bickster Posted January 17, 2020 Moderator Share Posted January 17, 2020 1 hour ago, blandy said: I dunno, I'm no Nandy fan either, but she's sort of right about Towns, to an extent. Not the solution, but a problem. It's the case that London gets disproportionately too much money and attention, and has been for ages. So everyone else was left out. Then cities like Manchester, Leeds, Brum etc. started to get attention and funding....so it was more towns that suffered. Add to that if you invest in a City, it pulls in people to work there from around and further away, meaning people leaving the towns, either all day, or for good. So the transport links, which in the North are often awful become highlighted for the day workers as a real problem - "London gets billions for cross rail and we have to commute in ancient rickety diesel trains. And because people (usually the young and able and bright) have left towns to go to wherever, the towns are left with the elderly, the unwell, the jobless..... And on top of that they can become dumping grounds for refugees etc. where there are already overstretched, underfunded hossies and schools etc. And the people there blame the refugeees and immigrants, and the EU for the problems. Neither Labour nor Tories have helped them, they've ignored them. Their votes are taken for granted by Labour (or were). I think she's right-ish, but hasn't got any answers. This is all absolutely true, I also doubt there's any of the 5 candidates that would disagree either But Nandy's approach just seems to be to reverse the US and THEM on a local scale, she talks about these towns losing jobs to the cities and middle class people in cities, what she's talking about as a solution is absolute King Canute type piffle, her approach is all wrong. For sure we need to decentralise but its not just a towns thing. You couldnt get much more chalk and cheese than Warrrington and St Helens, they are either side of the same motorway beween Liverpool and Manchester, one's a former mining town, the other a progressive New Town (ish) that gets far far more investment from companies locating there. Geographically they are about 5 miles apart either side of the M62 corridor. In terms of investment, they are miles apart, so it isn't as simple as she's painting, even just down the road from her own constituency. Every town has its problems, Warrington gets favoured because it has the infrastructure. Towns aren't all suffering, most towns are, in some respects they are because of what they were and the struggle to get to what they need to be know to compete. But improving the transport infrastructure isn't going to help towns on its own, that 'll just help more people travel in to cities. There needs to be an incentie for comapnies to locate in those twons or for people to live in those towns IMO Nandy is full of hot air on the subject and its all about her giving a certain impression rather than actually achieving anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said: Just out of interest, which part of Nandy's politics do you dislike? (This isn't a trap, I'm just genuinely interested in your thoughts on her). I think her position on the May/Johnson WA stuff pre-election was awful. It was a mix of populist, weak and gullible. Her recent pitch has not done anything to dissuade me from thinking this is her standard approach. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 17, 2020 Moderator Share Posted January 17, 2020 3 hours ago, Jareth said: I'm a Labour member and I'll be voting RLB or Starmer. Keep changing my mind between the two.... I guess your choice is really, do I want Labour to be in with a chance of winning an election or not? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 17, 2020 Moderator Share Posted January 17, 2020 25 minutes ago, snowychap said: I think her position on the May/Johnson WA stuff pre-election was awful. It was a mix of populist, weak and gullible. Her recent pitch has not done anything to dissuade me from thinking this is her standard approach. winner, winner, chicken dinner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 17, 2020 Moderator Share Posted January 17, 2020 58 minutes ago, bickster said: Nandy's approach just seems to be to reverse the US and THEM on a local scale It needs a bit of that - I mean in your example Warrington and St Helens, you're right, but the one that's not doing so well needs focusing on and helping. There are loads of St Helens type examples. These places desperately need some TLC. They need a degree of freedom as well - everything in the UK is control freaked by London, some cities now have a mayor with a bit of power, some have alleged help from "Northern Powerhouse" or Midlands Engine, though much of it is just waffle. But what there is is concentrated on cities, again. You're right that Us and Them is not the answer, but like I say, she's got a diagnosis right-ish, but as you say, not really any clue about the cure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 Well, it scans, but it's not right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 Can something be blindingly obvious, but at the same time also need saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 5 hours ago, blandy said: It's the case that London gets disproportionately too much money and attention, and has been for ages. So everyone else was left out. Then cities like Manchester, Leeds, Brum etc. started to get attention and funding....so it was more towns that suffered. I don't think I agree with much of this post. What is meant by 'attention' here? And how are you measuring money received here? It can't be in local government funding, because that has been cut more for cities and near-cities than it has for other areas, with Liverpool seeing the largest decline in funding per capita of any council over the last ten years, and London seeing the largest decline in absolute terms. What's more, councils that have received funding cuts have largely had to make up the difference by raising council taxes and business rates, which is harder for the most deprived areas (nearly all within cities). 6 hours ago, blandy said: So the transport links, which in the North are often awful become highlighted for the day workers as a real problem - "London gets billions for cross rail and we have to commute in ancient rickety diesel trains. I am absolutely in favour of improving public transport across northern England, but it's important to bear a couple of points in mind here. Firstly, London needed Crossrail, as well; it is indeed expensive, but the Tube is over capacity and another cross-city link is needed. Secondly, the quality of the rolling stock is a matter for the privatised train operators, and it should be noted that Labour offered both a nationalised rail network (which could have been ordered to upgrade rolling stock) and a significant expansion in bus services, but hey ho, they were roundly rejected at the ballot box, including in some of these same towns. It's not obvious to me that there are lots of voters who are motivated in who to vote for by the promise of better public transport provision, however much people complain when the train fares go up. Finally, the connection between the prosperity of a place, and the quality of its public transport provision, is pretty weak. Having a train station or a regular bus service is not sufficient to make a town prosperous, and nor is the lack of those things necessarily an impediment. 6 hours ago, blandy said: And on top of that they can become dumping grounds for refugees etc. where there are already overstretched, underfunded hossies and schools etc. I think this is the crux of my issue. There are more refugees in cities than towns (by far), and hospitals and schools are underfunded and overstretched everywhere. That's the Tories for you! But these problems require a health policy with massive funding increases, and an education policy likewise. There's no reason for those funding increases to be limited to services in towns, as opposed to cities, so why do we need a 'towns strategy' to fight those problems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 12 hours ago, bickster said: I guess your choice is really, do I want Labour to be in with a chance of winning an election or not? Or not pander to the old gits, wait 10 years for that demographic to die off and win a landslide using basically the 2019 manifesto... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 8 hours ago, peterms said: Well, it scans, but it's not right. Jesus wept, they don't learn do they? They're projecting Corbyn's image, ideological purity and even his song onto RLB. The guy that just got thumped in an election. Mind you, she's encouraged them by giving him a 10/10 for Labours biggest loss since the 1930s. More of the same means more of the same. As bewildering as it is to have to point out, but more of the same, means more division, a fractured party and further loses. I describe RLB as the 'nightmare' choice. Probably a bit disingenuous of me because Emily Thornberry would be worse, but she'll never get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Jareth said: Or not pander to the old gits, wait 10 years for that demographic to die off and win a landslide using basically the 2019 manifesto... Woaa, I suggest you check the demographic information. That is categorically not going to happen. The demographics that Labour struggle with are not going away. To win an election they need to gain a good amount of votes from socially conservative, but economically left voters (old gits that voted Labour in the past, but don't anymore) and they need to win back all of the votes of socially liberal, but more centrist economic voters that they lost to the Lib Dems. LabourTogether are in the process of an election review, that sounds about as non partisan as Labour can manage, it'll be interesting to see what their conclusions are, which will be released just before the end of the leadership election. "Not pandering to the old gits" means ignoring the concerns of voters. Which leads to losing elections. It also indicative of a culture in Labour that seeks to blame the electorate for their choices. It's almost like "you're either with us or against us, and if you're against us, we don't want you". Which doesn't seem like a particularly astute democratic position to me.. Labour can go full throttle with the far left socialism of nationalising everything again if they want. If they do, I'm out, because that is a policy platform that can't win. Labour need to make the case for socialism, they're a democratic socialist party afterall. I'm sorry if it seems like I've jumped on you @Jareth , I'm not directing all my criticism towards you personally. I'm just expressing concerns based on wider observations that I've made, and challenging your statement which I see to be perceived wisdom amongst some elements of the party. I think it's fair to say that I'm as guilty as anyone else in Labour for their demise. I joined (and left) because of Jeremy Corbyn. I'm actually back in again, I'm giving it another go, to vote for leader that isn't going to kill the party. It's also fair to say that my views have shifted in the last 18 months as I've watched Labour rip itself apart. I can't get on board with another leader offering the same policy platform or leadership style, and ultimately lack of leadership as Corbyn did. The party needs to be united to win. Corbyn could never do that, and neither can RLB. I think probably the only candidate that could bridge the division is Starmer, but I've not made my mind up yet. Edited January 18, 2020 by PompeyVillan 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seat68 Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 8 minutes ago, PompeyVillan said: Woaa, I suggest you check the demographic information. That is categorically not going to happen. The demographics that Labour struggle with are not going away. To win an election they need to gain a good amount of votes from socially conservative, but economically left voters (old gits that voted Labour in the past, but don't anymore) and they need to win back all of the votes of socially liberal, but more centrist economic voters that they lost to the Lib Dems. LabourTogether are in the process of an election review, that sounds about as non partisan as Labour can manage, it'll be interesting to see what their conclusions are, which will be released just before the end of the leadership election. "Not pandering to the old gits" means ignoring the concerns of voters. Which leads to losing elections. It also indicative of a culture in Labour that seeks to blame the electorate for their choices. It's almost like "you're either with us or against us, and if you're against us, we don't want you". Which doesn't seem like a particularly astute democratic position to me.. Labour can go full throttle with the far left socialism of nationalising everything again if they want. If they do, I'm out, because that is a policy platform that can't win. Labour need to make the case for socialism, they're a democratic socialist party afterall. I'm sorry if it seems like I've jumped on you @Jareth , I'm directing all my criticism towards you personally. I'm just expressing concerns based on wider observations that I've made, and challenging your statement which I see to be perceived wisdom amongst some elements of the party. I think it's fair to say that I'm as guilty as anyone else in Labour for their demise. I joined (and left) because of Jeremy Corbyn. I'm actually back in again, I'm giving it another go, to vote for leader that isn't going to kill the party. It's also fair to say that my views have shifted in the last 18 months as I've watched Labour rip itself apart. I can't get on board with another leader offering the same policy platform or leadership style, and ultimately lack of leadership as Corbyn did. The party needs to be united to win. Corbyn could never do that, and neither can RLB. I think probably the only candidate that could bridge the division is Starmer, but I've not made my mind up yet. Agree with this in its entirety, I was going to respond but thought someone will answer it better than me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 33 minutes ago, PompeyVillan said: The party needs to be united to win. Corbyn could never do that, and neither can RLB. This is true - it will only unite when all factions unite behind someone - but this might be why Labour is doomed - the left have bunkered down and stick two fingers up at everyone else, meanwhile the 'moderates' have done everything possible to sabotage the left since Corbyn got in. I don't see this resolving any time soon. However - Starmer does represent the best chance, because he is speaking to both sides of the Labour divide. RLB will be given the same treatment as Corbyn. As for appealing to the electorate - if Boris Johnson and his pack of lies represents someone that appeals to the wider electorate - then I do not want Labour to mimic that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 18, 2020 Moderator Share Posted January 18, 2020 1 hour ago, Jareth said: Or not pander to the old gits, wait 10 years for that demographic to die off and win a landslide using basically the 2019 manifesto... Wow, Do you honestly think in ten years time, the demographics of the UK will have significantly changed? You're own opinion will likely have changed in that time. Do you understand the scale of the defeat that just happened? Do you understand that’s not what Labour needs to happen for it to get into power? Traditional Labour voters have deserted the party across all age groups and the oldest have never voted Labour as a group Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 Just now, bickster said: Wow, Do you honestly think in ten years time, the demographics of the UK will have significantly changed? You're own opinion will likely have changed in that time. Do you understand the scale of the defeat that just happened? Do you understand that’s not what Labour needs to happen for it to get into power? Traditional Labour voters have deserted the party across all age groups and the oldest have never voted Labour as a group I’d be more concerned had this result not also happened at the same time as remain or leave were as important to people’s identity than political party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 In 10 years time when a lot of the older demographic have died off, I strongly suspect the younger demographic.... will be ten years older. In fact, the tipping point of turning in to a tory is getting younger. So that ancient mantra of the youth saving us next time, well it’s a bit of a double disappointment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 51 minutes ago, bickster said: Wow, Do you honestly think in ten years time, the demographics of the UK will have significantly changed? You're own opinion will likely have changed in that time. Do you understand the scale of the defeat that just