.

[OutByEaster?]

The problem with the centre is that it isn't where it used to be - it seems to drift further and further right.

 

 

[markavfc40]

18 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

The problem with the centre is that it isn't where it used to be - it seems to drift further and further right.

 

 

It would be a start though wouldn't it. You aren't going to lurch the country from where it is now straight over to the left. Labour needs to get elected and it has shown it can't do that with a left wing leader/policies even up against a dire Tory government that has been in power for 10 years. It has failed 3 times losing by a landslide last time out.

I don't particularly like it but we are where we are and parts of the Labour party/Labour supporters can now bemoan the fact that the party is moving back to the centre and the party will be fractured. Or we accept that moving to the left, then further to the left has gotten the party nowhere, that the only time they have been in power in last 40 years is under a centrist leader in Blair and that moving back to the centre gives the party a better chance of getting back into government. It might not be what some ideally want but surely that has got to be a better place to be than being forever in opposition and years and years more of Tory rule and destruction and pushing the country further to the right.

Edited September 27, 2020 by markavfc40

[Only2McInallys]

I am not sure if all issues can separated into right,left and centre where Brexit is prime example.People can talk about Labour moving to the left or the right to me it’s not important.

Labour needs to find policies that are popular and will allow them to win elections.They can make principled stands on issues and watch the Tories win elections.

Starmer is trying to reposition the party to make it more electable.One big issue Labour needs to address is whether we retain our nuclear deterrent.There are many good arguments foe getting rid of it due to its expense and its hard to imagine a scenario where it would be used.

But popular opinion is strongly for it and a nuanced argument about its merits maybe difficult to sell.

I don’t think a party will win an election advocating disarming.

Edited September 27, 2020 by Only2McInallys

[sharkyvilla]

18 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

It would be a start though wouldn't it. You aren't going to lurch the country from where it is now straight over to the left. Labour needs to get elected and it has shown it can't do that with a left wing leader/policies even up against a dire Tory government that has been in power for 10 years. It has failed 3 times losing by a landslide last time out.

I don't particularly like it but we are where we are and parts of the Labour party/Labour supporters can now bemoan the fact that the party is moving back to the centre and the party will be fractured. Or we accept that moving to the left, then further to the left has gotten the party nowhere, that the only time they have been in power in last 40 years is under a centrist leader in Blair and that moving back to the centre gives the party a better chance of getting back into government. It might not be what some ideally want but surely that has got to be a better place to be than being forever in opposition and years and years more of Tory rule and destruction and pushing the country further to the right.

Also if you win an election and get a big enough majority you can do what you want really and introduce more left wing policies but you can do **** all in opposition.

[Davkaus]

I'm not happy by Labour pandering to the rich, but I think the party is handicapped by being held to a significantly higher standard than the tories. Yes. I will accept a Labour government with compromises if it's what it takes to get these bastards out of power.

[Xann]

Horse bolted.

That time critical aspect was lost on many eligible voters that might have stopped it.

Any incoming Labour government will most likely find the storeroom ransacked. 

You get to watch now.

Brexit next.

Who knows what sort of idiot draconian legislation and Sovereignty surrendering trade agreements the Filth might attempt to cook up?

Edited September 27, 2020 by Xann

[ml1dch]

4 hours ago, darrenm said:

The only Labour leader in 40 years to win an election was backed by Murdoch. Every other leader wasn't and lost. The closest anyone has come to breaking that cycle was Corbyn in 2017.

Sorry to back up a bit, but while the 2017 result was far better than expected for Labour I don't see how this is the case.

There was a 55 seat margin between Corbyn's Labour and May's Conservatives (317 vs 262). In 2010 there were 48 seats between Brown and Cameron (306 vs 258).

The narrative appears to be that "a couple of thousand more votes and with backing from other parties then Corbyn would have been Prime Minister". But when those parties were given the chance to do just that in 2019 they decided that throwing the cards in the air and having an election was a more attractive option than backing a Corbyn government. 

So Brown in 2010 was far closer to power (both in terms of distance from a majority and possibility of coalition /C&S) than Corbyn was in 2017.

Edited September 27, 2020 by ml1dch

[Dodgyknees]

3 hours ago, darrenm said:

I've come to the very sad conclusion that the UK is actually very right wing and it's incredibly depressing. I always thought that underneath it all, the UK is quite left wing because of the welfare state and the reformers. But I guess that when people keep voting for the right, when the working class are the ones who vote for a more unequal society and tell the more educated who vote for the left that they don't want their help, then at some point you can no longer deny it.

The power is with the media and the media is right wing. The pro Conservative stories sway opinion. Sort the media and we will see change.