The future of the Labour Party

[Hibernia&Alba]

Sorry, I've had to go and save the world, sort of, but I'll be back (unless what I think is happening here).

Until then, here's an interesting Guardian article.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/20/new-labour-neoliberal-left-tony-blair

I think Professor O'Hara is correct to say that Blairism wasn't just a continuation of Thatcherism; there was more to it. However, the Blair governments did largely persist with her neoliberal agenda. So what actually do we mean by neoliberalism? Well, it's a belief in market fundamentalism, shifting the economy (and wider society) away from democratic control and towards corporations; and in many respects Blair continued the policies of privatisation and moving the private sector into public services e.g. PFI. Remember also the boasting of Blair and Brown in relation to 'light touch' regulation of the stock market, continuing from Thatcher's 1986 'Big Bang' of deregulation, which directly led to the 2008 banking crisis. Blair left all of Thatcher's anti-trades union legislation in place and began the process of cutting welfare. Remember also Peter Mandelson saying how 'incredibly relaxed' New Labour was about growing inequality. That's the neoliberal agenda in a nutshell.

It's a question of how much emphasis one places upon the progressive side of New Labour vis-à-vis its continuation of Thatcherism. I'm of the belief that New Labour's agenda alienated many bedrock Labour areas, particularly Scotland.

[CraigyHibee07]

I think Professor O'Hara is correct to say that Blairism wasn't just a continuation of Thatcherism; there was more to it. However, the Blair governments did largely persist with her neoliberal agenda. So what actually do we mean by neoliberalism? Well, it's a belief in market fundamentalism, shifting the economy (and wider society) away from democratic control and towards corporations; and in many respects Blair continued the policies of privatisation and moving the private sector into public services e.g. PFI. Remember also the boasting of Blair and Brown in relation to 'light touch' regulation of the stock market, continuing from Thatcher's 1986 'Big Bang' of deregulation, which directly led to the 2008 banking crisis. Blair left all of Thatcher's anti-trades union legislation in place and began the process of cutting welfare. Remember also Peter Mandelson saying how 'incredibly relaxed' New Labour was about growing inequality. That's the neoliberal agenda in a nutshell.

It's a question of how much emphasis one places upon the progressive side of New Labour vis-à-vis its continuation of Thatcherism. I'm of the belief that New Labour's agenda alienated many bedrock Labour areas, particularly Scotland.

I agree. Much of what people are suffering through today under this Government are merely things built upon from the foundations that the Blair administration put in place. Neoliberalism has failed miserably and even if we still had a Blairite labour government in power today, things wouldn't be all too different to what they are.

[Hibernia&Alba]

I agree. Much of what people are suffering through today under this Government are merely things built upon from the foundations that the Blair administration put in place. Neoliberalism has failed miserably and even if we still had a Blairite labour government in power today, things wouldn't be all too different to what they are.

I cite myself as an example of impact of New Labour upon the Labour heartlands. I should be a natural Labour voter and member. All of my family, for as back as I know, have voted Labour; many were trade unionists, some were party members. However, I've never voted Labour in my life and joined the Greens instead. When I was a young adult, New Labour and Blair were in office, complete with their free market economics and their Iraq war. They lost me and I've never been won back.

[heretoday]

Corbs ought to hand over to Harriet Harman and go on holiday.
He's not doing anyone any favours hanging around looking miserable.

[G B Young]

Blair was very successful at winning elections, but I believe he started the decline of Labour when he shifted the party so far to the right that the Labour heartlands lost faith. He should take most blame for the collapse of Labour in Scotland, in my opinion. It just proves you can't be all things to all people. By chasing votes in middle England, he disillusioned areas which had voted Labour for generations, by continuing with the neoliberal agenda of Thatcherism. Voters in traditional Labour areas didn't vote for that.

While Labour were already in opposition by then, their decline began when Ed Milliband beat his brother David in the leadership election post-Brown. It accelerated when Milliband introduced the one-member one-vote system for electing leaders which opened the door to Corbyn, whose unelectability completed the collapse.

While the fallout from Iraq obviously played a part, Blair/Brown had been in power for more than a decade and may simply have run their course. However, those rock solid Labour constituencies which have now been won by the Tories were still returning huge Labour majorities even when that era of leadership drew to a close. Corbyn, McCluskey & Co make a big play of how they understand the needs of the working class yet those communities have just exposed that as a myth by seeing Johnson as more in tune with their views.

They may be seen as 'red Tories' but as Blair would rightly point out there's not much point in the Labour Party if its leadership's ideology makes it unelectable. Would Labour really rather become increasingly irrelevant than move closer to the centre-left again?

[Hibernia&Alba]

While Labour were already in opposition by then, their decline began when Ed Milliband beat his brother David in the leadership election post-Brown. It accelerated when Milliband introduced the one-member one-vote system for electing leaders which opened the door to Corbyn, whose unelectability completed the collapse.

While the fallout from Iraq obviously played a part, Blair/Brown had been in power for more than a decade and may simply have run their course. However, those rock solid Labour constituencies which have now been won by the Tories were still returning huge Labour majorities even when that era of leadership drew to a close. Corbyn, McCluskey & Co make a big play of how they understand the needs of the working class yet those communities have just exposed that as a myth by seeing Johnson as more in tune with their views.

They may be seen as 'red Tories' but as Blair would rightly point out there's not much point in the Labour Party if its leadership's ideology makes it unelectable. Would Labour really rather become increasingly irrelevant than move closer to the centre-left again?

I don't think Blair and New Labour qualify as centre-left though. They were centre-right (even changing the party's name to demonstrate the extent of the change) and I wouldn't categorise those years as even being social democratic, let alone socialist, such was the extent of continuation from Thatcher and Major. I would describe today's SNP as centre-left, and they are miles to the left of Blair.

[marinello59]

I don't think Blair and New Labour qualify as centre-left though. They were centre-right (even changing the party's name to demonstrate the extent of the change) and I wouldn't categorise those years as even being social democratic, let alone socialist, such was the extent of continuation from Thatcher and Major. I would describe today's SNP as centre-left, and they are miles to the left of Blair.

If the SNP are centre left then given the manifesto Labour stood on they must be hard left and that simply isn’t true. The SNP are walking the same centre right ground as the Lib Dem’s. :devil:

[CraigyHibee07]

If the SNP are centre left then given the manifesto Labour stood on they must be hard left and that simply isn’t true. The SNP are walking the same centre right ground as the Lib Dem’s. :devil:

The same Lib Dems who are pro-tuition? pro-prescription charges? Pro-bedroom tax? Pro-child tax credit cuts? and just generally pro-austerity? :cb

[Ozyhibby]

Labours Heartlands were still very much intact last time Tony Blair stood for election. Blaming the only guy who wins elections is madness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibernia&Alba]

Labours Heartlands were still very much intact last time Tony Blair stood for election. Blaming the only guy who wins elections is madness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think it's madness at all to suggest that traditional Labour voting areas became disillusioned with New Labour once they saw policies such as student tuition fees, welfare cuts and the Iraq war. They hadn't spent all their adult lives voting Labour, only to get policies the Tories would have been proud of. The SNP recognised this and outflanked Labour on the left in Scotland.

[CraigyHibee07]

Labours Heartlands were still very much intact last time Tony Blair stood for election. Blaming the only guy who wins elections is madness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If by "intact" you mean they simply didn't want to vote for the alternative, then you'd be right. It doesn't however mean they were happy with what they were voting for.

[Cataplana]

I agree. Much of what people are suffering through today under this Government are merely things built upon from the foundations that the Blair administration put in place. Neoliberalism has failed miserably and even if we still had a Blairite labour government in power today, things wouldn't be all too different to what they are.

It's working perfectly for some.

[Future17]

Corbs ought to hand over to Harriet Harman and go on holiday.
He's not doing anyone any favours hanging around looking miserable.

I disagree. There's nothing Labour can realistically achieve right now; they're in purgatory so might as well let Corbyn be the punching bag for a while and hope, when the new leader comes in, some of the election stink has dissipated.

[Hibernia&Alba]

What happened with CraigyHibee? Banned.

[Hibbyradge]

What happened with CraigyHibee? Banned.

Don't you mean Craigy Fife Hibee?

[The Modfather]

What happened with CraigyHibee? Banned.

Speaking of departed posters. What happened with James310? Was he banned or was defending a union with Boris at the helm more effort than it’s worth?

[Moulin Yarns]

Speaking of departed posters. What happened with James310? Was he banned or was defending a union with Boris at the helm more effort than it’s worth?

I think he took things too personally and decided to leave of his own accord.

[Peevemor]

Speaking of departed posters. What happened with James310? Was he banned or was defending a union with Boris at the helm more effort than it’s worth?

They've won now (for the time being) so he'll be concentrating his efforts elsewhere.

[JeMeSouviens]

Neil Findlay in the Scottish parliament yesterday.


He added: “Finally, can I say to my own party, we have wasted eight years from the 2011 election, through the 2014 referendum, to the present day where we have failed to come forward with a credible, workable, coherent alternative to independence.

“We’ve been reluctant and grudging when proposals for devolved power came forward, seeing it as a concession to Nationalism.

“I am no Nationalist and I never will be, but I see the devolution of power to the lowest possible level as the natural and desirable democratic order. Labour must now get its act together very quickly.

“Hard oppositionalist Unionism is the road to oblivion, in my opinion.


“The people want change, and I think that should be a Devo Max proposition that should be based on the principle that all powers should be devolved unless there’s an overwhelming reason not to devolve them.”

Chances of getting agreement for this in Scottish Labour, then UK Labour, then achieving a UK Labour government committed to implementing it? ... can't see it in my lifetime!

[Hibernia&Alba]

Don't you mean Craigy Fife Hibee?

I see :greengrin

[Ozyhibby]

Neil Findlay in the Scottish parliament yesterday.



Chances of getting agreement for this in Scottish Labour, then UK Labour, then achieving a UK Labour government committed to implementing it? ... can't see it in my lifetime!

Agree. Getting independence would be easier. Plus nobody trusts Labour on this after Gordon Brown’s lies in 2014.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SHODAN]

Neil Findlay in the Scottish parliament yesterday.



Chances of getting agreement for this in Scottish Labour, then UK Labour, then achieving a UK Labour government committed to implementing it? ... can't see it in my lifetime!

This Devo Max thing is a Labour fantasy that will never come to fruition.

[marinello59]

This Devo Max thing is a Labour fantasy that will never come to fruition.

What if Boris Johnson saw it as a way of releasing the political pressure on him?

[SHODAN]

What if Boris Johnson saw it as a way of releasing the political pressure on him?

That would mean giving up power.

[Ozyhibby]

What if Boris Johnson saw it as a way of releasing the political pressure on him?

Can’t see them ever giving up control of the money.
I would probably be happy with proper Devo max where tax is raised by the Scottish govt and money is paid up for shared services or at the very least there were separate UK and Scottish taxes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

Immigration is the biggest one for me.

The Western world needs to acknowledge the problem we have caring for our ageing population. The English nationalist dream of "controlling the borders" and cutting immigration spells disaster for Scotland where our biggest problem is earning enough in tax to cater for our older population.

I want to remain in the EU, I want freedom of movement of people. Having a Tory government in Westminster pushing for the hardest Brexit possible crushes our chances of being able to thrive as part of the UK.

We can control the money all we want, if we can't control the people (or have ways of encouraging net tax contributors to these shores) then there's little point.

[Cataplana]

Immigration is the biggest one for me.

The Western world needs to acknowledge the problem we have caring for our ageing population. The English nationalist dream of "controlling the borders" and cutting immigration spells disaster for Scotland where our biggest problem is earning enough in tax to cater for our older population.

I want to remain in the EU, I want freedom of movement of people. Having a Tory government in Westminster pushing for the hardest Brexit possible crushes our chances of being able to thrive as part of the UK.

We can control the money all we want, if we can't control the people (or have ways of encouraging net tax contributors to these shores) then there's little point.

Can you explain how that works? I don't understand what you mean.

[Ozyhibby]

Can you explain how that works? I don't understand what you mean.

No society can have too many people who can’t work. You need a certain percentage of the population out working to pay for those that don’t. Our population is ageing and we need immigration to help fund the retirements and care of our old people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cataplana]

No society can have too many people who can’t work. You need a certain percentage of the population out working to pay for those that don’t. Our population is ageing and we need immigration to help fund the retirements and care of our old people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Got it, thanks.

[G B Young]

This Devo Max thing is a Labour fantasy that will never come to fruition.

We already have devo max.

[ballengeich]

No society can have too many people who can’t work. You need a certain percentage of the population out working to pay for those that don’t. Our population is ageing and we need immigration to help fund the retirements and care of our old people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

While I agree that our population is ageing, dealing with this by immigration is only a short-term palliative. Modern medicine leads to more of us living longer i.e. there has been a permanent redistribution of the percentage of population in different age groups. At present we can bring in immigrants, but that requires there to be countries which are poorer than us where the population redistribution hasn't yet reached advanced Western levels. I don't see anyone looking at the underlying issue which is that a greater proportion of our national wealth and workers needs to be directed to care of the elderly and sick.

[USAHibby]

We already have devo max. I think most people in Scotland thought Devo Max meant the maximum possible level of devolution. Not simply bits and pieces that Westminster chooses Scotland can have.

[Moulin Yarns]

We already have devo max.

😂 I have to ask, which pantomime are you in?

[Cataplana]

While I agree that our population is ageing, dealing with this by immigration is only a short-term palliative. Modern medicine leads to more of us living longer i.e. there has been a permanent redistribution of the percentage of population in different age groups. At present we can bring in immigrants, but that requires there to be countries which are poorer than us where the population redistribution hasn't yet reached advanced Western levels. I don't see anyone looking at the underlying issue which is that a greater proportion of our national wealth and workers needs to be directed to care of the elderly and sick.

It doesn't require poorer countries, it just requires people who are prepared to move here and pay tax here.

Ageing demographic is skewed at the moment because of the post war baby boom. The "dementia time bomb" will pass.

Short of a mass programne of compulsory euthanasia , I can't see any other solution than bringing in workers from outside.

[G B Young]

I think most people in Scotland thought Devo Max meant the maximum possible level of devolution. Not simply bits and pieces that Westminster chooses Scotland can have.

We have a lot more than bits and pieces, not that you'd know it based on SNP rhetoric. "Imprisoned" in the UK?! Inflammatory rhetoric if it wasn't so laughably wide of the mark.

[weecounty hibby]

We have a lot more than bits and pieces, not that you'd know it based on SNP rhetoric. "Imprisoned" in the UK?! Inflammatory rhetoric if it wasn't so laughably wide of the mark.
There is no mechanism for simply stating your intention to leave. Imprisoned seems appropriate. If England decided they wanted to leave the UK who would they ask? That's right, no one. It would just happen. Scotland, not so easy we have to ask just to be allowed to put the question to the citizens of Scotland. Equal Union? Don't thinks so. And as for being inflammatory just take a look at much of what Johnson has said. Tank topped bum boys, letter boxes, bank robbers, picanninies, but you seem to think he is conciliatory and inclusive judging by your comments on him lately

[Moulin Yarns]

We have a lot more than bits and pieces, not that you'd know it based on SNP rhetoric. "Imprisoned" in the UK?! Inflammatory rhetoric if it wasn't so laughably wide of the mark.


Full fiscal autonomy (FFA) – also known as devolution max, devo-max, or fiscal federalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_fiscal_autonomy_for_Scotland#cite_note-MacDonald-3) – is a particular form of far-reaching devolution proposed for Scotland. The term has come to describe a constitutional arrangement in which instead of receiving a block grant from the UK exchequer as at present, the Scottish Parliament would receive all taxation levied in Scotland; it would be responsible for most spending in Scotland but make payments to the UK Government to cover Scotland's share of the cost of providing certain UK-wide services, including at least defence and the conduct of foreign relations. Scottish fiscal autonomy – stopping short of full political independence – is usually promoted by advocates of a federal constitution for the United Kingdom.


Does Scotland have FFA? honest answers only. :wink:

[ballengeich]

It doesn't require poorer countries, it just requires people who are prepared to move here and pay tax here.

Ageing demographic is skewed at the moment because of the post war baby boom. The "dementia time bomb" will pass.

Short of a mass programne of compulsory euthanasia , I can't see any other solution than bringing in workers from outside.

It's not just the baby boom. All over the advanced world, medical treatment and social conditions mean that more people live to a great age than ever before in history. That is a permanent redistribution of population percentages by age group, with the proportion of those of working age decreasing.

There have always been and always will be (even after Brexit) people who move between countries to work. The net movement is to wealthier countries so increasing population here means getting folk from poorer countries, particularly if you're wanting people to do work which doesn't require much formal education. If income becomes more internationally equal the incentive to move decreases.

Perhaps euthanasis is the answer, but I hope making care of the vulnerable more attractive could contribute to a solution.

[Cataplana]

It's not just the baby boom. All over the advanced world, medical treatment and social conditions mean that more people live to a great age than ever before in history. That is a permanent redistribution of population percentages by age group, with the proportion of those of working age decreasing.

There have always been and always will be (even after Brexit) people who move between countries to work. The net movement is to wealthier countries so increasing population here means getting folk from poorer countries, particularly if you're wanting people to do work which doesn't require much formal education. If income becomes more internationally equal the incentive to move decreases.

Perhaps euthanasis is the answer, but I hope making care of the vulnerable more attractive could contribute to a solution.

So, the answer is to attract more people to generate the tax to pay people better wages to make the job more attractive?

Are you saying care of the elderly doesn't require much final education? I'm not sure what you mean by mentioning it.

Ps compulsory euthanasia is never the answer.

[ballengeich]

So, the answer is to attract more people to generate the tax to pay people better wages to make the job more attractive?

Are you saying care of the elderly doesn't require much final education? I'm not sure what you mean by mentioning it.

Ps compulsory euthanasia is never the answer.

Re your last sentence, of course I agree.

Care of the elderly (or anyone else) has different aspects, some of which require formal training but others don't - a kind heart is more important. Ozyhibby posted earlier that we need immigration to fund retirement and care of old people, but I think that's only a stop gap. It's part of a broader question of what level of population and per capita consumption by individuals is ecologically sustainable, but we're already well off the thread title.

[Cataplana]

Re your last sentence, of course I agree.

Care of the elderly (or anyone else) has different aspects, some of which require formal training but others don't - a kind heart is more important. Ozyhibby posted earlier that we need immigration to fund retirement and care of old people, but I think that's only a stop gap. It's part of a broader question of what level of population and per capita consumption by individuals is ecologically sustainable, but we're already well off the thread title.

It needs more than a kind heart. It's time people respected the skills required and paid the proper wage.

It is off topic though. And you are drifting further by mentioning the environment.

[Ozyhibby]

We have a lot more than bits and pieces, not that you'd know it based on SNP rhetoric. "Imprisoned" in the UK?! Inflammatory rhetoric if it wasn't so laughably wide of the mark.

We are not imprisoned right now but the minute Johnson says that Scotland can’t have another referendum without laying out a mechanism for doing so then we do become imprisoned within the union. If he does that then you get the crazies involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

Part of the problem with the ageing demographic is the effect that it is having on our democracy and politics.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that our older and younger people vote in very different ways. A population skewed towards older people is leading to politics being carried out in a particular fashion. We're also in a problem position of much of the wealth being concentrated with older people, wealth they are understandably not keen to relinquish. Having older folk choose the government, choose the politics and choose the direction of the country isn't imo a great thing for us to have going on when it comes to trying to power a modern economy. The solutions that might have worked for our older people in world that no longer exists no longer apply to the world today.

There is a danger in making our world increasingly difficult for our youngster to survive and thrive whilst the older folk cavort around having a great time. This can be win/ win but it takes the older people to trust the younger folk that they know what they are doing and that they'll take care of them.

Populism where our leaders can appeal to large numbers of our population who are net receivers, with thinly veiled "send them back" messages, promises of x amount of ridiculous nonsense for the NHS (as our older people will tend to use the NHS more) are just nonsense, really.

Youngsters with the bit between their teeth, opportunities in life and realistic ambitions to better themselves are who will power an economy, generate taxes and take care of the old folk. Immigrants who have come from poorer places especially appreciate the opportunity this country offers them and tend to knock their pan in to make a success of it, despite what the right wing press may say.

[Colr]

That would mean giving up power.

Tories are doing OK in Scotland.

[Ozyhibby]

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/21/when-an-mp-criticised-unites-leader-the-bullyboys-were-set-loose-on-her?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard&__twitter_impression=true

What the centre left are up against.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

We already have devo max.



That's just not true.

We don't even have devolution of communications.

[SHODAN]

Synthetic pitchforks already out for Long-Bailey.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

I saw a bit of news yesterday that said that Ed Miliband is going to help with a review of what went wrong and where and when. I wonder if the irony will be lost.

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200101/167bd192ee94c2789d0a64f31f84fe6b.jpg

Early lead for Starmer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

I saw a bit of news yesterday that said that Ed Miliband is going to help with a review of what went wrong and where and when. I wonder if the irony will be lost.

Where’s the irony?

If anyone should know about what it feels like to lose an election to a deeply unpopular government then it will be him.

He is a decent guy and I am sure his reflections on 2015 will help the party and movement going forward.

[Mibbes Aye]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200101/167bd192ee94c2789d0a64f31f84fe6b.jpg

Early lead for Starmer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know this lot seem to have a decent reputation for polling so cheers for posting. I saw another poll, a few days ago, can’t remember where (it is Xmas and New Year FFS!). I do recall it was a reputable firm though.

It had a few of the candidates much more bunched up, essentially Starmer, Cooper, Phillips and L-B.

There is an obvious decision to be made for voting members and for the candidates.

Rebecca Long-Bailey appears to be a smart and talented politician. She is also very much the anointed one for the Corbynites and the entryists.

The progressives need to settle on a candidate and that means at least two of them falling by the way side.

I am actually excited about the prospect. Cooper has gravitas and she has earned it, alongside a deep, deep grasp of the issues the country faces. Starmer has intellect and is clearly pro-EU and proud of it, and also probably benefits from a background at the DPP that gives him a slightly different perspective. Phillips has a natural grasp of media to articulate really well thought-out positions in a clear and succinct way, is clearly very intelligent and seems to chime with voters.

Interesting times.

[Ozyhibby]

I know this lot seem to have a decent reputation for polling so cheers for posting. I saw another poll, a few days ago, can’t remember where (it is Xmas and New Year FFS!). I do recall it was a reputable firm though.

It had a few of the candidates much more bunched up, essentially Starmer, Cooper, Phillips and L-B.

There is an obvious decision to be made for voting members and for the candidates.

Rebecca Long-Bailey appears to be a smart and talented politician. She is also very much the anointed one for the Corbynites and the entryists.

The progressives need to settle on a candidate and that means at least two of them falling by the way side.

I am actually excited about the prospect. Cooper has gravitas and she has earned it, alongside a deep, deep grasp of the issues the country faces. Starmer has intellect and is clearly pro-EU and proud of it, and also probably benefits from a background at the DPP that gives him a slightly different perspective. Phillips has a natural grasp of media to articulate really well thought-out positions in a clear and succinct way, is clearly very intelligent and seems to chime with voters.

Interesting times.

Don’t really see what people see in Phillips and Long-Bailey? I just can’t see them as party leaders. Personally I think if they want to win they should go for Cooper or Starmer.
Cooper prob won’t win because she is seen as a Blairite which is a shame because the voters would not care about that, just Labour Party members.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Don’t really see what people see in Phillips and Long-Bailey? I just can’t see them as party leaders. Personally I think if they want to win they should go for Cooper or Starmer.
Cooper prob won’t win because she is seen as a Blairite which is a shame because the voters would not care about that, just Labour Party members.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are right about Cooper being unfairly tarnished, if nothing else because she is married to Ed Balls. Which instinctively raises questions about sexism for me, but let us leave that for another thread.

Despite all the achievements of the last Labour governments, it seems like an albatross around the necks of those who were part of it.

I think people have to take a long hard look at what was achieved between 1997-2010 and weigh that up against what happened afterwards.

[Frankhfc]

My take on it is that Labour are finished altogether. What happened in Scotland is replicating across the UK. They're a party in total disaray and could easily have handed the tories at least another decade of power until another new Labour or some other left of centre party emerges.

Labour as we know it are in its final throes. No doubt about it.

[lapsedhibee]

My take on it is that Labour are finished altogether. What happened in Scotland is replicating across the UK. They're a party in total disaray and could easily have handed the tories at least another decade of power until another new Labour or some other left of centre party emerges.

Labour as we know it are in its final throes. No doubt about it.

If Starmer or anyone that's not Long-Bailey gets the gig, there's a chance of a whole decent shadow cabinet, including all those able people who sit a couple of rows back in Parliament. If that happens Labour can still do well. If not, agree they are heading the way of Labour in Scotland.

[JeMeSouviens]

My take on it is that Labour are finished altogether. What happened in Scotland is replicating across the UK. They're a party in total disaray and could easily have handed the tories at least another decade of power until another new Labour or some other left of centre party emerges.

Labour as we know it are in its final throes. No doubt about it.

Reports of their demise are greatly exaggerated!

32% of the UK vote and 200 MPs in a FPTP parliament is still a decent base. In Scotland, the SNP managed to build support to the FPTP tipping point where seats suddenly start to flip. Nobody is anywhere near doing that in rUK. Plus they still have a very large membership and the Tories are very likely to be an awful government.

As Oz and MA have pointed out above, any of Starmer, Cooper, Phillips should be able to provide capable leadership. That and a subtle toning down of the next manifesto ought to see them as a much more natural rallying point for anti-Toryism going forward.

Otoh, if the Stalinists keep their grip on the party hierarchy, RLB gets in and ends up another Corbynesque stooge, they are in big trouble.

[Ozyhibby]

Reports of their demise are greatly exaggerated!

32% of the UK vote and 200 MPs in a FPTP parliament is still a decent base. In Scotland, the SNP managed to build support to the FPTP tipping point where seats suddenly start to flip. Nobody is anywhere near doing that in rUK. Plus they still have a very large membership and the Tories are very likely to be an awful government.

As Oz and MA have pointed out above, any of Starmer, Cooper, Phillips should be able to provide capable leadership. That and a subtle toning down of the next manifesto ought to see them as a much more natural rallying point for anti-Toryism going forward.

Otoh, if the Stalinists keep their grip on the party hierarchy, RLB gets in and ends up another Corbynesque stooge, they are in big trouble.

I think they will go with RLB. I think they are a long way from learning and believing that the British public have no interest in nationalising everything, especially when there is no obvious benefit. The change in language over recent years to tax the rich is not popular as it sounds like the politics of envy. People don’t like that (at least not in the numbers lefties need) and it turns people away.
They seriously need to swallow some humble pie and look at what was successful for Blair and start copying it. That’s how you develop better outcomes for the more disadvantaged in society.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

Don’t really see what people see in Phillips and Long-Bailey? I just can’t see them as party leaders. Personally I think if they want to win they should go for Cooper or Starmer.
Cooper prob won’t win because she is seen as a Blairite which is a shame because the voters would not care about that, just Labour Party members.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What the Labour Party ope to achieve from the next election is very good point to raise. Publicly , that would always be to win, but privately , it very well may be to make up some of the distance between them and the Tories and essentially make them electable again.

[Hibbyradge]

"Oh, Rebecca Long-Bailey".

Scans quite well for the cult.

[Ozyhibby]

Jess Phillips was ok on Ch4 news there just now. Needs to start saying what she stands for more though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[G B Young]

Jess Phillips was ok on Ch4 news there just now. Needs to start saying what she stands for more though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All those who have declared so far are performing absurd contortions to avoid saying what they really stand for (ie a rejection of Corbynism). Each of them knows that if they come out and admit Corbyn's haplessness was at the heart of their election humiliation then they're as well withdrawing from the contest as the Corbynite dominated membership will instantly reject them.

And therein lies the problem for Labour. Unless they can turn the ship around and move back towards more a more voter-friendly approach they'll continue to fade into insignificance. But while a hard left ideology prevails and they continue to cling to the belief that their ideology can appeal to more than students and Labour 'intellectuals' they'll just continue to make the same mistakes and elect somebody who amounts to Corbyn mk 2.

[Cataplana]

All those who have declared so far are performing absurd contortions to avoid saying what they really stand for (ie a rejection of Corbynism). Each of them knows that if they come out and admit Corbyn's haplessness was at the heart of their election humiliation then they're as well withdrawing from the contest as the Corbynite dominated membership will instantly reject them.

And therein lies the problem for Labour. Unless they can turn the ship around and move back towards more a more voter-friendly approach they'll continue to fade into insignificance. But while a hard left ideology prevails and they continue to cling to the belief that their ideology can appeal to more than students and Labour 'intellectuals' they'll just continue to make the same mistakes and elect somebody who amounts to Corbyn mk 2.

For "voter friendly" read "middle class and corporate funding friendly", that is certain a route that some woulf favour.

Alternatively they could persist with the line of telling voters they are being sht on and wait for the penny to drop that their lives don't have to be the way they are.

[Ozyhibby]

For "voter friendly" read "middle class and corporate funding friendly", that is certain a route that some woulf favour.

Alternatively they could persist with the line of telling voters they are being sht on and wait for the penny to drop that their lives don't have to be the way they are.

Hasn’t worked before but crack on, who knows, there is a first time for everything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Hasn’t worked before but crack on, who knows, there is a first time for everything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:greengrin

[Cataplana]

Hasn’t worked before but crack on, who knows, there is a first time for everything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It worked in 1945, and has worked in many countries worldwide. Admittedly places where people were in more need, and more likely to take a chance, but Britain will get there.

Or, we could just keep blaming immigrants, Europe and Islam, and anything else that would absolve us from getting off our knees.

[Mibbes Aye]

It worked in 1945, and has worked in many countries worldwide. Admittedly places where people were in more need, and more likely to take a chance, but Britain will get there.

Or, we could just keep blaming immigrants, Europe and Islam, and anything else that would absolve us from getting off our knees.

Labour didn’t get their majority in 1945 by telling people they were **** upon.

They articulated a response to fears of the high unemployment that had plagued Britain in the 1930s and were the most prominent in accepting the Beveridge report, but no party was really against it. And it was probably the housing element of Beveridge that was the biggest thing.

Throw in weariness from total war, and Churchill being seen as a wartime leader but not necessarily a peacetime leader, and you have the ingredients that led to a Labour landslide.

But it certainly wasn’t a result of campaigning on a slate of people being ‘**** on’.

[RyeSloan]

It worked in 1945, and has worked in many countries worldwide. Admittedly places where people were in more need, and more likely to take a chance, but Britain will get there.

Or, we could just keep blaming immigrants, Europe and Islam, and anything else that would absolve us from getting off our knees.

Ahh yeah it worked 75 years ago...does sound about as up to date as the current Labour thinking to be fair.

[Ozyhibby]

Ahh yeah it worked 75 years ago...does sound about as up to date as the current Labour thinking to be fair.

Keir Starmers launch video yesterday showed how forward looking he is.[emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cataplana]

Labour didn’t get their majority in 1945 by telling people they were **** upon.

They articulated a response to fears of the high unemployment that had plagued Britain in the 1930s and were the most prominent in accepting the Beveridge report, but no party was really against it. And it was probably the housing element of Beveridge that was the biggest thing.

Throw in weariness from total war, and Churchill being seen as a wartime leader but not necessarily a peacetime leader, and you have the ingredients that led to a Labour landslide.

But it certainly wasn’t a result of campaigning on a slate of people being ‘**** on’.

I think, in 1945, people were able to work it out for themselves. Regardless, the offer of a welfare state, and an alternative to the way Britain was run did seem to be a vote winner.

If Labour returning to offering a similar product to the Tories, you can't blame people for not seeing them as being any different. Think of Scotland, they were in a powerful position in the first parliaments, but proceeded to throw it away.

[lapsedhibee]

All those who have declared so far are performing absurd contortions to avoid saying what they really stand for (ie a rejection of Corbynism). Each of them knows that if they come out and admit Corbyn's haplessness was at the heart of their election humiliation then they're as well withdrawing from the contest as the Corbynite dominated membership will instantly reject them.

And therein lies the problem for Labour. Unless they can turn the ship around and move back towards more a more voter-friendly approach they'll continue to fade into insignificance. But while a hard left ideology prevails and they continue to cling to the belief that their ideology can appeal to more than students and Labour 'intellectuals' they'll just continue to make the same mistakes and elect somebody who amounts to Corbyn mk 2.

Keir Starmer has been the early favourite among the membership.
https://politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/108794/keir-starmer-favourite-among-labour-members

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

Labour didn’t get their majority in 1945 by telling people they were **** upon.

They articulated a response to fears of the high unemployment that had plagued Britain in the 1930s and were the most prominent in accepting the Beveridge report, but no party was really against it. And it was probably the housing element of Beveridge that was the biggest thing.

Throw in weariness from total war, and Churchill being seen as a wartime leader but not necessarily a peacetime leader, and you have the ingredients that led to a Labour landslide.

But it certainly wasn’t a result of campaigning on a slate of people being ‘**** on’.



And the ordinary Tommie had six years of being pushed around by the privileged and the officer class.

[Mibbes Aye]

And the ordinary Tommie had six years of being pushed around by the privileged and the officer class.

I am not absolutely certain what you mean but there wasn’t a General Election between 1935 and 1945.

[Mibbes Aye]

I think, in 1945, people were able to work it out for themselves. Regardless, the offer of a welfare state, and an alternative to the way Britain was run did seem to be a vote winner.

If Labour returning to offering a similar product to the Tories, you can't blame people for not seeing them as being any different. Think of Scotland, they were in a powerful position in the first parliaments, but proceeded to throw it away.

Every party was signed up to Beveridge, more or less. And there was no ‘alternative’ way of running Britain, it was austerity politics reliant on US government loans. Classic Keynesian economics only probably possible because of the legacy of FDR being seen through Truman.

[G B Young]

I note Ian Murray has decided to run for deputy leader. His reference to the Long-Bailey as the "carry on Corbyn candidate" won't go down well with those still wedded to the Corbyn cult, but he's spot on to state that the party can't continue to limp along as "a protest movement of the past. The architects of our catastrophic failure in 2019 cannot be the architects of our response."

[Ozyhibby]

I see Jess Phillips has came out against a 2nd Indyref. That may win her support among some Labour activists but it is miles away from the position of the vast majority of potential Labour voters in Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

I see Jess Phillips has came out against a 2nd Indyref. That may win her support among some Labour activists but it is miles away from the position of the vast majority of potential Labour voters in Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


“I cannot see a circumstance where I would think that it would be better for Scotland to leave the United Kingdom. I cannot see where that would ever be the case.”

Not up to you, Jess. That's a pretty standard UK politician view though, to be fair. I don't think any of the Lab candidates are going to risk sounding "soft" on Indy. "Progressive patriotism" is British one would assume.

[Ozyhibby]

Not up to you, Jess. That's a pretty standard UK politician view though, to be fair. I don't think any of the Lab candidates are going to risk sounding "soft" on Indy. "Progressive patriotism" is British one would assume.

There is nobody better at delivering Tory governments in Scotland than Labour politicians.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lord bunberry]

Not up to you, Jess. That's a pretty standard UK politician view though, to be fair. I don't think any of the Lab candidates are going to risk sounding "soft" on Indy. "Progressive patriotism" is British one would assume.
I hope we’re long gone before Labour gets another sniff of power.

[G B Young]

Keir Starmer has been the early favourite among the membership.
https://politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/108794/keir-starmer-favourite-among-labour-members

His biggest hurdle will be shaking off his 'posh' image according to the Guardian:

The human rights lawyer, who was made Queen's Counsel in 2002, served as head of the Crown Prosecution Service and accepted a knighthood in 2014, and has struggled to shake off perceptions of privilege.
The 57-year-old was named after Labour Party founder Keir Hardie and has emphasised his upbringing by a toolmaker father and nurse mother in London's Southwark when dismissing allegations he is too middle-class to speak to the party's historic heartlands.

[JeMeSouviens]

His biggest hurdle will be shaking off his 'posh' image according to the Guardian:

The human rights lawyer, who was made Queen's Counsel in 2002, served as head of the Crown Prosecution Service and accepted a knighthood in 2014, and has struggled to shake off perceptions of privilege.
The 57-year-old was named after Labour Party founder Keir Hardie and has emphasised his upbringing by a toolmaker father and nurse mother in London's Southwark when dismissing allegations he is too middle-class to speak to the party's historic heartlands.

Considering the party's historic heartlands just voted for Boris Johnson, he may not be posh enough. :rolleyes:

[G B Young]

Not up to you, Jess. That's a pretty standard UK politician view though, to be fair. I don't think any of the Lab candidates are going to risk sounding "soft" on Indy. "Progressive patriotism" is British one would assume.

Ironically you could argue it was a perceived lack of patriotism which was one of the major reasons Corbyn's Labour took such a pasting at the polls. I'm not talking about jingoism or English nationalism, just a deep-seated pride in your country that Corbyn was seen to lack. It's a card that the SNP play well, though in a rather different way - focusing more on the 'wha's like us' rabble rousing version Scottish patriotism to maintain a relentless narrative of injustice.

[G B Young]

Considering the party's historic heartlands just voted for Boris Johnson, he may not be posh enough. :rolleyes:

:greengrin Fair point. Although what struck me when watching a lot of those voters being interviewed was how little Johnson's background appeared to matter to them. More than once he was described as being like 'one of the lads' and a preferable pub companion to Corbyn (who, mind you, enjoyed a relatively affluent upbringing himself).

[Cataplana]

:greengrin Fair point. Although what struck me when watching a lot of those voters being interviewed was how little Johnson's background appeared to matter to them. More than once he was described as being like 'one of the lads' and a preferable pub companion to Corbyn (who, mind you, enjoyed a relatively affluent upbringing himself).

Just shows what they know, eh?


Ironically you could argue it was a perceived lack of patriotism which was one of the major reasons Corbyn's Labour took such a pasting at the polls. I'm not talking about jingoism or English nationalism, just a deep-seated pride in your country that Corbyn was seen to lack. It's a card that the SNP play well, though in a rather different way - focusing more on the 'wha's like us' rabble rousing version Scottish patriotism to maintain a relentless narrative of injustice.

In your mind anyway. It's certainly something that many of their supporters would disagree with.

[RyeSloan]

Long Bailey giving Corbyn 10 / 10 and bemoaning the fact that they didn’t have a ‘rebuttal unit’ to defend him. Seems to blame the loss not on policies but simply that old adage of ‘lack of trust’. But then quickly stated that she can be trusted to continue on with their socialist policies. McDonnell n co. right behind this one

Starmer seems to be the most obvious alternative. The same Starmer who is busy telling everyone that they didn’t lose due to any of their policies and how he loves the unions.

So far so ridiculous.

[lord bunberry]

I’ll tell you right now that long bailey will never be prime minister. She’s got a northern accent and she’s not as slick as someone like Starmer. England didn’t vote for Corbyn and they won’t vote for long bailey. It’s become a personality contest and without the Scottish vote she’s another sitting duck.

[Cataplana]

Fascinating to learn that Labours policies lost the election, when it was Borises slogan that won it.

The election was effectively a second referendum, and the opportunism by Tory propagandists should be breathtaking.