happened? Do you understand that’s not what Labour needs to happen for it to get into power? Traditional Labour voters have deserted the party across all age groups and the oldest have never voted Labour as a group From experience the strength of ones Marxism or radical leftist politics is decreasing with age. To expect preferences and beliefs to be immutable over a decade or so is quite the leap of faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, PompeyVillan said: Woaa, I suggest you check the demographic information. That is categorically not going to happen. The demographics that Labour struggle with are not going away. To win an election they need to gain a good amount of votes from socially conservative, but economically left voters (old gits that voted Labour in the past, but don't anymore) and they need to win back all of the votes of socially liberal, but more centrist economic voters that they lost to the Lib Dems. LabourTogether are in the process of an election review, that sounds about as non partisan as Labour can manage, it'll be interesting to see what their conclusions are, which will be released just before the end of the leadership election. "Not pandering to the old gits" means ignoring the concerns of voters. Which leads to losing elections. It also indicative of a culture in Labour that seeks to blame the electorate for their choices. It's almost like "you're either with us or against us, and if you're against us, we don't want you". Which doesn't seem like a particularly astute democratic position to me.. Labour can go full throttle with the far left socialism of nationalising everything again if they want. If they do, I'm out, because that is a policy platform that can't win. Labour need to make the case for socialism, they're a democratic socialist party afterall. I'm sorry if it seems like I've jumped on you @Jareth , I'm not directing all my criticism towards you personally. I'm just expressing concerns based on wider observations that I've made, and challenging your statement which I see to be perceived wisdom amongst some elements of the party. I think it's fair to say that I'm as guilty as anyone else in Labour for their demise. I joined (and left) because of Jeremy Corbyn. I'm actually back in again, I'm giving it another go, to vote for leader that isn't going to kill the party. It's also fair to say that my views have shifted in the last 18 months as I've watched Labour rip itself apart. I can't get on board with another leader offering the same policy platform or leadership style, and ultimately lack of leadership as Corbyn did. The party needs to be united to win. Corbyn could never do that, and neither can RLB. I think probably the only candidate that could bridge the division is Starmer, but I've not made my mind up yet. They really don't, they need to completely abandon it altogether. They need to be a social democratic party, not a democratic socialist one. Anyone who thinks Socialism should still be a thing should probably go and read Schumpeter. This is precisely the problem with Labour, it is overrun with individuals who want to use the parties significant platform as a vector for getting socialism out there in the public consciousness. In so doing it will only degenerate into a sort of activist function and thus handing Tories power for a generation. Edited January 18, 2020 by Dr_Pangloss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 5 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said: They really don't, they need to completely abandon it altogether. They need to be a social democratic party, not a democratic socialist one. Anyone who thinks Socialism should still be a thing should probably go and read Schumpeter. This is precisely the problem with Labour, it is overrun with individuals who want to use the parties significant platform as a vector for getting socialism out there in the public consciousness. In so doing it will only degenerate into a sort of activist function and thus handing Tories power for a generation. I think you're right to some extent and the distinction is important. They're a coalition of socialist ideals, but social democracy is more likely to succeed with the electorate than their current policy platform. The Labour leadership candidates are being coy about their ideas for policy positions in the future (apart from 10/10 RLB) and I do sense there will be a move in the right direction under Starmer. When asked about nationalisation recently he used the probation service as his first primary example of a service that needs to be nationalised and then said something about the railways. The probation service renationalisation is an absolute no brainer, it's a disgrace at the moment and nationalised railways and bus services are something that most people can get on board with. I hope he can ween idealistic Corbynists off the idea of attempting to convert everyone to full blown socialism, cus it ain't gonna work. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 34 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said: They really don't, they need to completely abandon it altogether. They need to be a social democratic party, not a democratic socialist one. Anyone who thinks Socialism should still be a thing should probably go and read Schumpeter. This is precisely the problem with Labour, it is overrun with individuals who want to use the parties significant platform as a vector for getting socialism out there in the public consciousness. In so doing it will only degenerate into a sort of activist function and thus handing Tories power for a generation. Bingo. Such an important distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts