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

[LondonLax]

9 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

We've already had a government that reflects Tony Blair's influence on British politics, with an identikit Blair-esque leader in David Cameron.

I didn't like it. I'd prefer someone more Labour.

 

 

Unfortunately you’re in a minority in the UK

[OutByEaster?]

2 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Unfortunately you’re in a minority in the UK

Possibly - it's hard to tell with the influence of our media - but the big question for Labour is whether they want to offer an alternative to corporate power and most likely lose an election or move toward supporting corporate power, betray the principles they should represent and most likely still lose an election. 

For me, Labour by definition should represent the people, those who live in the wage economy - if it has to move away from that in order to gain more votes it becomes an irrelevance.  

Now as you say, not everyone feels that way, but Labour under Corbyn has awakened that belief in enough people that if the party move away from it, those people will go elsewhere (most likely to the Greens) and if they don't move away from it, they'll need to build more support in the face of huge odds. I think to press on is the only real route to Labour's survival as a party. 

The best way to win an election for Labour would be to maintain the policies, then two months before the election appoint an authoritative, devilishly handsome, actor as leader, giving the media no time to knock him down and presenting the public with a good looking charmer with a glint in his eye that granny would love.

 

 

 

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

Unfortunately you’re in a minority in the UK

No hindrance to electing a government in the UK.

Edited December 24, 2019 by snowychap

[HanoiVillan]

46 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

For me, Labour by definition should represent the people, those who live in the wage economy - if it has to move away from that in order to gain more votes it becomes an irrelevance. 

There has been a notable shift in the last two elections:

The important point here is the difference between the final two graphs and the others; what we can see is that voting has become hugely divergent between ages, with Labour comfortably winning younger age groups and the Tories winning by similar amounts among pensioners in percentage terms (but much more in absolute numbers, because there are loads of pensioners and they all go out and vote).

The interesting question is what has caused this change. Is it due to Brexit (the 2016 referendum saw exactly the same pattern, with Remain instead of LAB and Leave instead of CON)? Or is it due to Corbyn particularly turning off even the most Labour-curious 10-15% of pensioners? Or is it due to other factors, like wage stagnation and economic malaise pushing up the Labour vote among young people, and low interest rates and fears about inheritance taxes pushing the Tory vote up amongst the olds?

These are worthwhile questions to ask, but the answer isn't clear. One thing that seems likely is that a good Labour performance in the next election will require, in large part, shifting the crossover point in those charts above closer to 50 or 55 than 40.

[bickster]

13 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

For me, Labour by definition should represent the people, those who live in the wage economy

It clearly and demonstrably doesn't. It's entire pitch is to those of average wage and under. People above average wage really not so much. Guess what Blair did?

You aren't going to help the poor in society by not getting elected. You aren't going to get elected by pushing the minimum wage up and doing nothing for those on better incomes. Putting the minimum wage up is good but it does absolutely nothing to my wage, it just pushes those on better wages closer to the bottom than the top, thats what people see and hear and thats why they don't appeal to anyone on above average wages, so they really don't represent everyone who lives in the wage economy. When the minimum  wage first came in, it did push up those wages above it, not so much now.

What Labour's currently comes across as (rightly or wrongly) is a party that removes aspiration by pushing everyone's jobs together money wise. There's an awful lot of people that don't want that

Sticking up for the little guy is good but not at everyone else's expense

[OutByEaster?]

32 minutes ago, bickster said:

Sticking up for the little guy is good but not at everyone else's expense

In our rigged economy, the little guy is everyone except a few hundred people - successive media and Conservative campaigns have somehow persuaded millions of people that they're "the rich" who will be persecuted - it's a nonsense.

 

 

 

 

 

[magnkarl]

On 21/12/2019 at 23:14, peterms said:

Oh yes they were.  (seasonal reference)

From any reasonable northern European perspective, it was a moderate, incremental programme, too timid if anything.

Prime example of what most lefties think that Scandinavian model is. I wonder what this thought is based on. 

The Labour party in both Sweden and Norway is more centre than Corbyn, in Denmark they're pretty much a centre-conservative party. 

[snowychap]

[ml1dch]

11 minutes ago, snowychap said:

[conspiracy theory]

They need to suggest somebody really, REALLY unelectable to make the really unelectable Rebecca Long-Bailey seem like the compromise candidate in comparison

[/theory]

Edit - ignore this. That would credit these people with some level of strategic thinking and forward planning. 

Edited December 29, 2019 by ml1dch

[bickster]

This is Ian £165,000 Lavery? Former President of the NUM with 10 members who all voted to give him £165,000? That Ian Lavery?

Or is it the Ian Lavery who as Chair of the Labour Party oversaw its worst election campaign since 1935, that saw his own majority tumble from 10K+ to little over 800 with a 15% drop in his vote share

That's some set of brass balls he's got, I'll give you that. The man's a crook above all else

[bickster]

RLB's initial pitch for the leadership is in the Guardian today. I can't be arsed quoting it because its full of nebulous bollocks about pluralism and pulling all members of the party together. There's no actual discernible policy in there

She appears to think this is the answer, She's off her deluded chump, it does nothing to address the obvious elephant in the room in that the current Party and it's policies do not appeal to a broad enough spectrum of the population to ever get elected.

If she wins, the Labour Party will just add another 5-10 years onto their recovery time

[bannedfromHandV]

On 25/12/2019 at 11:24, OutByEaster? said:

In our rigged economy, the little guy is everyone except a few hundred people - successive media and Conservative campaigns have somehow persuaded millions of people that they're "the rich" who will be persecuted - it's a nonsense.

 

 

 

 

 

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

[KentVillan]

One of the things Labour need to drop is this belief that they are being continually shafted by a media conspiracy.

There needs to be more acceptance that voters genuinely reach conclusions about things. Yes, it's often illogical and bigoted, and yes it's often guided by media portrayals and the way stuff is editorialised or buried or whatever. But you don't reach Corbyn's level of unpopularity purely because of "the media".

The problem is that the Blair / Mandelson years have created this false dichotomy of either going on yacht trips with Rupert Murdoch, or despising the entire mainstream media complex. There has to be an area in between where you just accept that sections of the media are biased, and work around it. All this constant bleating about the media makes much of the modern Labour Party look like unhinged conspiracy theorists.

It also means that very niche outlets like Novara Media become quite influential on party strategy, with predictable consequences. The feedback loop is strong at the moment, and it is taking lots of people in very odd directions.

The party doesn't need to return to Blairite triangulation on policy, but it does need to recognise that some of its voters will be Sun readers, Times readers, Daily Mail readers... people who watch mainstream TV... people who aren't on Twitter. This is why, for all their faults, polls and focus groups became popular as a way of understanding people who weren't political obsessives.

Watching a focus group of lifelong Labour voters say "I have no idea who that is" when you show them a picture of the Shadow Chancellor is a useful corrective to the petty gossip of Westminster and cliquey obsessions of CLPs. It feels like this lesson will be the hardest to learn, because the Twitterati / Novara / Momentum feedback loop is structured to ignore this reality.

 

[chrisp65]

The scrutiny for the next Labour leader is going to be at a different level to that afforded the current man of the people tory leader.

Somehow, it’s that which has to be overcome.

RLB will be dissected for anything that hints at not being perfect and instantly massively popular. As will all the other candidates. Can you imagine any one of them having the police called to their house due to loud arguing in the middle of the night. Or **** off to Mustique for a few weeks having said they’d get straight down to work on Brexit. Or not being able to name all their kids.

The system will be loaded against whatever leader they select. They can minimise the hate by selecting candidates that various lobbies disapprove of less. But we’ve had candidates who’s parents were too Jewish, candidates who hate Jews, candidates too boring or too Scottish or too ginger or Welsh or scruffy or whatever.

Absolute mountain to climb to get beyond the average punter’s grasp of politics as a celebrity game show.

Phwoawahaa!! Bozza the shagger! The scruffy haired scamp.

[bickster]

3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

The scrutiny for the next Labour leader is going to be at a different level...

Which is why anyone voting for Ian Lavery needs their bumps felt.

His supposed consideration of standing must be a smoke and mirrors exercise to make RBL seem like a reasonable option, or some  other chicanery

Most reasonable people wouldn't employ him to walk their dog for fear it'd be sold... the dog consented, it wanted to be sold and it wanted me to keep the money. Proof? well thats between me and the dog, its a private matter

[PompeyVillan]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Which is why anyone voting for Ian Lavery needs their bumps felt.

His supposed consideration of standing must be a smoke and mirrors exercise to make RBL seem like a reasonable option, or some  other chicanery

Most reasonable people wouldn't employ him to walk their dog for fear it'd be sold... the dog consented, it wanted to be sold and it wanted me to keep the money. Proof? well thats between me and the dog, its a private matter

That's right, but the horrifying irony of the situation is that Boris Johnson is one dodgy bastard, but because he likes a pint, makes a jape now and then and ruffles his hair up (some) people (who lack critical thinking skills) see him as a loveable rouge. 

Labour as they are now, with a strong socially liberal, educated core, would reject such a figure and vote Green.

Lavery and Long-Bailey would be awful Labour leaders. 

My conclusion is that 5 years is a long time in politics, it isn't important that the next Labour leader is ideological pure or loves the manifesto or has lots of policy ideas now. The electorate are suspicious of idealogical leaders, they don't trust their motives.

Labour need a strategic leader who will will pick apart the Tories on the mess they will inevitably make of country and the opportunities Brexit will deliver for the opposition to exploit. They need someone who can win an argument whilst stopping the party from self destructing. 

The only credible candidate from this early stage is Kier Starmer. Being a remainer will be neither here nor there once Brexit is in motion, but it will help to be on the right side of the arguement when things go tits up, but broaching that issue will be require nuance. "I told you so, Socialism is the only way" won't work. 

Starmer is used to winning really important arguements, he looks and appears middle class, but is from a humble background. He's palatable enough to the Momentum types, and will be able to bring on board the more traditional centrists in the party. He is talking about uniting the party and getting the messaging right, he criticised the waves of confusing policy, and lack of economic credibility of Corbyn. 

The other candidates fill me with dread. 

It's an important time for Labour. They'll get one more stab at retaining their broad church, big party status, if they appoint a Corbyn continuity candidate, they'll suffer further humiliating defections, or another breakaway party. There's no appetite for full blown socialism. If that's the party they want to be then they will be the party of opposition. 

Worry about policy in 4 years time, a year before the election. Get real, play real politk and oppose the Tories at every turn. 

[Awol]

The next leader probably won’t win unless Johnson really screws up (clearly not impossible!), but needs to move Labour away from its current perception as an extreme, potentially dangerous party. 

Corbyn’s personal poll rating fell of a cliff and never recovered following the Russian chemical attack in Salisbury. If enough people genuinely don’t trust a party on national security they won’t put them in government. 

Still Dan Jarvis, imo. 

[Awol]

9 hours ago, PompeyVillan said:

That's right, but the horrifying irony of the situation is that Boris Johnson is one dodgy bastard, but because he likes a pint, makes a jape now and then and ruffles his hair up (some) people (who lack critical thinking skills) see him as a loveable rouge. 

Labour as they are now, with a strong socially liberal, educated core, would reject such a figure and vote Green.

Lavery and Long-Bailey would be awful Labour leaders. 

My conclusion is that 5 years is a long time in politics, it isn't important that the next Labour leader is ideological pure or loves the manifesto or has lots of policy ideas now. The electorate are suspicious of idealogical leaders, they don't trust their motives.

Labour need a strategic leader who will will pick apart the Tories on the mess they will inevitably make of country and the opportunities Brexit will deliver for the opposition to exploit. They need someone who can win an argument whilst stopping the party from self destructing. 

The only credible candidate from this early stage is Kier Starmer. Being a remainer will be neither here nor there once Brexit is in motion, but it will help to be on the right side of the arguement when things go tits up, but broaching that issue will be require nuance. "I told you so, Socialism is the only way" won't work. 

Starmer is used to winning really important arguements, he looks and appears middle class, but is from a humble background. He's palatable enough to the Momentum types, and will be able to bring on board the more traditional centrists in the party. He is talking about uniting the party and getting the messaging right, he criticised the waves of confusing policy, and lack of economic credibility of Corbyn. 

The other candidates fill me with dread. 

It's an important time for Labour. They'll get one more stab at retaining their broad church, big party status, if they appoint a Corbyn continuity candidate, they'll suffer further humiliating defections, or another breakaway party. There's no appetite for full blown socialism. If that's the party they want to be then they will be the party of opposition. 

Worry about policy in 4 years time, a year before the election. Get real, play real politk and oppose the Tories at every turn. 

Although he’s obviously far more capable than Ed Miliband, Starmer still comes across as a wonk to me.

They both sound like the guy off the old Tunes advert, trying to buy a train ticket with a nose full of cement.

 

[HanoiVillan]

18 hours ago, Awol said:

Still Dan Jarvis, imo. 

Without Googling, can you tell me three things about him, other than 'he used to be in the Army'?

[ml1dch]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Without Googling, can you tell me three things about him, other than 'he used to be in the Army'?

1. He's a Labour MP

2. Loads of people think he stopped being an MP to become a mayor ages ago, possibly confusing him a bit with Andy Burnham. 

3. Loads of people are surprised to learn that he is still a Labour MP. 

Edited December 31, 2019 by ml1dch