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

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, Davkaus said:

I should have said a credible centrist party. The lib dems were never going to gain much once they came out with immediately revoke article 59,and Swinson was almost universally disliked. 

The lib dems already exist, and have a few seats. It's very hard to start a new party, and there isn't an obvious demand for it. I would suggest that if any demand for centre politics emerges over the next five years, it will be there that it happens. 

[Dr_Pangloss]

I'm glad we will never have to hear those ghastly 'ooooh Jeremy Corbyn' chats again.

[hippo]

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

The lib dems already exist, and have a few seats. It's very hard to start a new party, and there isn't an obvious demand for it. I would suggest that if any demand for centre politics emerges over the next five years, it will be there that it happens. 

It won't be the lib dems. They don't have enough base support.

Labour despite all the problems still elected 200+ members last night. No where near enough - but where is any new party going to get that hard core of support ? -  

[sharkyvilla]

Let's face it, Labour need a new New Labour to get anywhere near power again.  There are millions of socially liberal but financially quite conservative (with a small 'c') voters like me whose votes are easily winnable.  I voted Lib Dem but could easily have not bothered.  The ideologies of mass privatisation for example just doesn't seem particularly popular or at least hard to get people to take seriously.  The Brexit policy was ridiculous too.  The question is whether Momentum and the unions will care and learn from what's happened.

[Dr_Pangloss]

Momentum are a disgrace and in an ideal world would be crushed.

[Seat68]

My guess with Momentum is that they will some how chalk this up as a win for Corbyn.

[hippo]

10 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

Let's face it, Labour need a new New Labour to get anywhere near power again.  There are millions of socially liberal but financially quite conservative (with a small 'c') voters like me whose votes are easily winnable.  I voted Lib Dem but could easily have not bothered.  The ideologies of mass privatisation for example just doesn't seem particularly popular or at least hard to get people to take seriously.  The Brexit policy was ridiculous too.  The question is whether Momentum and the unions will care and learn from what's happened.

I once that some labour MP'S and party members actually prefer to be in opposition. Here they can discus idealism and what should be done - without the harsh realities of being in power.

Its not about the new leader per se - the only glimmer of hope is that momentum may have run out of students to elect there next leader - but don't take that as a given.

[hippo]

5 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

My guess with Momentum is that they will some how chalk this up as a win for Corbyn.

Right policies - wrong leader \ Brexit  they are saying it already. 

[markavfc40]

32 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

The lib dems already exist, and have a few seats. It's very hard to start a new party, and there isn't an obvious demand for it. I would suggest that if any demand for centre politics emerges over the next five years, it will be there that it happens. 

A new start up party or the Lib Dems won't be successful and get close to governing.  Regardless of what a lot of people have thought England certainly is still very much a two party country and I think if Labour did move back to the centre ground they could again do very well. 

This election has been a rejection of the far left wing policies. Whilst Brexit has played a major part and the indecisiveness in that regard has cost Labour it was also a rejection of the Labour leadership and more extreme policies. Having said that  I think they can retain a lot of their polices but it needs to be under a totally different leadership and the party as a whole needs to move back toward the centre. Given what I have heard this morning though that won't be happening for some time as there seems to be total denial around Corbyn being an issue and they seem to be blaming a catastrophic result totally at the door of the Brexit issue.

Labour have a choice they can continue to be a party of opposition or they move back towards the centre and get back to governing again. They can be as righteous as they like but they can't help any of the millions of people who need it by continuing to be in opposition.

Edited December 13, 2019 by markavfc40

[HanoiVillan]

People seem to have misunderstood my comment. Of course the lib dems won't get anywhere near Labour - that's essentially guaranteed. My point was you don't have to go too far back in history to find a time when the lib dems regularly scored over 20% of the vote in general elections, so you would think they could double their vote from last night before they hit their ceiling. 

[HanoiVillan]

I'm seeing an awful lot of 'Labour's policies were terrible', which is fine but what are people proposing to dump? Nationalising things seems like the obvious candidate to me, but it's worth bearing in mind that was the part of the manifesto that polled best. 

[hippo]

What labour should (but may find difficult) to accept is that 2017 was a freak result - sadly the result last night is a more realistic position of where the party is.

There is a good whack in the labour party who fear a return to centrist policies more than they do another whipping by the Tories - "preserve  the corbyn legacy" is a phrase Im hearing.  

Its needs another Neil Kinnock to come in sacrifice himself/herself - but steer the party to the centre ground.

[andyjsg]

13 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm seeing an awful lot of 'Labour's policies were terrible', which is fine but what are people proposing to dump? Nationalising things seems like the obvious candidate to me, but it's worth bearing in mind that was the part of the manifesto that polled best. 

That polled best with Hard left wingers in their echo chamber.

[LondonLax]

People seem to be forgetting Labour lost in 2017 as well. The big achievement of Cobyn’s Labour during his time in power was not losing as bad as everyone thought they would. 

That might be a good result for a party like the Lib Dems but Labour used to be a Party who aimed to win an electoral majority and govern. 

Even Corbyn’s biggest supporters in this election were hoping for a hung parliament again and a Labour coalition.

That is not a credible main opposition party.

[HanoiVillan]

18 minutes ago, andyjsg said:

That polled best with Hard left wingers in their echo chamber.

The bottom line is that isn't true. 

[Wainy316]

Starmer and and Long-Bailey faves for next leader so both wings of the party represented.  I assume Momentum would back the latter?

Edited December 13, 2019 by Wainy316

[blandy]

 

[HanoiVillan]

21 minutes ago, hippo said:

What labour should (but may find difficult) to accept is that 2017 was a freak result - sadly the result last night is a more realistic position of where the party is.

This is a good point:

2017 does look like a freak on this chart. Corbyn 2019 is a small improvement on Brown 2010 and Miliband 2015 (which obviously isn't good enough, before anybody tries to put words into my mouth). Corbyn 2017 seems completely out of place. But that fact does seem at least somewhat at odds with:

24 minutes ago, hippo said:

Its needs another Neil Kinnock to come in sacrifice himself/herself - but steer the party to the centre ground.

Firstly, without identifying specific policies to change, this is kind of meaningless. Secondly, the bottom line is that the actual result in 2017 - and for that matter, the results of 'moderate' Ed in 2015 - do argue against the idea that a switch to more moderate policies will be a panacea. Finally, voters can see through this trick. In 2015 Miliband pretended to be 'tough' on immigration and voters (rightly) didn't buy any of it; the voters he needed hated him for doing it, and the voters who actually hated immigrants voted for the party who actually agreed with them. 

[bickster]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

The lib dems already exist, and have a few seats. It's very hard to start a new party, and there isn't an obvious demand for it. I would suggest that if any demand for centre politics emerges over the next five years, it will be there that it happens. 

The LibDems are not a credible force. If you play that word association game, the first word that enters most peoples heads when someone says LibDems is untrustworthy, second is probably deceitful. This isn't a recent thing, it goes back decades to at least the 70's and is ingrained.

 

[hippo]

13 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

This is a good point:

2017 does look like a freak on this chart. Corbyn 2019 is a small improvement on Brown 2010 and Miliband 2015 (which obviously isn't good enough, before anybody tries to put words into my mouth). Corbyn 2017 seems completely out of place. But that fact does seem at least somewhat at odds with:

Firstly, without identifying specific policies to change, this is kind of meaningless. Secondly, the bottom line is that the actual result in 2017 - and for that matter, the results of 'moderate' Ed in 2015 - do argue against the idea that a switch to more moderate policies will be a panacea. Finally, voters can see through this trick. In 2015 Miliband pretended to be 'tough' on immigration and voters (rightly) didn't buy any of it; the voters he needed hated him for doing it, and the voters who actually hated immigrants voted for the party who actually agreed with them. 

Thats cheered me up !