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

[OutByEaster?]

Regardless, the point is that Kier has been able to occupy a ground traditionally held by his opposition and attract their voters in a way that the Tory party can't do - you can't imagine the Tory party promising more unionised jobs and greater recognition for unions for example, whereas Kier has been staunch in his support for deregulation of banking and stopping the small boats - the Tories don't have the potential for movement across the political scale that Labour has.

What Kier Starmer has cleverly done is trapped them by capturing Tory moderate voters into a position where their audience is limited, their options in terms of forward progress aren't as simple as getting rid of some of these nutters and then trying again with more sensible people - the more sensible Toryness has moved away from them. To beat Starmer they'll need to take some Labour voters away from him, they're miles away from even getting their own voters back - and the options for Labour voters who aren't keen on Kier are so limited that he needn't worry about them.

It's hard to see a way forward for the Tory's at all - and that's no bad thing.

 

 

 

[blandy]

21 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Exactly, Kiers strategy (and it's a good one) is moving the Labour party to the right to capture all of those 'sensible Tories' that have been upset by seeing their party transform into an openly criminal shitshow (with a far right circus frosting) whilst knowing that for the centre left voters he's leaving behind their choices are incredibly limited - they aren't going to suddenly leapfrog the centre-right and go far right to vote Tory, and with the Labour left defeated, he knows that not enough people are about to vote Green that it should worry him - it's politically a great strategy.

Democratically, it leaves an enormous amount of voters forced to choose between the corporo-Nazis or a party that's right of where they'd really like to be - given that choice, those people are either going to stay home or vote for StarmerLabour.

The Tories aren't about to try to appeal to the centre-left and there's no other opposition - essentially if they want to compete, they need to find a Starmer themselves and compete on exactly the same policies and ideas that he does - and even then, the centre left won't vote for him - he hasn't so much beaten the Tory party as replaced it.

Again, I agree on his strategy being politically a great strategy. Imagine, after all these years, Labour actually trying to win an election by appealing to the great swathe of people who are the deciders in elections. Who'd have thunk it!

The other part of your analysis I think is kind of possessive or maybe too tribal, if that's the right word.  There's clearly a section of people that like the populist right wing claptrap of the mad tories. Not actually fixing anything, but making lots of noise about whoever this week's bette noir is.  There's also another section who are right at the other end of the spectrum. But these are the extremes and they are small (relatively). Their approval is irrelevant to winning elections.

It's the "everybody else" who's votes will be decisive. Britain is broadly, socially, pretty left/liberal and economically centre - centre right in terms of voters kind of instincts. So ultimately that's the platform around which parties need to base their offer to the public if they want to win.

[ml1dch]

38 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Exactly, Kiers strategy (and it's a good one) is moving the Labour party to the right to capture all of those 'sensible Tories' that have been upset by seeing their party transform into an openly criminal shitshow (with a far right circus frosting) whilst knowing that for the centre left voters he's leaving behind their choices are incredibly limited - they aren't going to suddenly leapfrog the centre-right and go far right to vote Tory, and with the Labour left defeated, he knows that not enough people are about to vote Green that it should worry him - it's politically a great strategy.

Yes, I broadly agree with the thrust of your post then. However I'm just not sure that he is leaving the centre-left behind. 

The party was positioned far enough to the left when he inherited it (although obviously not to the extent that some of the more shrill, crazy voices suggested) that there was an awful lot of space between left and centre that he is moving the party through. He's definitely moving rightwards in that space - he could hardly not. But I think the "centre-left" that he's leaving behind are the people who describe themselves as such, and say things like "well ackchually, Jeremy Corbyn would just be seen as a normal centrist politician in most of Europe". And not the sort of person that most people would describe as centre-left.

Like the people who call themselves centre-right, while advocating the repatriation of all non-white people and capital punishment for anyone who doesn't sing the National Anthem.

[blandy]

And just to add that "the everybody else" doesn't belong to a party. They're not Labour's voters, they're just voters. That's what I mean about too tribal.  I don't think any party can treat voters as "ours". For all that we've got a crap system that FPTP is, there's still enough choice for people to decide to vote for not one of the main 2 parties.  That's the next task. We know "you" don't like the tories, but here's why you should vote for us, rather than the Lib Dems, or Greens, or UKIP's, or independent, or lord Buckethead.

[MakemineVanilla]

I don't know if there is anyone on here who still lives in Birmingham, but I am wondering whether Birmingham's Labour council going bankrupt, and leaving a £1bn debt, will have any affect on Labour's prospects in the city.

Anyone aware of any precendents, which might offer a few clues as to the likely outcome for council-tax payers?

 

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I don't know if there is anyone on here who still lives in Birmingham, but I am wondering whether Birmingham's Labour council going bankrupt, and leaving a £1bn debt, will have any affect on Labour's prospects in the city.

Anyone aware of any precendents, which might offer a few clues as to the likely outcome for council-tax payers?

 

Ask all the Tory councils that have already gone bankrupt this year  

[MakemineVanilla]

16 minutes ago, bickster said:

Ask all the Tory councils that have already gone bankrupt this year  

It seems that 30% of UK councils are considering an S114.

Woking (Lib-Dems) are leading the way with debts of £1.2bn.

Ain't that just typical, we finish as runners up again!

[ml1dch]

11 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

Woking (Lib-Dems) are leading the way with debts of £1.2bn.

Although it's probably important to note that the Lib Dems weren't in control for any of the period 1996 - 2022. 

In much the same way that the state of the country isn't Labour's fault three months after they (presumably) win the next election. 

Edited September 15, 2023 by ml1dch

[bickster]

Yes quite it was Tories making risky investments in skyscraper and hotels that caused Wokings problems much the same as Labour only just came to power in Birmingham when they got slapped with the 2012 Equal Pay court case that has caused Birmingham's woes

[OutByEaster?]

I'm not sure that general election voting is much affected by council issues. It probably should be, but it isn't.

I also think Birmingham's gets muddied as people imagine the regional Tory Mayor to be the leader of the council.

 

[ml1dch]

19 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I also think Birmingham's gets muddied as people imagine the regional Tory Mayor to be the leader of the council.

Very good point that. 

[MakemineVanilla]

43 minutes ago, bickster said:

Yes quite it was Tories making risky investments in skyscraper and hotels that caused Wokings problems much the same as Labour only just came to power in Birmingham when they got slapped with the 2012 Equal Pay court case that has caused Birmingham's woes

I understand that a lot of councils invested heavily in office space, hoping for a reliable return, but the trend for 'working from home' has drastically lowered the occupancy-rate.

 

 

[MakemineVanilla]

24 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I'm not sure that general election voting is much affected by council issues. It probably should be, but it isn't.

 

That is why I wondered how much of the £1bn debt will be passed on to households.

[ml1dch]

Here seems the obvious place to put this, in spite of the commentator and country.

Yes, Tucker. If there is one thing that "the left" are known for it's putting aside small differences and unifying for a common wider goal 

[sidcow]

On 29/08/2023 at 14:03, Rodders said:

Well we are certainly going to have conservatives in office regardless, just the old will it be a blue or red rosette they wear in office. 

Labour just an all round pointless abomination of a party.

 

Yeah, may as well just stick with the Tories. 

[bickster]

38 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I understand that a lot of councils invested heavily in office space, hoping for a reliable return, but the trend for 'working from home' has drastically lowered the occupancy-rate.

 

 

Councils have no business investing in anything like office space to rent out. That really should be ultra vires. They should be making the lives of their electorate better not gambling our money on investments

[MakemineVanilla]

11 minutes ago, bickster said:

Councils have no business investing in anything like office space to rent out. That really should be ultra vires. They should be making the lives of their electorate better not gambling our money on investments

That's exactly what I thought when I found out that the council were going to buy the Sainsbury centre in Sutton.

If an insurance company were keen to sell, I assumed they knew something the council didn't.

[Lichfield Dean]

2 hours ago, MakemineVanilla said:

It seems that 30% of UK councils are considering an S114.

Woking (Lib-Dems) are leading the way with debts of £1.2bn.

Ain't that just typical, we finish as runners up again!

I think it's useful to divide the headline debt figure by the population served by the authority. And then you find out that Birmingham is way way down the debt league table.

Look at at Thurrock's debt per resident in comparison...

[peterw]

Going back to the question of Labour's position and who they are appealing to. Quite often we hear about Labour's traditional support but without any real understanding or analysis of who that is. I would wager that there are many people whose socio-economic position would put them outside of the image of a traditional working-class person; however why should they be. The labour party of the early 1900s, and the demographic that it represented has largely disappeared and that should be celebrated as a good thing. Worker's rights have been largely protected, housing and welfare no longer a major contribution to illnesses and deaths of millions, and poverty to be no longer a accepted by product of society but an ill to fight against.

 

Those growing up in a working-classes background/family are likely now to be homeowners, car owners, have holidays, and live with mod cons and a lot more comfortable than those even 40 or 50 years ago. Those people may not be in the inner cities but the suburbs, but are still Labour voters. They still have the Labour tenets running true to how they see society expanding and developing. Just because someone is now earning 40 or £50 000 pa does not mean they are not what is now traditional. Like culture it moves on to its new true. Labour appealing to that demographic is not an abandoning of anybody but it becoming a modern day Labour party to represent the many peoples that have grown out the tough working-classes beginnings.

It is also worth noting that those even more so on the left only veer towards the Labour party when they need it, as a vehicle for their agenda. There is nothing wrong with that but it has limited mass appeal, and clearly less people voting for that labour party demonstrates that the party's core support may well not be this far left leaning 'traditional' image that is becoming hackneyed. Same as not every Conservative voter is a land-owning toff that does not care for the worse off in society.

I sometimes do not get the identity crisis that exists amongst some of Labour's support. That Starmer does not represent them. that he is Tory-lite. That he does not represent true labour. Well, yes he does. He represents Labour of the late 20th and early 20th century. the Labour that only lost power because Cameron's charm and the banking crisis condemned it to the political wilderness. Starmer does stand for labour and for many of its supporters. those that aren't hard-up, that aren't on the poverty line, but whose family were once there and they appear to be the majority.

[ml1dch]

Should be seen as a good thing for the "why won't Labour go back to being anti-Brexit again" crowd.

Edit: although watching the video, it's not like he's saying anything surprising (we don't want to lower standards or roll back rights etc"), but probably being a bit more explicit about it than previously. 

There's that journalistic saying about how if someone saying the opposite would be a big story, then what they're actually saying isn't really a big story. That's probably what this is. 

Edited September 21, 2023 by ml1dch