Jon Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 17 minutes ago, TrentVilla said: Oh the polls say.... Ok then. I wasn't talking about opinion polls though it was a direct reply to Tony saying he hoped Murdoch hadn't peaked too early hammering him. My view is that there will be a whole lot more to come yet. The wheels are already wobbling on the shadow cabinet and it's going to get worse for some of the reasons Blandy has pointed out. Whatever the polls say the PLP is in my view failing to even remotely challenge the Government at this time or expand on its likely share of the electorate, if anything I think they are losing voters myself included. They may well lose a few centre ground voters. The plan is for a mass movement of the left, including non voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted November 20, 2015 Moderator Share Posted November 20, 2015 14 minutes ago, Jon said: They may well lose a few centre ground voters. The plan is for a mass movement of the left, including non voters. I just don't see it. Aside from the fact their MP's aren't seemingly behind it I just don't think it's a message that will generate the voters they need to get into number 10. Who are these left wingers they hope to attract that didn't vote for them last time? The Scots perhaps but if they are pinning their hopes on picking up seats from there I think they've got their work cut out. Irrespective of the leader vote I just don't see the electoral appetite for a left leaning Labour Party. The party moved to the left under Miliband yet his policies in stone simply didn't appeal to people. People saw them as being the party of benefits and one not supporting those who work hard. Say what you want about Blair and New Labour and much criticism is deserved but he understood what it took for a Labour Party to win an election. Now you might say that that isn't actually a Labour Party and you may or may not be right. That's a different discussion. The point for me though is that the Labour parties fundamental aim should be to keep the Tories out of power and protect the institutions they haven't managed to sell off yet. If that takes being more to the centre of the spectrum, if it means being less influenced by unions and a little softer with big business then I see that as an acceptable cost. Right now Labour can move as m to the Left as it wants but it's not going to get them into power and it's not going to stop the Tories next time around when we are likely to end up with an even more right wing leader than Cameron who is relatively Blair-right. The opportunity for Labour when they fight Osbourne, May or Boris will be the middle ground as the Tories head to the right. Returning to the past and a 70's left wing stance is in my opinion utterly wrong, unelectable and utterly foolish. Like it or not but centre ground voters you say they might lose are the very voters they need and who deserted them in quite large numbers at the last election. As the economy improves and people feel more cash in their pockets (real or imagined) they are going to move further away from Labour and more toward the Tories who irrespective of the truth will appear more representative of them than Red Jez and his Socialist ideals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 6 minutes ago, TrentVilla said: Like it or not but centre ground voters you say they might lose are the very voters they need and who deserted them in quite large numbers at the last election. The Labour party got more votes and a larger share of the popular vote in 2015 than they did in 2010. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted November 20, 2015 Moderator Share Posted November 20, 2015 9 minutes ago, snowychap said: The Labour party got more votes and a larger share of the popular vote in 2015 than they did in 2010. Because they benefited from the Lib Dem's defections as they sold their soul to Cameron but they also lost voters, voters that they would need to win and they will lose more of them in my view. Analysis of the election result has shown that, although Labour gained support as people deserted the Lib Dems, it also lost a large number to other parties. Of all those who voted, 6% were people who had voted Labour in 2010 but who chose other parties. Of these, a third (2%) went straight to the Tories. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/18/labour-party-voters-desertion-election Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 (edited) 18 minutes ago, TrentVilla said: Because they benefited from the Lib Dem's defections And who is to say that they would have benefited from those defections if they hadn't taken the positions that they took in the last election (or maybe could have benefitted from fewer defections to the SNP)? I'm not a defecting Lib Dem and I wouldn't have the patience or the masochistic instinct to go around and ask them so I can't answer. BTW, from the article you linked, there was also this old chestnut: Quote The focus groups gave savage assessments of Labour, which they said lacked economic credibility... It just shows how much of a problem it can be to 'listen to what voters are saying' and then to choose to base policy on the output of focus groups. Edited November 20, 2015 by snowychap Spelling 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 They just need to shift the Overton window back over to the left. Thatcherism shifted it so far right and the media have done a good job in helping it stay there. We just need a lot of the less politically aware to realise they actual support a lot of left wing policies and not be put off by a picture of a politician eating a bacon sandwich. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post OutByEaster? Posted November 20, 2015 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted November 20, 2015 Trent, I'm one of those people who stopped voting and will vote Corbyn - I voted Green in the last election because they were the only viable alternative to the two major business parties - that's no longer true. I think it's also worth pointing out that I'll be voting Corbyn, not voting Labour if that makes some sense. I gave up voting in general elections when Blair arrived and choice left. It's good to have a genuine alternative to Neo-Liberalism available, and I know I'm not the only person to think so. I'm not sure whether that's enough to win an election at any point, although the odd thing is that we're at a point where even though most everybody despises Cameron and has some idea of his motives and purpose, we're in a position where the political battles will not be fought between Cameron and Corbyn, they will be fought between Corbyn and the press - Cameron will just need to keep his gob shut and slow down a bit. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 20, 2015 Moderator Share Posted November 20, 2015 I don't think Labour have gone "too far left". I think as others have said there's a lot of support for left-ish policies - nationalised railways and such like. There's also massive resentment of the tories and their support for bankers and so on. The tories will become a lot more unpopular, as well. The thing for me is that Labour needs to credibly oppose the tories and they're just not doing that. Because of various streaks of idiocy they're utterly failing in their job. You can have a list of 20 things and if 1 or two if them are utterly daft, then no one will vote for you. And with stuff like Trident, Scottish Labour is against it. Corbyn is against it, the rest of them are for it. Official policy is for it. The shadow Defence bod is for it. - so wtf is their position? If they get in, what will they do? And that kind of cluelessness, which is endemic across much of their stuff, costs them massively IMO. They've also got a habit of supporting some tory plans, only to change their mind shortly afterwards. - recent examples Burnham on the snoopers charter and the "Embarassing embarassing" stuff on Osborne's idiotic deficit "pledge". They seem quite divided on bombing Syria too. When even the tory dominated committee reporting on the idea of bombing Syria says (I paraphrase) "don't be so ruddy stupid" Labour should be unanimous in pointing out how flawed the idea is. There is so much fertile ground for them to go at, and they're absolutely clueless. A shocking waste. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted November 20, 2015 Moderator Share Posted November 20, 2015 What can count for them is if they portray that as a natural part of the thinking process - we're deciding, we're thinking, we want everyone involved, we want to hear what you think, that sort of thing - they might get away with a divided sense of purpose in as much as the last thirty years have taught us that when a political party are all giving the same message, it's probably because they're lying. By not being slick, or even organised, in parts they look honest. It's almost the option of voting for dishonest organised group or a shambolic but probably honest party. I think it's also more difficult because every party has divides and infighting, but not every party has a media absolutely desperate to find the cracks in those divides and shine light on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted November 20, 2015 Moderator Share Posted November 20, 2015 19 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: What can count for them is if they portray that as a natural part of the thinking process - we're deciding, we're thinking, we want everyone involved, we want to hear what you think, that sort of thing - they might get away with a divided sense of purpose in as much as the last thirty years have taught us that when a political party are all giving the same message, it's probably because they're lying. By not being slick, or even organised, in parts they look honest. It's almost the option of voting for dishonest organised group or a shambolic but probably honest party. I think it's also more difficult because every party has divides and infighting, but not every party has a media absolutely desperate to find the cracks in those divides and shine light on them. I think that is increadibly generous OBE. I personally don't think they are seen that way, I don't think they as being seen as thoughtful and inclusive as they work out their policies. I certainly don't see them that way. At times they've been shambolic as they back a policy then change their mind. Party MP's were reported to have told the press off the record that a members meeting had been farcical and unlike anything they'd ever experienced. In fact such was the reaction from some in the meeting their objections were observed outside the room by members of the press! To be honest I think blaming a press witch hunt is a little weak as an excuse for what has been going on. The press is varied enough in this country that whatever party is in power there are papers and journo's sniffing out divisions and differences and taking great pleasure in highlighting them. The problem is the party elected a leader its MP's didn't want and don't agree with. A leader who frankly isn't a leader of anything other than protest, he isn't a man that can lead the parliamentary party or create cohesion. The press, even the Murdoch right press in the main are only shinning a light on the cracks that are there. (In my opinion obviously) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted November 20, 2015 Moderator Share Posted November 20, 2015 5 minutes ago, TrentVilla said: The problem is the party elected a leader its MP's didn't want and don't agree with. He got more votes in the leadership election from Labour MP's than any other candidate. I know the big difference is in the party membership, the £3 voters and so on, but he was still the most popular candidate from within the party - you can say they didn't want him and don't agree with him, but they voted for him. And the strange thing is, that though there is a shambolic look to the party he leads, and whilst he doesn't look like a political leader, and whilst there are lots in his party that don't agree with him, he still polls well, he's still winning votes - like Blandy says, more organisation, more clarity and more consistency could see him really making an enormous progress against possibly the least popular government since Blair took us to war, but even as he is he's still making some progress. And yes, it was generous, but I think there's an element of truth in the idea that Blair was polished and sensible and run by media and marketing and advertising, and that Cameron is the same and that voters have a complete mistrust of politicians that appear that way, that polish is becoming equated with lies and robbery and banks and war - I think there are areas where Corbyn benefits from looking different. I'd also agree with Blandy that sometimes that benefit is only made because people aren't looking to closely at that difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 20, 2015 Moderator Share Posted November 20, 2015 The press are definitely out to get Corbyn (well, most of them are). Mail, Sun, Torygraph, the UKIP one..., That said, they don't exactly help themselves. Parties need to communicate with people. Labour is not communicating (any coherent message or thoughts) with people. Some of the people they have chosen to do the communicating are incompetent. Which is a shame because when Corbyn was going round in his election tour, he was apparently a very good communicator. To an extent the defence of "we're still formulating our view on [whatever] has some merit - if it was on tax or something where they will have real chance of affecting that until 5 years time. But stuff like Syria is a "here and now" factor where dicking around thinking about making your mind up after a 6 month piolicy review is not an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 6 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: He got more votes in the leadership election from Labour MP's than any other candidate. Did he? According to the nominations he got the least. Or are you talking about Andy? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted November 20, 2015 Moderator Share Posted November 20, 2015 1 minute ago, PauloBarnesi said: Did he? According to the nominations he got the least. Or are you talking about Andy? I'm sure I read he'd won each of the different sectors of the vote - apologies if he didn't. Although that would bring up the question of why a party whose members overwhelmingly support a direction are represented by a group of people who disagree with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 20, 2015 Moderator Share Posted November 20, 2015 26 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: ...the question of why a party whose members overwhelmingly support a direction are represented by a group of people who disagree with them. Because Tony Blair won elections. Same as the way even now the tory MPs are in thrall to the wicked witch. MPs will do and say things that they think will help win them their seats and elections. Members will say what they think and believe. just my theory, like 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 58 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: I'm sure I read he'd won each of the different sectors of the vote - apologies if he didn't. The three sections were members, registered supporters and affiliated supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 The absolute basic, day 1 MP's salary without any weightings. no little extra portfolio, no allowances or expenses etc. is £67,000. This is why some people would rather win a seat in parliament than argue over the finer points of principle and direction for a political party. Let's bag the £67k then, later, we can have a moral and philosophical discussion on shoot to kill and access to allotments. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 2 hours ago, blandy said: There is so much fertile ground for them to go at, and they're absolutely clueless. A shocking waste. They're not clueless Pete. They're divided. Largely because large blairite sections of the PLP can't accept the decision of the labour membership at the leadership election. Shame on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 What I love is the fact the massively out of touch PLP were so arrogant that they thought there would be no problem sticking jez on the ballot paper as a 'novelty' candidate. Oh how little they knew about the strength of feeling of 'ordinary' labour members and voters 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted November 20, 2015 Moderator Share Posted November 20, 2015 26 minutes ago, snowychap said: The three sections were members, registered supporters and affiliated supporters. Ah, I see. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts