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

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

Diane Abbott again?

Seeing as you asked:

 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, dAVe80 said:

As for Copeland, and the nuclear issue, Labour were completely aware that this was the major factor in the by election. As I stated, the exiting MP, and the hierarchy at local level made it completely about jobs in the industry, as did the Unions representing the work force. The idea that it could be about anything else was removed from the agenda. It was totally set up that way from the start.

Unless I've misunderstood what you're saying, that seems completely wrong. The Labour campaign there was massively about the NHS, to the exclusion of much else, including the jobs down the road at sellafield etc.

They lost because of Corbyn and his anti-Nuclear stance, his rubbish leadership and because the Tory was a good candidate

[dAVe80]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

Unless I've misunderstood what you're saying, that seems completely wrong. The Labour campaign there was massively about the NHS, to the exclusion of much else, including the jobs down the road at sellafield etc.

They lost because of Corbyn and his anti-Nuclear stance, his rubbish leadership and because the Tory was a good candidate

No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the by election came down to the nuclear issue. Labour knew this and didn't push it, and I'm saying this was the problem. The agenda was stacked so as this was the only major issue, and as such the things Labour had to say about anything else were ignored, or seen as irrelevant. The point I'm trying to make (in a bit of a rush, between my day job ) is that situation was stacked from the start to be about one issue, and as such blunted any other argument about anything else. As I said in a previous post, the political environment in Copeland has become very insular. Rightly or wrongly, the by election was about one major local issue, and not a lot else. I concede that it was a mistake not to push the issue harder, when campaigning in Copeland. It wasn't the only issue though. I'm not entirely sure Labour even managed to select the correct candidate.

 

 

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

I'm saying that the by election came down to the nuclear issue. Labour knew this and didn't push it, and I'm saying this was the problem. The agenda was stacked so as this was the only major issue, and as such the things Labour had to say about anything else were ignored, or seen as irrelevant. 

"The agenda was stacked" is an odd term to use.

I'd say "the reality" is that in a town & area where the major employer by an absolute mile does something that the Labour leader wants to get rid of, then Labour will lose votes. Add in that Corbyn is seen as a sort of day-dreaming Islington numpty, rather than a credible opposition leader or Prime Ministerial possibility and you've got a problem so bad that even the tories wrecking the NHS, closing the local Maternity hospital and all of that pales into insignificance in local voters minds.

 

[Awol]

2 hours ago, Davkaus said:

 

Have they ****. Nuttall defeated himself. And with all the shit that poured out of his mouth, they still gained voters and Labour were still down 2 points. That's not a silver lining, in my book, it's **** appalling.

Meanwhile Corbyn's mates continue to stick their head in the sand and blame "disunity" (not doubt muttering about Blairite scum under their breath) for the Copeland defeat, while ignoring the glow in the dark, radioactive elephant in the room which is they almost certainly lost because of Jezza's policy.

Very much "this". Looking at the big political picture there is a huge space to be filled by an opposition party but none of the current options really fit the bill. 

Corbyn's Labour need, deserve and likely will be spanked at the next GE, fatally discrediting his particularly dated ideological views.

A rump Labour Party then needs to do a real root and branch review of what and who it's for, construct a programme based on where the world seems to be going and address the issues of its target audience.

If I was Labour leader for a day/week I'd be wanting to think deeply about the following:

Income inequality will follow current trends and continue rising into the future, increasingly eating into living standards ever further up the earnings scale. That creates a growing & increasingly politicized constituency to build a coalition from.

Finding viable solutions to the coming mass impact on jobs of automation, AI and 3D printing. Recognise these will fundamentally reverse the trend towards global supply chains, and devastate employment in entire sectors.

Addressing this might include some form of universal basic income, totally reimagining the tax system, being prepared to go against globalization and provide government subsidies in some areas both to protect industries and by investing seriously in R & D with resulting IP being owned centrally - perhaps by a publically owned investment institution that is used as the investment vehicle.

That would enable a drive on green tech' & climate change mitigation technologies (we ain't going to stop it happening).

It's also pretty clear that the nation state as the basic and unassailable unit of political activity is making a strong come back. Accepting that doesn't mean adopting a mean and narrow world view but in electoral terms it's going with rather than against the grain.

Work with others whenever and wherever it makes sense but put national interests first, recognize  that the world is an increasingly dangerous place and properly resource defence, control irregular migration and consolidate at a societal level around a new set of agreed values. 

Resilience and adaptability are the key to surviving and thriving in the rest of this century, that will probably require a greater role for the state at the macro level while devolving everything that can be devolved at the micro level. 

I suspect very few people in politics are even remotely thinking along these lines, but imo, they should be. Either they start to evolve as quickly as the world around us or its going to get really ugly.

 

[peterms]

2 hours ago, darrenm said:

So Corbyn needs to do a 180 and go full on remain. No-one will care they've completely changed their stance. Position themselves properly as the brexit opposition and hope to ride the wave of opinion change as everything starts to **** up and a GE is called.

I don't know, but I imagine they are trying to assess when and under what conditions they could do this.

Just saying they disagree with the referendum result and will oppose it would be pretty damaging.  Accepting it as a fait accompli that can't be questioned however bad the results for the country would also be damaging, but there isn't the necessary climate of political support for that right now.  They can't make that climate come about by directly opposing Brexit, so the aim would need to be to demand more and better information on the consequences, and then assess at what point enough people think it looks pretty bad so that they can oppose not the principle of Brexit, but the practical arrangements and consequences.

While that is in part a sensible and pragmatic approach, it is also open to accusations of indecision and vacillation.  I think that accounts for at least part of the difficulty they find themselves in.

[dAVe80]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

"The agenda was stacked" is an odd term to use.

I'd say "the reality" is that in a town & area where the major employer by an absolute mile does something that the Labour leader wants to get rid of, then Labour will lose votes. Add in that Corbyn is seen as a sort of day-dreaming Islington numpty, rather than a credible opposition leader or Prime Ministerial possibility and you've got a problem so bad that even the tories wrecking the NHS, closing the local Maternity hospital and all of that pales into insignificance in local voters minds.

 

I think it was a stacked agenda though, and in some respects it was even stacked by elements of the Labour Party. From the point Jamie Reed resigned, it seemed that talking about anything other than Sellafield, was off the agenda.

I concede, what you're saying is probably true for some of the voters in Copeland. However I base what I'm saying on discussion with people who have been on the ground in Copeland (that's not to say I value their opinion over yours). I've had conversations, and heard people talking about what I'm trying to convey, and there's a genuine feeling that talking about anything other that jobs at in the nuclear industry fall on deaf ears in a lot of cases, such is the culture of not entertaining any alternative ideas, to the point it's almost taboo.

It was a minor victory that those on the ground in Copeland managed to get anyone talking about anything else. I'm sure that those who swung to the Tories didn't do so with much enthusiasm, and it's very regrettable that it's now a Tory seat, but I doubt anything will change much for the people of Copeland.

[blandy]

11 minutes ago, peterms said:

While that is in part a sensible and pragmatic approach, it is also open to accusations of indecision and vacillation

Um, like pulling a 3 line whip to support the tories on article 50, then afterwards saying "the fight starts now"? Labour is effed while Corbyn is leader.

24 minutes ago, Awol said:

...there is a huge space to be filled by an opposition party but none of the current options really fit the bill. 

Corbyn's Labour need, deserve and likely will be spanked at the next GE, fatally discrediting his particularly dated ideological views.

This. Many times over.

[peterms]

13 minutes ago, Awol said:

It's also pretty clear that the nation state as the basic and unassailable unit of political activity is making a strong come back.

I agree with most of your post, and also welcome your increasing tendency towards the politics of yogurt-knitting, but I think that bit is wrong.

There's certainly a growing sense of unease about how global elites are overriding nation states, but that is not yet nearly strong enough to generate a widespread opposition to things like TTIP, beyond the ranks of the usual suspects.  There is also quite a bit of internal opposition to nation-states in some places, both in the direction of secessionist movements and also towards federalism, combined with pushback against that in many parts of the EU.  So I think it's a pretty mixed picture that isn't well reflected by what you say about nation states making a strong comeback.  Where there is support for nation states, it is also a combination of the internationalist but anti-globalisation people, and the more narrowly nationalist people; these two groups don't sit well together.

[blandy]

14 minutes ago, peterms said:

Where there is support for nation states, it is also a combination of the internationalist but anti-globalisation people, and the more narrowly nationalist people; these two groups don't sit well together.

Exactly. AWOL's right in that you've got all these rabid right wingers and nationalists like LePen, Wilders, etc. plus the Brexiters and then there's Trump and his MAGA, and more assertive Chinese and Russian nationalism. And there's also a large mass of mostly anti-globalisation but pro European, pro EU, pro Canada people across the west at least who are the opposite of the first lot.

Big business kind of rigged the game, and you've got one lot going "we've been shafted and it was foreigners wot dun it" and the other lot shouting against big business and tax avoiding companies. Same cause, different solutions.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

2 hours ago, snowychap said:

Seeing as you asked:

 

Face like a punched Apple Pie.

[darrenm]

49 minutes ago, Awol said:

particularly dated ideological views.

 

 

23 minutes ago, blandy said:

This. Many times over.

Particularly dated ideological views? So you're saying modern ideologies are the opposite of:

Nuclear disarmament

Anti-austerity

Nationalised education

Nationalised rail

Sorry but if you think pacifism, environmental responsibility and not wanting to blow each other up is particularly dated then I must be from outer space. Honestly can't believe what I'm reading.

[villaglint]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

 

Finding viable solutions to the coming mass impact on jobs of automation, AI and 3D printing. Recognise these will fundamentally reverse the trend towards global supply chains, and devastate employment in entire sectors.

 

Pretty sure Corbyn already addressed this with his post about the fourth industrial revolution cyber physical systems and such like. 

Maybe it didn't quite hit the spot...

 

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

19 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Nationalised education

Nationalised rail

These 2 are where they should aim.  Most people would go for these as it's so obvious it's a bit of a joke.

Nationalised education - Remove any mention of religion and faith schools and that alone would win a lot of votes IMO.  

Nationalised rail - How can it not be this is a modern country ? It cannot be more expensive than by car at any point for example.

The Nuclear disarmament & Anti-austerity are great ideas but I would suggest they keep it simple.  Don't fight for these 2 as the barriers for success are out of their hands anyway.

[Awol]

12 minutes ago, villaglint said:

Pretty sure Corbyn already addressed this with his post about the fourth industrial revolution cyber physical systems and such like. 

Maybe it didn't quite hit the spot...

 

Honestly I hadn't seen it, but have been a bit busy recently.

Did he articulate something along the lines of a strategy? 

[Chindie]

Nobody is winning votes with a platform founded on a re-nationalised rail system.

People whinge about the railways and there are significant problems that should be addressed, but it'll be near the bottom of any list of grievances people would hold against the government. And for significant elements of the traditional Labour voter population, I'd bet its not on the list at all, because trains aren't something they ever use.

If anything it's an example of him being out of touch. It's an old student leftie thing. Not something that fills ballot boxes in your favour.

[chrisp65]

5 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

Nationalised education - Remove any mention of religion and faith schools and that alone would win a lot of votes IMO.  

Nationalised rail - How can it not be this is a modern country ? It cannot be more expensive than by car at any point for example.

The Nuclear disarmament & Anti-austerity are great ideas but I would suggest they keep it simple.  Don't fight for these 2 as the barriers for success are out of their hands anyway.

education - if you want to set up a state curriculum non-faith school you already can - I'm failing to see the lines of voters / parents / atheist altruists queuing to give it a crack.

nationalised rail - 4 of us went to London on Tuesday. £50 of fuel and £8 to park. Rail would have been £226 per person. They just need to shave £850 off the bill and they'll be competitive.

nuclear disarmament - best of luck

In an ideal world all of the above are great ideas. Chuck something in about the NHS as well. Turns out Stoke and Copeland are not the places to begin the utopian ideal.

In reality, 'the people' said they were fed up with slick PR machines, suits and focus groups. They wanted real people with real policies that would benefit the majority not the power behind the scenes that make 0.01 of a penny on billions of market fluctuations. They wanted someone that would share out the money a little more and expose the lies of perpetual austerity. Someone on the side of the NHS.  

Turns out 'the people' are a strange bunch.

Tip for future Labour leader:

Sharp suit. Minimal history and back story. Vaguely but enthusiastically promise a tax cut for hard workers and money for pensioners. Job done.  

[Davkaus]

We can't have another 8 years of the **** tories cutting everything they can and repeatedly shafting society's most vulnerable.

Corbyn needs to **** off well before 2020, but I have no idea who, if anyone, would be able to step up and provide the opposition the country needs.

[HanoiVillan]

36 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Nobody is winning votes with a platform founded on a re-nationalised rail system.

People whinge about the railways and there are significant problems that should be addressed, but it'll be near the bottom of any list of grievances people would hold against the government. And for significant elements of the traditional Labour voter population, I'd bet its not on the list at all, because trains aren't something they ever use.

If anything it's an example of him being out of touch. It's an old student leftie thing. Not something that fills ballot boxes in your favour.

Exactly, there's a difference between 'opinion' on an agree/disagree axis, and 'salience' on a care/don't care axis. 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

Sorry but if you think pacifism, environmental responsibility and not wanting to blow each other up is particularly dated then I must be from outer space. Honestly can't believe what I'm reading.

That'll be because you're reading what you imagine (I can't speak for AWOL) I'm writing/thinking.

Much of Corbyn's "thinking" and approach seems to come from a different time. Whether we like it or not, the world has moved on from the 60s and 70s. In politics as well as technology and all the rest.

I've posted before about how his approach to Nuclear submarines was utterly deluded, harmful and futile. People want good schools. They don't care much beyond that. They want jobs, they want somewhere safe and warm to live and they want to be alright if/when they fall ill. They don't like it when trains are late or expensive or the roads are full of potholes or traffic jams, but beyond that they don't care. If you ask specifically, many people would say yes, nationalise the railways, and those who keep up with politics and news would point at the East Coast and franchising systems and so on and at the logical bonkersness of the French and German Governments running UK railways (and power stations etc..which he wants to nationalise) but unless or until Labour can put a coherent case together for Governing the Country in an economically believable way, while not doing anything stupid in other respects, then they're doomed. Getting rid of Corbyn is essential to that change.

IRA sympathising (and Norn Iron to join the Republic), Hamas befriending, anti-semitic, duplicity, Nuclear subs with no nukes, Leaving NATO, maximum wage limit, anti-monarchy.... These are not what people want in big numbers. They are not solutions to the British people's problems in 2017.