[Ozyhibby]

Fascinating to learn that Labours policies lost the election, when it was Borises slogan that won it.

The election was effectively a second referendum, and the opportunism by Tory propagandists should be breathtaking.

If the Labour Party is foolish enough to believe that then it will be 2030 before we see a Labour govt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Curried]

Ian Murray no wasting any time at Scottish Questions there putting his tongue up Alister Jack’s @rse, and spruiking that Scotland are too poor to join the EU......what an utter tosser.

[Cataplana]

If the Labour Party is foolish enough to believe that then it will be 2030 before we see a Labour govt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don't think Brexit had anything to do with the result, I take it?

[Ozyhibby]

You don't think Brexit had anything to do with the result, I take it?

It was one of a number of issues where the public did not trust Corbyn. There were loads of others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18144718.iain-macwhirter-scotland-rescued-labour-wont-happen-time/?ref=twtrec

Decent article on the fact that Labour have pretty much given up in Scotland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cataplana]

It was one of a number of issues where the public did not trust Corbyn. There were loads of others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's just that the words Get Brexit Done were used repeatedly by Tories during the campaign. So much so that it seemed like the only issue that was important.

When I saw Vox Pops on the telly they always seemed to refer to Boris ability to Get Brexit Done. Rarely did they say that his social or economic policy was superior to Corbyn's.

Corbyn lost the election because Labours offer of a second referendum wasn't decisive enough for voters

They wanted to Get Brexit Done.

[Curried]

Looks like they’re getting the Old Team together again:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1214912766231887873

[lapsedhibee]

It's just that the words Get Brexit Done were used repeatedly by Tories during the campaign. So much so that it seemed like the only issue that was important.

When I saw Vox Pops on the telly they always seemed to refer to Boris ability to Get Brexit Done. Rarely did they say that his social or economic policy was superior to Corbyn's.

Corbyn lost the election because Labours offer of a second referendum wasn't decisive enough for voters

They wanted to Get Brexit Done.

Yet more people voted for parties that didn't want to Get Brexit Done.

[JeMeSouviens]

Looks like they’re getting the Old Team together again:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1214912766231887873

Scotland's only Labour MP holding the Tories to account there. :rolleyes:

[Cataplana]

Yet more people voted for parties that didn't want to Get Brexit Done.

I suspect that says more about first past the post than anything else.

If getting Brexit done wasn't the reason for the victory, Cummings is a fraud who just happened to get lucky whilst campaigning on the wrong subject.

[Ozyhibby]

Scotland's only Labour MP holding the Tories to account there. :rolleyes:

Really quite amazing. Two parties celebrating Scotland falling behind our European neighbours. The smiles on their faces as they spoke there were very telling. Neither interested in why Scotland wouldn’t (in their opinion) meet the criteria for EU membership or offering any solutions to the problem.
I’m really struggling these days to understand those who wish to defend the union. All around us are countries that are getting wealthier than Scotland and yet we stick with a UK determined to make sure that we always feel too poor to leave.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

I suspect that says more about first past the post than anything else.

If getting Brexit done wasn't the reason for the victory, Cummings is a fraud who just happened to get lucky whilst campaigning on the wrong subject.

He got lucky in that the vast majority of the British media told the same lies for the last 40 years as he did for the last 3. He's no genius.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/labour-leadership-sir-keir-starmer-secures-enough-backing-to-enter-second-stage-1-5072162/amp?__twitter_impression=true
Starmer the first to get enough nominations for Monday.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

I suspect that says more about first past the post than anything else.

If getting Brexit done wasn't the reason for the victory, Cummings is a fraud who just happened to get lucky whilst campaigning on the wrong subject.

So everyone who said when Corbyn became leader in 2015 that he couldn't win had just made lucky guesses?

Presumably that was also the case in 2017 or was there another excuse for his loss then?

[RyeSloan]

So everyone who said when Corbyn became leader in 2015 that he couldn't win had just made lucky guesses?

Presumably that was also the case in 2017 or was there another excuse for his loss then?

There was plenty of excuses trotted out for 2017...most of them telling us just how well he had done and even though he had lost he had actually won.

Same old story this time...they won the argument, the policies were universally liked etc so although he suffered a once in a hundred years loss he wasn’t to blame. 10/10 n all that.

[1875godsgift]

Ironically you could argue it was a perceived lack of patriotism which was one of the major reasons Corbyn's Labour took such a pasting at the polls. I'm not talking about jingoism or English nationalism, just a deep-seated pride in your country that Corbyn was seen to lack. It's a card that the SNP play well, though in a rather different way - focusing more on the 'wha's like us' rabble rousing version Scottish patriotism to maintain a relentless narrative of injustice.

The 'coming over here and stealing our jobs' type of deep-seated pride that seemed to inspire many Leave voters, you mean?

[Cataplana]

So everyone who said when Corbyn became leader in 2015 that he couldn't win had just made lucky guesses?

Presumably that was also the case in 2017 or was there another excuse for his loss then?

Milliband was leader in the 2015 election.

He pushed May close in 2017, and may have won but for the actions of the leader in Scotland, who thought an SNP reversal was more important than a Labour prime minister.

In 2019 he failed to win a single issue election. What the single issue was depended on whether you asked somebody before or after the election.

[Cataplana]

The 'coming over here and stealing our jobs' type of deep-seated pride that seemed to inspire many Leave voters, you mean?

More like the sort of pride you have in your country that sees you work against your own leader so you can get the job, and then pass off their policies as your own.

[G B Young]

It was one of a number of issues where the public did not trust Corbyn. There were loads of others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Corbyn likened to the Japanese soldiers who weren't told the war was lost:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/corbyn-pmqs-boris-johnson-trump-trade-deal-brexit-commons-a9275186.html

[G B Young]

The 'coming over here and stealing our jobs' type of deep-seated pride that seemed to inspire many Leave voters, you mean?

No, I don't mean that.

[Hibbyradge]

Milliband was leader in the 2015 election.

He pushed May close in 2017, and may have won but for the actions of the leader in Scotland, who thought an SNP reversal was more important than a Labour prime minister.

In 2019 he failed to win a single issue election. What the single issue was depended on whether you asked somebody before or after the election.

What's Milliband got to do with it?

Corbyn became leader in 2015.

He lost to the least strong and stable leader the Tories have had probably in my lifetime and, on a single issue, the most important issue to face our country since WWII he abstained!

Regardless of the fact that his political history was unpalatable for a huge swathe of the population, his leadership qualities were invisible.

Of course he lost. He was always going to lose.

[Hibbyradge]

Corbyn likened to the Japanese soldiers who weren't told the war was lost:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/corbyn-pmqs-boris-johnson-trump-trade-deal-brexit-commons-a9275186.html

I was going to write "harsh, but fair", but it's not harsh.

It's painfully accurate.

[Ozyhibby]

Corbyn likened to the Japanese soldiers who weren't told the war was lost:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/corbyn-pmqs-boris-johnson-trump-trade-deal-brexit-commons-a9275186.html

Watching him fail to say anything critical of the Iranian regime while laying in to the Americans was painful. Most reasonable people can say that the Iranians are not our friends while at the same time criticise the American for making a strategic error in picking this fight. The fact that Corbyn can’t is why he is not trusted by people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

Watching him fail to say anything critical of the Iranian regime while laying in to the Americans was painful. Most reasonable people can say that the Iranians are not our friends while at the same time criticise the American for making a strategic error in picking this fight. The fact that Corbyn can’t is why he is not trusted by people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:agree:

It's quite incredible. US foreign policy under Trump might be as dodgy as **** but the Iranians are up to their oxters in all sorts across the Middle East and have a domestic human rights record only marginally better than the old Iraqi and Syrian dictatorships. My enemy's enemy taken to ludicrous levels. And folk think this joker is a man of peace ...

[Hiber-nation]

:agree:

It's quite incredible. US foreign policy under Trump might be as dodgy as **** but the Iranians are up to their oxters in all sorts across the Middle East and have a domestic human rights record only marginally better than the old Iraqi and Syrian dictatorships. My enemy's enemy taken to ludicrous levels. And folk think this joker is a man of peace ...

But is this his personal viewpoint or is he just worried what his far left chums will think of him? Either way, just pitiful.

[Cataplana]

What's Milliband got to do with it?

Corbyn became leader in 2015.

He lost to the least strong and stable leader the Tories have had probably in my lifetime and, on a single issue, the most important issue to face our country since WWII he abstained!

Regardless of the fact that his political history was unpalatable for a huge swathe of the population, his leadership qualities were invisible.

Of course he lost. He was always going to lose.

I thought you were blaming the 2015 loss on him, sorry.

I agree he was always going to lose. I think Labour were always going to lose, so it was more important to lay down a marker for the future on what they stand for .

Milliband couldn't get anywhere with Blairite policies, so it would have been insane for Labour to keep offering them.

The damage was done in those Red Wall seats, when people there started to feel Labour had abandoned them in their pursuit of the middle English vote.

[Ozyhibby]

I thought you were blaming the 2015 loss on him, sorry.

I agree he was always going to lose. I think Labour were always going to lose, so it was more important to lay down a marker for the future on what they stand for .

Milliband couldn't get anywhere with Blairite policies, so it would have been insane for Labour to keep offering them.

Milliband was way to the left of Blair. And people just did not see him as a leader.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cataplana]

Milliband was way to the left of Blair. And people just did not see him as a leader.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

See above, it was Blairism that made the people in the North start to feel like Labour wasn't interested in them.

[Hibbyradge]

I don't mean to talk about a poster behind his back, but Corbyn's stance on foreign affairs is a bit like Hermit Crab's posts about hearts.

His points are often valid, but we don't need to hear about it from him all the time.

We're Hibs supporters. We in it together and we defend our tribe, right or wrong.

People perceive Corbyn as not proud to be British and that he always sides against his own country, his own tribe..

While I understand those politics, they're going to be robustly rejected by a huge proportional of the electorate before we even start discussing domestic policies.

[Hibbyradge]

See above, it was Blairism that made the people in the North start to feel like Labour wasn't interested in them.

No, it really wasn't.

See Sedgefield for information.

[Cataplana]

No, it really wasn't.

See Sedgefield for information.

I respect your view, but it is different from mine.

[JeMeSouviens]

In other news (presumably comedic light relief) Barry Gardiner is considering a late entry to the leadership race.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/108933/barry-gardiner-confirms-he-considering-surprise

:faf:

[Cataplana]

In other news (presumably comedic light relief) Barry Gardiner is considering a late entry to the leadership race.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/108933/barry-gardiner-confirms-he-considering-surprise

:faf:

I like Baz.

[Ozyhibby]

I don't mean to talk about a poster behind his back, but Corbyn's stance on foreign affairs is a bit like Hermit Crab's posts about hearts.

His points are often valid, but we don't need to hear about it from him all the time.

We're Hibs supporters. We in it together and we defend our tribe, right or wrong.

People perceive Corbyn as not proud to be British and that he always sides against his own country, his own tribe..

While I understand those politics, they're going to be robustly rejected by a huge proportional of the electorate before we even start discussing domestic policies.

100% correct. Corbyn never saw an international issue that he couldn’t blame on the UK or the US.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibbyradge]

I respect your view, but it is different from mine.

It is, but the facts support my view.

[JeMeSouviens]

I like Baz.

Not as much as the Tories would, I'd imagine.

Starmer seems to be well out in front in these early stages. As well as last week's members' poll, he got the backing of union giant Unison yesterday.

[Cataplana]

It is, but the facts support my view.

Just as you say.

[Ozyhibby]

I respect your view, but it is different from mine.

All the evidence points to Blair being very popular in those areas having won three general elections. Labour has the very strange trait of blaming their most successful leader for all their subsequent losses. Fact is Blair is the only Labour leader to win in 50 years (will be by time of next election).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Not as much as the Tories would, I'd imagine.

Starmer seems to be well out in front in these early stages. As well as last week's members' poll, he got the backing of union giant Unison yesterday.

Among MP’s I doubt RLB and Gardiner would be able to both get 10% backing to make it past Monday.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cataplana]

All the evidence points to Blair being very popular in those areas having won three general elections. Labour has the very strange trait of blaming their most successful leader for all their subsequent losses. Fact is Blair is the only Labour leader to win in 50 years (will be by time of next election).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm basing my opinion on things people have said since 2016. Many of them repeat the Faragist mantra about a metropolitan elite.

Many of them also talk in thinly veiled racist language, about going back to how it used to be.

The most successful leader and war criminal that Labour ever had became a bit of a liability once the coffins started to roll through Wooton Basset.

[Ozyhibby]

I'm basing my opinion on things people have said since 2016. Many of them repeat the Faragist mantra about a metropolitan elite.

Many of them also talk in thinly veiled racist language, about going back to how it used to be.

The most successful leader and war criminal that Labour ever had became a bit of a liability once the coffins started to roll through Wooton Basset.

The decision to go to war in Iraq was a dreadful mistake, no doubt about it but had Tony Blair stayed on and fought the 2010 election against Cameron instead of Gordon Brown he would have won.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

I respect your view, but it is different from mine.

Do you have anything that supports your view that you can share?

On the face of it your view that Blair lost the ‘red wall’ seems wholly unsupportable when looking at elections and what people voted for...which after all is the subject of the discussion.

You seem to be suggesting that Corbyn lost these seats because of Blair’s policies, yet those same constituencies voted for Blair policies effectively en masse. They have now voted for the Boris and the Tories in large numbers but somehow that’s Blair’s fault and not Corbyn.

Which all seems a rather difficult opinion to come to so surely you have something that backs this up rather than ‘that’s just my view’?

[Cataplana]

The decision to go to war in Iraq was a dreadful mistake, no doubt about it but had Tony Blair stayed on and fought the 2010 election against Cameron instead of Gordon Brown he would have won.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A dreadful mistake? Many people died and he made Britain a target.

He was removed from the leadership because he was a liability.

[Hibbyradge]

In this country one presumes innocence until a guilty verdict has been returned.

This doesn't apply to the left of the Labour Party when it comes to their own ex Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

The tribe that Corbyn defends is his little grouping on the left of British politics, no-one else.

I have no doubt that Corbyn and his hand would prefer Boris Johnson in power to anyone they have labelled as a "Blairite" which is pretty much anyone in the party who doesn't agree with them.

[Hibbyradge]

A dreadful mistake? Many people died and he made Britain a target.

He was removed from the leadership because he was a liability.

Lol

[G B Young]

No, it really wasn't.

See Sedgefield for information.

Indeed. Blair's majority in Sedgefield when he stood there for the final time in 2005 (some two years after the Iraq invasion) was nearly 20,000. IIRC he actually increased his majority from the previous election.

[Ozyhibby]

In other news (presumably comedic light relief) Barry Gardiner is considering a late entry to the leadership race.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/108933/barry-gardiner-confirms-he-considering-surprise

:faf:

Pulled out already.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Colr]

See above, it was Blairism that made the people in the North start to feel like Labour wasn't interested in them.

They seems to vote for him plenty.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-labour-opens-door-to-a-historic-u-turn-on-indyref2-1-5072889/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Baby steps on the road to Yes for Labour? Problem is that the consultation will only ask what is left of the Labour membership and not the thousands who left for the SNP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lord bunberry]

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-labour-opens-door-to-a-historic-u-turn-on-indyref2-1-5072889/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Baby steps on the road to Yes for Labour? Problem is that the consultation will only ask what is left of the Labour membership and not the thousands who left for the SNP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As you say it’s baby steps, but unless Labour move away from their unionist position they will continue to lose votes in Scotland. The tories are seen as the unionist party and the SNP as the nationalist party, labour are in no mans land. There best bet is to support a second referendum and hope it’s a yes vote as they’d probably see a resurgence in an independent Scotland.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

The Labour Party would have been in a better position, had John Smith not passed away and Blairism was an influencer rather than a policy and direction.

[Smartie]

Watching him fail to say anything critical of the Iranian regime while laying in to the Americans was painful. Most reasonable people can say that the Iranians are not our friends while at the same time criticise the American for making a strategic error in picking this fight. The fact that Corbyn can’t is why he is not trusted by people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't mind Corbyn, in fact I quite like him.

Other than possibly Boris Johnson though, he's the last person I want to have as Prime Minister of this country.

He's also the last person I would want to be leader of the opposition, he's a total mess. We need pressure put on our PM, we need difficult questions to be asked and common sense points to be made.

It is an endearing trait to be able to see the other side of an argument and there should always be room for a devil's advocate to have his say, but this man has fallen so far short of what we have all needed from him throughout a difficult period that he really needs to give up and go asap.

This country has never needed a strong opposition more, and they're not exactly short of material to work with if they choose to do so.

[Ozyhibby]

I don't mind Corbyn, in fact I quite like him.

Other than possibly Boris Johnson though, he's the last person I want to have as Prime Minister of this country.

He's also the last person I would want to be leader of the opposition, he's a total mess. We need pressure put on our PM, we need difficult questions to be asked and common sense points to be made.

It is an endearing trait to be able to see the other side of an argument and there should always be room for a devil's advocate to have his say, but this man has fallen so far short of what we have all needed from him throughout a difficult period that he really needs to give up and go asap.

This country has never needed a strong opposition more, and they're not exactly short of material to work with if they choose to do so.

I agree. Starmer is growing on me as the only viable candidate in the race. The rest are just not up to it. I would have like Cooper to have stood but it was clear that there just wasn’t the support for her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Colr]

I agree. Starmer is growing on me as the only viable candidate in the race. The rest are just not up to it. I would have like Cooper to have stood but it was clear that there just wasn’t the support for her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would have liked Cooper to have stood and I voted for her before but I’ll be happy if she can return to the front bench to show up the Tories with her incisive questioning and lines of argument that were confined to the committees during Corbyn’s sorry time in charge.

[Moulin Yarns]

I would have liked Cooper to have stood and I voted for her before but I’ll be happy if she can return to the front bench to show up the Tories with her incisive questioning and lines of argument that were confined to the committees during Corbyn’s sorry time in charge.

Cooper is my sister in law's mp. Doesn't think she does anything for the constituency.

[Colr]

Cooper is my sister in law's mp. Doesn't think she does anything for the constituency.

But she tore Teresa May a new one at every confrontation.........and she’s Scottish!!

[GlesgaeHibby]

I agree. Starmer is growing on me as the only viable candidate in the race. The rest are just not up to it. I would have like Cooper to have stood but it was clear that there just wasn’t the support for her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Electing Starmer will be the most sensible thing the Labour party have done in years. If they add Yvette Cooper to a prominent position in the shadow cabinet, they will give themselves the best shot at the next election. Given how far behind they are it won't be easy regardless of who they elect.

[Ozyhibby]

Electing Starmer will be the most sensible thing the Labour party have done in years. If they add Yvette Cooper to a prominent position in the shadow cabinet, they will give themselves the best shot at the next election. Given how far behind they are it won't be easy regardless of who they elect.

I actually don’t think they will be far away if they can ditch all the nationalisation plans and all their tax the rich class war rhetoric.
A more modest offer to increase fair taxation while eliminating the complexity of the tax code which allows for all the avoidance we have just now would be very popular and would help fund an increased welfare state.
They say nationalising trains is popular but only really with train commuters (who presumably want cheaper travel) and they make up less than 5% of the population. The rest of us don’t care or are against because it would result in more tax to subsidise that 5% of people mostly in the south of England.
Get rid of all that nonsense and Labour would become electable again. Not sure they will though because the train unions want to be able to hold the govt to ransom rather than private companies and their control over labour is stronger since Corbyn reforms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

I actually don’t think they will be far away if they can ditch all the nationalisation plans and all their tax the rich class war rhetoric.
A more modest offer to increase fair taxation while eliminating the complexity of the tax code which allows for all the avoidance we have just now would be very popular and would help fund an increased welfare state.
They say nationalising trains is popular but only really with train commuters (who presumably want cheaper travel) and they make up less than 5% of the population. The rest of us don’t care or are against because it would result in more tax to subsidise that 5% of people mostly in the south of England.
Get rid of all that nonsense and Labour would become electable again. Not sure they will though because the train unions want to be able to hold the govt to ransom rather than private companies and their control over labour is stronger since Corbyn reforms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think yer probably in the right ball park there. But the percentage swing needed to overcome their last loss looks impossible in just one election.

Your point about the power of the unions is also a good one. It’s interesting to note that unions only represent about 23% of the UK workforce and as little as 13% of the private workforce. Therefore policy driven by them (at least nominally in the name of their members) may not be overly popular with the 77% of the workforce that has failed to see the value in them already...

[Ozyhibby]

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/11/labour-task-not-make-itself-feel-better-its-about-winning?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other&__twitter_impression=true

As always a good analysis of what Labour needs from Tony Blair.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/11/labour-task-not-make-itself-feel-better-its-about-winning?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other&__twitter_impression=true

As always a good analysis of what Labour needs from Tony Blair.

:agree: Hard to disagree with any of that.

[Cataplana]

I actually don’t think they will be far away if they can ditch all the nationalisation plans and all their tax the rich class war rhetoric.
A more modest offer to increase fair taxation while eliminating the complexity of the tax code which allows for all the avoidance we have just now would be very popular and would help fund an increased welfare state.
They say nationalising trains is popular but only really with train commuters (who presumably want cheaper travel) and they make up less than 5% of the population. The rest of us don’t care or are against because it would result in more tax to subsidise that 5% of people mostly in the south of England.
Get rid of all that nonsense and Labour would become electable again. Not sure they will though because the train unions want to be able to hold the govt to ransom rather than private companies and their control over labour is stronger since Corbyn reforms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, basically dump any pretence of socialism, social democracy, or social justice, and they'll be just fine?

[Hibbyradge]

So, basically dump any pretence of socialism, social democracy, or social justice, and they'll be just fine?

Labour should take a leaf out of the Tories political tactics book.

In 2010, their manifesto kept away from controversial and potentially unpopular issues. Instead they offered easy to implement and fairly bland promises which were almost impossible to criticise.

They knew that, although the Labour government had been generally popular, Gordon Brown wasn't well liked and the country might just about be ready for a change.

Why give their opponents anything to attack by including, say, welfare reform, in their manifesto when the political climate was already in their favour?

Even still, they were only able to achieve largest party status as opposed to an outright majority.

Since then, the Tories have moved further and further to the right.

Boris Johnson is not a popular figure and with the fallout from Brexit just around the corner, a similar situation faces Labour.

To take advantage of this, the party should concentrate on winning power if it's serious about changing the country for the better. If that means putting a few principles on the back burner, then that must be done.

Unfortunately, the current regime are more serious about political "purity" and not being seen as "Blairite" to do that.

Hopefully a more astute leader will be elected and hopefully they can change the party's strategies, priorities and direction.

Just a thought, if that does happen, I wonder how long it will be before Corbyn votes against his own party again.

[G B Young]

Labour should take a leaf out of the Tories political tactics book.

In 2010, their manifesto kept away from controversial and potentially unpopular issues. Instead they offered easy to implement and fairly bland promises which were almost impossible to criticise.

They knew that, although the Labour government had been generally popular, Gordon Brown wasn't well liked and the country might just about be ready for a change.

Why give their opponents anything to attack by including, say, welfare reform, in their manifesto when the political climate was already in their favour?

Even still, they were only able to achieve largest party status as opposed to an outright majority.

Since then, the Tories have moved further and further to the right.

Boris Johnson is not a popular figure and with the fallout from Brexit just around the corner, a similar situation faces Labour.

To take advantage of this, the party should concentrate on winning power if it's serious about changing the country for the better. If that means putting a few principles on the back burner, then that must be done.

Unfortunately, the current regime are more serious about political "purity" and not being seen as "Blairite" to do that.

Hopefully a more astute leader will be elected and hopefully they can change the party's strategies, priorities and direction.

Just a thought, if that does happen, I wonder how long it will be before Corbyn votes against his own party again.

No surprise to see Momentum throwing its weight behind Long Bailey as "the only viable candidate" to maintain the Corbyn agenda.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/11/momentum-urges-members-to-back-rebecca-long-bailey-labour-leadership

As Blair points out, they'll not only be out of power for good if they continue down this road, but will run the risk of disappearing as a political party altogether.

You wonder if Momentum ever stop to consider who has actually achieved more for the working class. Blair, who introduced the minumum wage and created the Human Rights Act to name but two initiavies, or Corbyn who has devoted his career to sniping from the sidelines. You need to be in power to enact social change.

[Mibbes Aye]

No surprise to see Momentum throwing its weight behind Long Bailey as "the only viable candidate" to maintain the Corbyn agenda.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/11/momentum-urges-members-to-back-rebecca-long-bailey-labour-leadership

As Blair points out, they'll not only be out of power for good if they continue down this road, but will run the risk of disappearing as a political party altogether.

In the last 75 years only three Labour leaders have won General Elections and all tacked to the centre, whilst pushing progressive reform and policy.

RLB comes across as smart and is telegenic but if she is merely retreading the tired old awkward squad agenda then she will be ripped apart and the Tories will romp home come the next election.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

In the last 75 years only three Labour leaders have won General Elections and all tacked to the centre, whilst pushing progressive reform and policy.

RLB comes across as smart and is telegenic but if she is merely retreading the tired old awkward squad agenda then she will be ripped apart and the Tories will romp home come the next election.

I can't see the Tories moving anywhere near the centre ground in the next four years . If Get Brexit Done, rolls out to getting Brexit done, they could very well be left with the IDS influenced right wing ideology driven party that is polar opposite of where the Labour Party may end up.

[Ozyhibby]

I can't see the Tories moving anywhere near the centre ground in the next four years . If Get Brexit Done, rolls out to getting Brexit done, they could very well be left with the IDS influenced right wing ideology driven party that is polar opposite of where the Labour Party may end up.

If the Tories vacate the centre ground and Labour move to the centre left then there might just be a chance for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

I can't see the Tories moving anywhere near the centre ground in the next four years . If Get Brexit Done, rolls out to getting Brexit done, they could very well be left with the IDS influenced right wing ideology driven party that is polar opposite of where the Labour Party may end up.

The Tories don’t need to shift to the centre, they just need to play canny. If Labour doesn’t tack to the centre then the Tories win by default, because they retain their core vote and carry the swing voters who mistrust Corbyn Labour (or to be more accurate, Milne/Murphy/Lansman Labour).

It is the nature of things. Labour can’t win without securing the marginals in England and that means doing what Blair and Wilson did. They lost what were always safe seats due to Brexit. Those seats won’t necessarily come back.

[mjhibby]

No surprise to see Momentum throwing its weight behind Long Bailey as "the only viable candidate" to maintain the Corbyn agenda.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/11/momentum-urges-members-to-back-rebecca-long-bailey-labour-leadership

As Blair points out, they'll not only be out of power for good if they continue down this road, but will run the risk of disappearing as a political party altogether.

You wonder if Momentum ever stop to consider who has actually achieved more for the working class. Blair, who introduced the minumum wage and created the Human Rights Act to name but two initiavies, or Corbyn who has devoted his career to sniping from the sidelines. You need to be in power to enact social change.

Indeed. You can influence sod all if your on the sidelines. The Labour party in in a dark hole full of idealists and fantasists. Unless they wake up and smell the coffee then not only will the horrible Tories be in power for at least another ten years but they will leave the most vulnerable in society to suffer under an ever more extreme right wing govt. They need to play the game to have a chance of winning and as long as momentum control the party it means labour in the wilderness.

[Smartie]

Labour seem to be all about strengthening their appeal amongst a diminishing number of people, which is only going to see them retreat further into the wilderness.

Certain factions need to have a long hard think about who their friends and enemies really are if they are ever going to manage to do anything for the people they claim to represent ever again.

[Kato]

If the Tories vacate the centre ground and Labour move to the centre left then there might just be a chance for them.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkIn what way are the Tories inhabiting the centre ground these days?

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

In what way are the Tories inhabiting the centre ground these days?

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

They were closer to it than Labour, that’s why they won.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

They were closer to it than Labour, that’s why they won.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure I’d agree with that.

They understood the depth of feeling on Brexit better and in the end were at least as far right as the Labour Party were left.

They managed to hang onto more moderates than Labour, and their English nationalist message resonated with a lot more people from other parties than Labour’s offering did.

[Ozyhibby]

Not sure I’d agree with that.

They understood the depth of feeling on Brexit better and in the end were at least as far right as the Labour Party were left.

They managed to hang onto more moderates than Labour, and their English nationalist message resonated with a lot more people from other parties than Labour’s offering did.

Labour were threatening to confiscate private property. That’s about as far from the centre of British politics as it gets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

Labour were threatening to confiscate private property. That’s about as far from the centre of British politics as it gets.

At least as far back as 1965, the date of the Compulsory Purchase Act, the confiscation of private property has been a permanent feature of British life.

[RyeSloan]

Not sure I’d agree with that.

They understood the depth of feeling on Brexit better and in the end were at least as far right as the Labour Party were left.

They managed to hang onto more moderates than Labour, and their English nationalist message resonated with a lot more people from other parties than Labour’s offering did.

I’m not convinced the Tories are currently as far right as people on here make out. Yes the Brexit message has the Farage right flavour to it but their general policies and narrative on one nation conservatism surely cannot be described as far right as Labour was left.

The whole premise of one nation conservatism is open to interpretation but is considered, at least in part, to be a socially liberal centre ground approach.

While it remains to be seen if Boris keeps to his word on that and will probably never interpret it as centre as the parliamentary One Nation group does there is little doubt that the recent manifesto was more centre than right when compared for example Thatcher’s in 1987.

As ever it’s all relative and based on perspective and while the Tories will always be right of centre by different degrees I’m not seeing the polices that suggest they have gone ‘further and further right’...indeed his spending plans may actually suggest the opposite as is his stated aim of using the state to ‘re-balance’.

However you see it he certainty tacked close enough to the centre to pick up plenty of votes, which allied to a simple Brexit message was more than enough to blow apart the desperately muddled Labour position and their unbelievable list of socialist style nirvana promises.

[lapsedhibee]

I’m not convinced the Tories are currently as far right as people on here make out. Yes the Brexit message has the Farage right flavour to it but their general policies and narrative on one nation conservatism surely cannot be described as far right as Labour was left.

The whole premise of one nation conservatism is open to interpretation but is considered, at least in part, to be a socially liberal centre ground approach.

While it remains to be seen if Boris keeps to his word on that and will probably never interpret it as centre as the parliamentary One Nation group does there is little doubt that the recent manifesto was more centre than right when compared for example Thatcher’s in 1987.

As ever it’s all relative and based on perspective and while the Tories will always be right of centre by different degrees I’m not seeing the polices that suggest they have gone ‘further and further right’...indeed his spending plans may actually suggest the opposite as is his stated aim of using the state to ‘re-balance’.

However you see it he certainty tacked close enough to the centre to pick up plenty of votes, which allied to a simple Brexit message was more than enough to blow apart the desperately muddled Labour position and their unbelievable list of socialist style nirvana promises.
Lol at the bolded bit.

[RyeSloan]

Lol at the bolded bit.

Aha fair point [emoji23]

[Cataplana]

At least as far back as 1965, the date of the Compulsory Purchase Act, the confiscation of private property has been a permanent feature of British life.

There must have been compulsory sequestration of peoples property during the war, I would imagine.

[Ozyhibby]

At least as far back as 1965, the date of the Compulsory Purchase Act, the confiscation of private property has been a permanent feature of British life.

It’s still very difficult to compulsory purchase someone’s property. What Corbyn was proposing with giving the right of private tennents to purchase their house from the landlord at a price set by the state was a whole new level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

It’s still very difficult to compulsory purchase someone’s property. What Corbyn was proposing with giving the right of private tennents to purchase their house from the landlord at a price set by the state was a whole new level.
McDonnell floated such a thing in September. The idea was dropped and not in Labour's manifesto. I don't think that was why they lost the election.

[G B Young]

I’m not convinced the Tories are currently as far right as people on here make out. Yes the Brexit message has the Farage right flavour to it but their general policies and narrative on one nation conservatism surely cannot be described as far right as Labour was left.

The whole premise of one nation conservatism is open to interpretation but is considered, at least in part, to be a socially liberal centre ground approach.

While it remains to be seen if Boris keeps to his word on that and will probably never interpret it as centre as the parliamentary One Nation group does there is little doubt that the recent manifesto was more centre than right when compared for example Thatcher’s in 1987.

As ever it’s all relative and based on perspective and while the Tories will always be right of centre by different degrees I’m not seeing the polices that suggest they have gone ‘further and further right’...indeed his spending plans may actually suggest the opposite as is his stated aim of using the state to ‘re-balance’.

However you see it he certainty tacked close enough to the centre to pick up plenty of votes, which allied to a simple Brexit message was more than enough to blow apart the desperately muddled Labour position and their unbelievable list of socialist style nirvana promises.

I think that's a fair summation.

I note by the way that Corbyn was speaking at a CND/Stop the War gathering in Trafalgar Square at the weekend which was "attended by a few hundred protestors". Kind of sums him up. He was never going to cut it as Labour Party leader and the nature of his sudden elevation to that position after 25 years on the back benches may, I suspect, be looked back on as a rather freakish period in the party's history. He's back in his comfort zone at echo chamber events like this, where he can continue to fight the good fight in obscurity.

[Ozyhibby]

McDonnell floated such a thing in September. The idea was dropped and not in Labour's manifesto. I don't think that was why they lost the election.

Quietly dropping something from a manifesto is not the same as completely disowning a policy.
There were other labour policies that confiscated property as well including the nationalisation of utilities, train services etc where they intended not to pay market price for them. These properties are owned by ordinary voters either directly or through their pension funds. And once they take that, what else do they look to confiscate?
People don’t like things being taken of them that they own. That the Labour Party could not see that it would turn people against them shows how stupid people like Corbyn are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cataplana]

It’s still very difficult to compulsory purchase someone’s property. What Corbyn was proposing with giving the right of private tennents to purchase their house from the landlord at a price set by the state was a whole new level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think the Labour party was established to protect private landlords. The very suggestion that their interests are more important shows how far to the right you think a socialist party should be.

[Cataplana]

It’s still very difficult to compulsory purchase someone’s property. What Corbyn was proposing with giving the right of private tennents to purchase their house from the landlord at a price set by the state was a whole new level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think the Labour party was established to protect private landlords. The very suggestion that their interests are more important shows how far to the right you think a socialist party should be.

By all means criticise socialism, but don't criticise a socialist party from following its principles.

[Smartie]

I’m not convinced the Tories are currently as far right as people on here make out. Yes the Brexit message has the Farage right flavour to it but their general policies and narrative on one nation conservatism surely cannot be described as far right as Labour was left.

The whole premise of one nation conservatism is open to interpretation but is considered, at least in part, to be a socially liberal centre ground approach.

While it remains to be seen if Boris keeps to his word on that and will probably never interpret it as centre as the parliamentary One Nation group does there is little doubt that the recent manifesto was more centre than right when compared for example Thatcher’s in 1987.

As ever it’s all relative and based on perspective and while the Tories will always be right of centre by different degrees I’m not seeing the polices that suggest they have gone ‘further and further right’...indeed his spending plans may actually suggest the opposite as is his stated aim of using the state to ‘re-balance’.

However you see it he certainty tacked close enough to the centre to pick up plenty of votes, which allied to a simple Brexit message was more than enough to blow apart the desperately muddled Labour position and their unbelievable list of socialist style nirvana promises.

Whilst I agree with the gist of what you are saying, the last election wasn't about any of these policies (which were filler or background noise at best). It was the Brexit election prior to which the moderates of the Conservative party were purged. The rhetoric was about getting tough on immigration and getting the nation behind an imaginary enemy (the EU) - the stuff of the far right. In the end it proved to be a less offensive to moderates that Corbyn's crap, which wouldn't have been difficult.

Now that the election is out of he way and once Brexit "has been done", the policies to which you refer will come into play. It will be interesting to see what is implemented, what is not, what the Brexit economic fallout is and what BJ does going forward to hang onto the seats he won at the last election that nobody ever thought possible. Unlike most on this site, I'm not automatically repelled by the notion of one nation conservatism (whereas I find the far right repugnant) so it will certainly be interesting to see where we go from here.

[JeMeSouviens]

I’m not convinced the Tories are currently as far right as people on here make out. Yes the Brexit message has the Farage right flavour to it but their general policies and narrative on one nation conservatism surely cannot be described as far right as Labour was left.

The whole premise of one nation conservatism is open to interpretation but is considered, at least in part, to be a socially liberal centre ground approach.

While it remains to be seen if Boris keeps to his word on that and will probably never interpret it as centre as the parliamentary One Nation group does there is little doubt that the recent manifesto was more centre than right when compared for example Thatcher’s in 1987.

As ever it’s all relative and based on perspective and while the Tories will always be right of centre by different degrees I’m not seeing the polices that suggest they have gone ‘further and further right’...indeed his spending plans may actually suggest the opposite as is his stated aim of using the state to ‘re-balance’.

However you see it he certainty tacked close enough to the centre to pick up plenty of votes, which allied to a simple Brexit message was more than enough to blow apart the desperately muddled Labour position and their unbelievable list of socialist style nirvana promises.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Johnson has not historically been particularly right wing. However, his cabinet is stuffed with them. The true Brexit believers: Raab, Patel, Rees-Mogg & co are all rabid kick-the-poor ultras. Johnson himself obviously wasn't a true believer (in anything apart from his own aggrandisement) but having surrounded himself with them, it's hard to see them not lurching to the right as their term progresses.

btw, I don't think "one nation" Toryism has historically been particularly socially liberal, in fact probably more the opposite. It's about a paternalistic worldview where the Toffs know what's best for the Proles but will look after them (at least with plenty of workhouses :wink:) out of some sort of noblesse oblige.

[Ozyhibby]

I don't think the Labour party was established to protect private landlords. The very suggestion that their interests are more important shows how far to the right you think a socialist party should be.

By all means criticise socialism, but don't criticise a socialist party from following its principles.

If Labour want to stay a socialist party then they can say goodbye to power forever. Just a slightly bigger Socialist Workers Party. A protest movement for students.
However if they want power then they are going to have to move to a more social democrat model where there is a higher welfare spending but funded by the proceeds of a market economy. Kind of like Scandinavia.
Ideology based policies like closing private schools, confiscating property, taxing the wealthy to the point where less money comes in just because it makes you feel good does not win elections.
I suppose you might think it’s worth one last try but it’s never worked before and I really don’t think it will work next time.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cataplana]

If Labour want to stay a socialist party then they can say goodbye to power forever. Just a slightly bigger Socialist Workers Party. A protest movement for students.
However if they want power then they are going to have to move to a more social democrat model where there is a higher welfare spending but funded by the proceeds of a market economy. Kind of like Scandinavia.
Ideology based policies like closing private schools, confiscating property, taxing the wealthy to the point where less money comes in just because it makes you feel good does not win elections.
I suppose you might think it’s worth one last try but it’s never worked before and I really don’t think it will work next time.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd have a lot more sympathy for your point of view if we hadn't already been down the Neo Liberal road that Blair provided. That hasn't exactly worked out, has it?

While we are here, can you please explain what a market economy is? Is it similar to the idea that if we let people get obscenely rich, the wealth will trickle down?

[lapsedhibee]

If Labour want to stay a socialist party then they can say goodbye to power forever. Just a slightly bigger Socialist Workers Party. A protest movement for students.
However if they want power then they are going to have to move to a more social democrat model where there is a higher welfare spending but funded by the proceeds of a market economy. Kind of like Scandinavia.
Ideology based policies like closing private schools, confiscating property, taxing the wealthy to the point where less money comes in just because it makes you feel good does not win elections.
I suppose you might think it’s worth one last try but it’s never worked before and I really don’t think it will work next time.


It would be interesting to know what proportion of the people in the north of England who lent Johnson their votes were concerned about their buy-to-let properties and their children's private schooling. Judging by broadcast voxpops at the time, I'm doubting it's as high as you suspect.

[RyeSloan]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Johnson has not historically been particularly right wing. However, his cabinet is stuffed with them. The true Brexit believers: Raab, Patel, Rees-Mogg & co are all rabid kick-the-poor ultras. Johnson himself obviously wasn't a true believer (in anything apart from his own aggrandisement) but having surrounded himself with them, it's hard to see them not lurching to the right as their term progresses.

btw, I don't think "one nation" Toryism has historically been particularly socially liberal, in fact probably more the opposite. It's about a paternalistic worldview where the Toffs know what's best for the Proles but will look after them (at least with plenty of workhouses :wink:) out of some sort of noblesse oblige.

Yeah well one nation conservatism does seem to mean many different things that’s for sure!!

I think it’s now meant to be taken as a more centrist approach and one that involves state interjection rather than the more Thatcherite view but it’s not exactly something that has a precise definition.

As you say though it’s far from clear just how Boris will interpret it all and what actions his government and cabinet will take to implement it.

[Ozyhibby]

It would be interesting to know what proportion of the people in the north of England who lent Johnson their votes were concerned about their buy-to-let properties and their children's private schooling. Judging by broadcast voxpops at the time, I'm doubting it's as high as you suspect.

No but the people Labour needed to replace them (metropolitan remainers) do own rental properties.
There are 3.5m landlords in the uk, that’s a lot of votes to just turn your nose up at. Immediately you are creating a good base for the Tories without them having to work for it. They don’t have to promise those 3.5m voters a thing because they know they won’t vote for Labour. And to what benefit? Are there 3.5m tenants who are desperate to buy the property they live in? I very much doubt it. Some people like renting. Some are renting temporarily for work. Some would never get a loan no matter what price they bought it for.
So you have a policy that alienates 3.5m voters and brings very few voters over to your side.
It’s like nobody at Labour HQ has a calculator.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

I'd have a lot more sympathy for your point of view if we hadn't already been down the Neo Liberal road that Blair provided. That hasn't exactly worked out, has it?

While we are here, can you please explain what a market economy is? Is it similar to the idea that if we let people get obscenely rich, the wealth will trickle down?

Name one big invention that hasn’t come from a market economy recently? What wealth are these socialist nirvanas generating for the world.
Bill Gates got obscenely rich. In fact he became the richest man on the planet. Who got poorer for Bill Gates to get so rich? In fact his invention made everyone who bought it a bit richer for all the time it saved them. People get rich, mostly by providing a service that benefits their fellow man. It can’t be satisfying spending all your time focusing on other people having more money than others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

No but the people Labour needed to replace them (metropolitan remainers) do own rental properties.
There are 3.5m landlords in the uk, that’s a lot of votes to just turn your nose up at. Immediately you are creating a good base for the Tories without them having to work for it. They don’t have to promise those 3.5m voters a thing because they know they won’t vote for Labour. And to what benefit? Are there 3.5m tenants who are desperate to buy the property they live in? I very much doubt it. Some people like renting. Some are renting temporarily for work. Some would never get a loan no matter what price they bought it for.
So you have a policy that alienates 3.5m voters and brings very few voters over to your side.
It’s like nobody at Labour HQ has a calculator.


I know a few metropolitan remain-voting landlords who voted Labour. They knew that they weren't going to have their property "confiscated", as you put it, because they knew it wasn't Labour Party policy. Your own calculator may need resetting.

[Ozyhibby]

I know a few metropolitan remain-voting landlords who voted Labour. They knew that they weren't going to have their property "confiscated", as you put it, because they knew it wasn't Labour Party policy. Your own calculator may need resetting.

I’m not a Labour voter anymore so don’t mind if they carry on with Corbyn’s mad policies. And I’m sure Boris Johnson will be delighted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bristolhibby]

It would be interesting to know what proportion of the people in the north of England who lent Johnson their votes were concerned about their buy-to-let properties and their children's private schooling. Judging by broadcast voxpops at the time, I'm doubting it's as high as you suspect.

Doesn’t matter. “GET BREXIT DONE” was the catchphrase of that last election (and Corbyn is a terrorist loving, Jew hating, traitor, Trotskyist) and it did the job.

J

[Cataplana]

Name one big invention that hasn’t come from a market economy recently? What wealth are these socialist nirvanas generating for the world.
Bill Gates got obscenely rich. In fact he became the richest man on the planet. Who got poorer for Bill Gates to get so rich? In fact his invention made everyone who bought it a bit richer for all the time it saved them. People get rich, mostly by providing a service that benefits their fellow man. It can’t be satisfying spending all your time focusing on other people having more money than others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry, but I don't actually understand what the market economy is, that's why I asked you. :confused:

Bill Gates rivals got poorer as a result of his "invention" (GUI was not a new thing when he produced windows.)

Many people get rich producing things, and inventing things that don't benefit their fellow man: bankers, weapons manufacturers, drug dealers, to name but a few.

Many rich people spend nearly all their time focussing on having more wealth than others, it's how capitalism works.

[ballengeich]

If, as is widely believed, Brexit was critical in getting traditional Labour areas to vote Tory, then one would expect the chance of them staying Tory will be related to how Brexit turns out. If it turns out to be the disaster which many remain advocates expect then surely a remotely credible Labour leader will have a very good chance of victory at the next general election by reclaiming the voters who switched.

[Ozyhibby]

Sorry, but I don't actually understand what the market economy is, that's why I asked you. :confused:

Bill Gates rivals got poorer as a result of his "invention" (GUI was not a new thing when he produced windows.)

Many people get rich producing things, and inventing things that don't benefit their fellow man: bankers, weapons manufacturers, drug dealers, to name but a few.

Many rich people spend nearly all their time focussing on having more wealth than others, it's how capitalism works.

Bankers do provide a public good, as do weapons manufacturers. Drugs a bit different because it’s an unregulated illegal market although it should be legal. And many people would say that taking drugs has enriched their life so it’s not all bad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

They were closer to it than Labour, that’s why they won.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkDont agree at all.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[grunt]

If, as is widely believed, Brexit was critical in getting traditional Labour areas to vote Tory, then one would expect the chance of them staying Tory will be related to how Brexit turns out. If it turns out to be the disaster which many remain advocates expect then surely a remotely credible Labour leader will have a very good chance of victory at the next general election by reclaiming the voters who switched.

Rather depends what the new Labour leader offers in relation to dealing with the disastrous Brexit outcome. By which I mean, they can't expect votes unless they offer some form of resolution.

[grunt]

There are 3.5m landlords in the uk, that’s a lot of votes to just turn your nose up at.

Really? I wonder where that number comes from. I'm astonished if that's true.

[Hiber-nation]

Really? I wonder where that number comes from. I'm astonished if that's true.

2.7m was the last figure I recall.

[StevieC]

Really? I wonder where that number comes from. I'm astonished if that's true.

Anyone that rents a property is a landlord. That will include lots of people with just one property. Someone who inherits a property after parents die, and are reluctant to sell for sentimental reasons? I’m a landlord because I couldn’t sell my first flat (property crash 10 years ago) after moving to a bigger property because of kids. I had to mortgage it to the max, and there’s not a lot left over after mortgage payments, insurances, repairs, taxes etc.. You start suggesting that people like me are going to be left with a mortgage that won’t be covered by a tennant purchase and you are not going to be popular.

[heretoday]

Really? I wonder where that number comes from. I'm astonished if that's true.

Buy To Let? Lot of people went for that.

[lucky]

Doesn’t matter. “GET BREXIT DONE” was the catchphrase of that last election (and Corbyn is a terrorist loving, Jew hating, traitor, Trotskyist) and it did the job.

J

Sadly that’s exactly what people bought. Unfortunately for Corbyn having progressive policies counted for nothing.

[Cataplana]

Bankers do provide a public good, as do weapons manufacturers. Drugs a bit different because it’s an unregulated illegal market although it should be legal. And many people would say that taking drugs has enriched their life so it’s not all bad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bizarre, however we are getting way off track and probably drifting into philosophy now. Our opinions about Labour are very different, personally I don't want them in power if their offering is to support a system that makes people rich on the back of other people's efforts.

It's an age old argument in the Labour party, but it seems to gain power the first people they have to keep sweet are the rich.

[lapsedhibee]

Bizarre, however we are getting way off track and probably drifting into philosophy now. Our opinions about Labour are very different, personally I don't want them in power if their offering is to support a system that makes people rich on the back of other people's efforts.

It's an age old argument in the Labour party, but it seems to gain power the first people they have to keep sweet are the rich.

Since the vast majority of people in this country are, by historical or any other standards, rich, don't you agree that a party hoping to win power to improve society does need to take the views of those people into account? :dunno:

[Cataplana]

Since the vast majority of people in this country are, by historical or any other standards, rich, don't you agree that a party hoping to win power to improve society does need to take the views of those people into account? :dunno:

It depends on how you define rich. I can't remember the figure, but Labour said that only the top tier of earners would be worse off, something like the top 10% would be worse off.

[lapsedhibee]

It depends on how you define rich. I can't remember the figure, but Labour said that only the top tier of earners would be worse off, something like the top 10% would be worse off.

Top 5%. But pretty much everyone in the country earns more than £80,000. (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/question-time-video-man-top-earners-tax-percent-80000-explained-a9213351.html)

[Cataplana]

Top 5%. But pretty much everyone in the country earns more than £80,000. (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/question-time-video-man-top-earners-tax-percent-80000-explained-a9213351.html)

That guy was in a world of his own. I just don't think he understood percentages.

[lapsedhibee]

That guy was in a world of his own. I just don't think he understood percentages.

Yep, it was as if he'd heard that some people earned >£160,000 so his own £80,000 must put him in the bottom half of earners. Yamathematics live on the BBC!

[Ozyhibby]

It depends on how you define rich. I can't remember the figure, but Labour said that only the top tier of earners would be worse off, something like the top 10% would be worse off.

I read an article recently but can’t find it now which said that 56% of people spend at least one year in the top 10% of earners. If that’s right then It’s possible that saying your only going to tax the top 10% of earners might not be that popular.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cataplana]

Yep, it was as if he'd heard that some people earned >£160,000 so his own £80,000 must put him in the bottom half of earners. Yamathematics live on the BBC!

I thought the panel showed remarkable restraint, particularly the guy from Labour.

"Lawyers earn a lot more than £80,000."
"I didn't earn that when I was a solicitor."
"Rubbish!"

How do you debate with someone like that and not make them look an idiot? The whole thing was Pythonesque.

[Moulin Yarns]

If you are a top earner you can reduce your tax bill for the benefits of others.



https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/money/2019/nov/09/i-give-away-half-to-three-quarters-of-my-income-every-year?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D#aoh=15791065931166&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fmoney %2F2019%2Fnov%2F09%2Fi-give-away-half-to-three-quarters-of-my-income-every-year

[lapsedhibee]

I read an article recently but can’t find it now which said that 56% of people spend at least one year in the top 10% of earners. If that’s right then It’s possible that saying your only going to tax the top 10% of earners might not be that popular.


Saying you were going to tax the top 10% of earners would be very popular indeed.

Saying you were going to increase taxes for the top 10% would be less popular, though nobody did say that.

[Curried]

Lisa Nandy, Jess Phillips and Ian Murray all going Full Swinson over Scotland during the last few days:

https://twitter.com/stephenpaton134/status/1217558374092623874 (https://twitter.com/stephenpaton134/status/1217558374092623874)

https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1215217175675527168?lang=en

https://twitter.com/IanMurrayMP/status/1214912766231887873

These red Tories really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.....No wonder Labour are deid in Scotland.

[JeMeSouviens]

Lisa Nandy, Jess Phillips and Ian Murray all going Full Swinson over Scotland during the last few days:

https://twitter.com/stephenpaton134/status/1217558374092623874 (https://twitter.com/stephenpaton134/status/1217558374092623874)

https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1215217175675527168?lang=en

https://twitter.com/IanMurrayMP/status/1214912766231887873

These red Tories really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.....No wonder Labour are deid in Scotland.

The last one where Murray throws softballs to the Tory SoS is the ultimate cringe. :rolleyes:

On the other 2 though, I noticed Stephen Bush of the New Statesman on twitter saying they're coming over hardline Unionist because they think it will play well with CLPs in Scotland. To get onto the ballot, candidates have to be backed by 33 CLPs across the UK or 3 Labour affiliate organisations (trade unions etc).

[Northernhibee]

If Rebecca Long Bailey gets in - and Momentum are backing her - then we're ****ed. Already has the stench of Corbyn mk.2 about her and by saying that she backs Corbyn 100% it means Labour ain't winning back the areas in the north of England that they need to.

Momentum are a cancer on this country and the Labour party.

[Curried]

The last one where Murray throws softballs to the Tory SoS is the ultimate cringe. :rolleyes:

On the other 2 though, I noticed Stephen Bush of the New Statesman on twitter saying they're coming over hardline Unionist because they think it will play well with CLPs in Scotland. To get onto the ballot, candidates have to be backed by 33 CLPs across the UK or 3 Labour affiliate organisations (trade unions etc).

Indeed, the Murray-Jack interchange is truly cringe-worthy and looks like it’s one rehearsed on the training ground earlier. Also, fair call on the Nandy/Phillips no-surrender stance. It seems they’ve calculated this will win them sufficient backing from CPL branches south of the border.

[Ozyhibby]

Indeed, the Murray-Jack interchange is truly cringe-worthy and looks like it’s one rehearsed on the training ground earlier. Also, fair call on the Nandy/Phillips no-surrender stance. It seems they’ve calculated this will win them sufficient backing from CPL branches south of the border.

It will likely win them backing north of the border as well. The local Labour parties are likely full on unionist now after all the independent thinkers left for the SNP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

If Rebecca Long Bailey gets in - and Momentum are backing her - then we're ****ed. Already has the stench of Corbyn mk.2 about her and by saying that she backs Corbyn 100% it means Labour ain't winning back the areas in the north of England that they need to.

Momentum are a cancer on this country and the Labour party.

Only half of Momentum members say Long-Bailey is their preferred candidate, and only 10% of Labour Party members belong to Momentum.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/01/labour-leadership-rebecca-long-bailey-backed-slight-majority-momentum-members

[Curried]

It will likely win them backing north of the border as well. The local Labour parties are likely full on unionist now after all the independent thinkers left for the SNP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can only hope that's not true.

BTW A see *********** gets an appearance around 25 secs into Murray’s Deputy Leader video pitch. No doubt this story on Edinburgh West will go down well in Red Morningside.

https://twitter.com/IanMurrayMP/status/1217777887232843776

[JeMeSouviens]

If Rebecca Long Bailey gets in - and Momentum are backing her - then we're ****ed. Already has the stench of Corbyn mk.2 about her and by saying that she backs Corbyn 100% it means Labour ain't winning back the areas in the north of England that they need to.

Momentum are a cancer on this country and the Labour party.

The Momentum stitch up has been embarrassing. They recommended RLB and then gave their members a ballot with only Yes/No to RLB as the options. So much for democratising the movement. :rolleyes:

[JeMeSouviens]

Momentum apparently has 40000 members, of whom just over 5000 endorsed RLB (70% of those who voted). I guess with only one candidate it was hardly worth bothering but her team will probably be a little concerned at such a small response?

[Jonnyboy]

Couldn't believe my ears when RLB said in an interview that she was happy with the manifesto created for the last election and that she was proud to have been heavily involved in its creation.

That'll be the manifesto that resulted in Labour getting seriously pumped.

She's a female Corbyn and if elected as leader the Tories will be a very happy bunch indeed

[Bostonhibby]

If Rebecca Long Bailey gets in - and Momentum are backing her - then we're ****ed. Already has the stench of Corbyn mk.2 about her and by saying that she backs Corbyn 100% it means Labour ain't winning back the areas in the north of England that they need to.

Momentum are a cancer on this country and the Labour party.I agree, this cabal cost Labour 100% of the support amongst the labour supporters in my circle.

Their efforts at democratically selecting RLB as the candidate they're backing to the exclusion of all others looks like it came from the Robert Mugabe handbook of how to do democracy.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Colr]

I agree, this cabal cost Labour 100% of the support amongst the labour supporters in my circle.

Their efforts at democratically selecting RLB as the candidate they're backing to the exclusion of all others looks like it came from the Robert Mugabe handbook of how to do democracy.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

You can imagine what they’d be like in power!! Frightening!!

[Bostonhibby]

You can imagine what they’d be like in power!! Frightening!!They're already in charge of what is the limit of their potential and are probably quite happy inwardly impressing each other.



Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Colr]

Apparently, RLB’s name was the only one on the ballot form that went out to Momentum members.

Can anyone confirm or refute that?

[JeMeSouviens]

Apparently, RLB’s name was the only one on the ballot form that went out to Momentum members.

Can anyone confirm or refute that?

Yes, that's correct. Their executive decided to nominate RLB for leader and Angela Rayner for deputy and the membership were given a Y/N option for each.

[Bostonhibby]

Yes, that's correct. Their executive decided to nominate RLB for leader and Angela Rayner for deputy and the membership were given a Y/N option for each.Sounds very North Korean , but sadly might be true.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

Sounds very North Korean , but sadly might be true.


30% said they didn't want Long-Bailey, though, which I don't think you would get to do in NK.

Incidentally, how long do authorities keep GE ballot papers before destroying them? I don't necessarily want Cummings and his Ministry of Public Enlightenment checking back and finding out that I voted against their sorry asses. (As part of their 'constitutional reforms'.)

[Bostonhibby]

30% said they didn't want her, though, which I don't think you would get to do in NK.

Incidentally, how long do authorities keep GE ballot papers before destroying them? I don't necessarily want Cummings and his Ministry of Public Enlightenment checking back and finding out that I voted against their sorry asses.

Aye, but I get the impression if 99% didn't want her the executive machine was delivering her anyway by their failure to offer the chance to support any other candidates.

If Cummings turns up at my door I swear I'll do time[emoji16]

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Colr]

30% said they didn't want Long-Bailey, though, which I don't think you would get to do in NK.

'

Their names will have been added to “the list”!

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200117/ee26911172dac089f46d0debc593e16f.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Colr]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200117/ee26911172dac089f46d0debc593e16f.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Amongst whom?

[Ozyhibby]

Jess Phillips about to pull out of leadership race. Can only help Starmer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Amongst whom?

Labour members


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

Jess Philips gives up having got no unions onside and presumably struggling in the clps. Another resounding triumph for Blair McDougall :greengrin

[Future17]

30% said they didn't want Long-Bailey, though, which I don't think you would get to do in NK.

Incidentally, how long do authorities keep GE ballot papers before destroying them? I don't necessarily want Cummings and his Ministry of Public Enlightenment checking back and finding out that I voted against their sorry asses. (As part of their 'constitutional reforms'.)

It used to be one year but, as I understand it, since the introduction of GDPR there is technically no set period. Each Returning Officer (so effectively Council area in Scotland) is required to have their own policy on how long such documents will be retained for.

Technically, the minimum acceptable period would be 21 days but, in practice, I understand most are adhering to one year due to convention.

[lapsedhibee]

It used to be one year but, as I understand it, since the introduction of GDPR there is technically no set period. Each Returning Officer (so effectively Council area in Scotland) is required to have their own policy on how long such documents will be retained for.

Technically, the minimum acceptable period would be 21 days but, in practice, I understand most are adhering to one year due to convention.

Ta. :aok:

[Bristolhibby]

If Rebecca Long Bailey gets in - and Momentum are backing her - then we're ****ed. Already has the stench of Corbyn mk.2 about her and by saying that she backs Corbyn 100% it means Labour ain't winning back the areas in the north of England that they need to.

Momentum are a cancer on this country and the Labour party.

That said, was it not Corbyn himself that was putting people off voting Labour. His policies actually went down well in a blind taste test.

J

[Kato]

That said, was it not Corbyn himself that was putting people off voting Labour. His policies actually went down well in a blind taste test.

J

This is true, Labour's policies were more popular than anyone else's when blind tested.

The last election, like many, was decided by emotions - not any kind of cerebral balancing of policies that might be best for the country.

[Ozyhibby]

This is true, Labour's policies were more popular than anyone else's when blind tested.

The last election, like many, was decided by emotions - not any kind of cerebral balancing of policies that might be best for the country.

It was based on trust as much as anything else. People trusted Johnson with their economic well being more than they trusted Corbyn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

It was based on trust as much as anything else. People trusted Johnson with their economic well being more than they trusted Corbyn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If true then that is utterly depressing.

[Hibbyradge]

That said, was it not Corbyn himself that was putting people off voting Labour. His policies actually went down well in a blind taste test.

J

Individually, I can see that Labour's policies, in the main, would be popular.

However, collectively, they were seen as a wish list of everything that they thought people would like, but unachievable, very expensive, and unbelievable practically.

For example, free 4G broadband for everyone. Who's going to say no to free broadband?

[HiBremian]

It was based on trust as much as anything else. People trusted Johnson with their economic well being more than they trusted Corbyn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anyone watch the channel four news focus group about the labour leadership contenders the other day? Seem to recall Boris was liked for his “messy hair” more than his economic competence.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

Anyone watch the channel four news focus group about the labour leadership contenders the other day? Seem to recall Boris was liked for his “messy hair” more than his economic competence.


Staggering that was. It was a group of people who'd previously voted Labour but voted Tory at the last election. They thought Johnson'd done well since the election - much better than they expected when they voted for him - and that they could rely on him to carry out what he'd promised. A man they could relate to and trust.

[Ozyhibby]

Staggering that was. It was a group of people who'd previously voted Labour but voted Tory at the last election. They thought Johnson'd done well since the election - much better than they expected when they voted for him - and that they could rely on him to carry out what he'd promised. A man they could relate to and trust.

The left is good at understanding people who engage in politics on a day to day basis which is why they are good on twitter etc but the right has always been very good at understanding the vast majority of people who care not a jot about politics until polling day. It’s why they always win.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

I see that the PUP have made an appearance at the Scottish Parliament, hounding the first minister.

That's what you get when you get in bed with the Tories.

It's nice to see some members have seen the light.

[Pretty Boy]

Emily Thornberry doing her bit to win hearts and minds in Scotland.....

[CloudSquall]

Emily Thornberry doing her bit to win hearts and minds in Scotland.....

https://mobile.twitter.com/GrayInGlasgow/status/1221487883112022016

"I hate the SNP. I hate the SNP"

[Vault Boy]

Nandy or Starmer for me. Select RLB and we'll definitely be looking at 10-15 years of Tory majority governments down here.

The other two don't guarantee that changing, but they represent a much better chance of success.

[JeMeSouviens]

https://mobile.twitter.com/GrayInGlasgow/status/1221487883112022016

"I hate the SNP. I hate the SNP"

She's playing to the gallery a bit here because her only route to stay on the ballot is CLP nominations and I imagine that most of those left in CLPs north of the border will genuinely hate the SNP. Still a stupid thing to say though.

[JeMeSouviens]

Thornberry's remarks show the classic blind spot that seems to affect practically all British politicians:

“Tories wrapped up in nationalist clothing”

Like actual Tories aren't, to-a-person, jingoistic flag twirlers with a positively galactic superiority complex. It's quite incredible.

[CloudSquall]

The irony also is that a lot of what Corbyn was proposing mirrored what the SNP have done or want to do in Scotland.

[Mibbes Aye]

The irony also is that a lot of what Corbyn was proposing mirrored what the SNP have done or want to do in Scotland.

While I have been critical of Corbyn from the outset, I don’t think he ever proposed a council tax freeze, which was essentially a bribe to the middle classes, was of no benefit to the lowest earners and further hurt them by damaging council services that lowest earners are more dependent on.

A Tory policy that the SNP had the shame to make their claim to fame. Until the penny dropped and they scrapped it quickly.

At one election it was the lead policy in the manifesto, before they even mentioned campaigning for independence.

Not sure if that’s ironic or not. It certainly hurt the most marginalisied and vulnerable in Scottish society while giving the better-off a nice tax break.

[Curried]

There seems to have been a run of this type of pish from Labour over the last few weeks, now Murray’s done his bit for the party in Scotland.
Aye, they’ll be no democracy for you while I rule Red Morningside :-)


https://youtu.be/PiX8EaMKTHM

[CloudSquall]

While I have been critical of Corbyn from the outset, I don’t think he ever proposed a council tax freeze, which was essentially a bribe to the middle classes, was of no benefit to the lowest earners and further hurt them by damaging council services that lowest earners are more dependent on.

A Tory policy that the SNP had the shame to make their claim to fame. Until the penny dropped and they scrapped it quickly.

At one election it was the lead policy in the manifesto, before they even mentioned campaigning for independence.

Not sure if that’s ironic or not. It certainly hurt the most marginalisied and vulnerable in Scottish society while giving the better-off a nice tax break.

I don't believe I said he wanted to introduce a Council Tax freeze but if you want another excuse to get out another dose of SNP bashing knock yourself out:agree:

[ronaldo7]

https://mobile.twitter.com/GrayInGlasgow/status/1221487883112022016

"I hate the SNP. I hate the SNP"

This labour leadership contest is turning out as, who hates Scotland more.

Back in yer box type politics from the supposed international socialists.

[grunt]

A Tory policy that the SNP had the shame to make their claim to fame. Until the penny dropped and they scrapped it quickly.


You're complaining about a policy they've scrapped?

[ronaldo7]

You're complaining about a policy they've scrapped?

One which was fully funded by the Scottish government. In fact one independent report from spice said it was over funded.

I'm sure all parties had it in their manifestos in the end. That includes the third party in Scotland.

[xyz23jc]

One which was fully funded by the Scottish government. In fact one independent report from spice said it was over funded.

I'm sure all parties had it in their manifestos in the end. That includes the third party in Scotland.

The Greens? :greengrin:thumbsup::agree: