So what now for the Labour party?
Discussion
El stovey said:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/emily-tho...
Thornberry vs Flint now over calling voters stupid row.
Thornberry's problem of course is that she has "previous" and now everyone gets to be reminded of it just in time for the leadership election:Thornberry vs Flint now over calling voters stupid row.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30139832
kev1974 said:
They seem to be all out blaming Corbyn himself now but I don't buy that, if it was entirely his fault then what happened in 2017?
Clearly the problem is partly Corbyn being utterly crap in his Andrew Neil and other interviews, but also a combination of the lack of a labour position on Brexit, the unaffordable see-thru magic money tree giveaway, the threat of McDonnell taking everyone's hard earned stuff and money away, the ludicrously nasty campaign on twitter and other social media directly by Labour and their acolytes, and the terrible shadow cabinet such as Abbott and Crayons. Also I suspect the general public see things like their Party Conference earlier in the year, which receive greater coverage these days, and just think "W.T.F.".
Heard a rumour that Corbyn will try to hang around until May to try to help Sadiq Khan get re-elected as London Mayor in May but not sure they can stretch it out that long, also not sure Corbyn will be that much of a help to Khan.
It does appear that they are going to try very hard to elect a woman leader, mostly "just because", as Labour is actually now the only UK party that hasn't already had a woman leader. I don't really care which one they go with, all of the contenders will be entertaining!
We have seen in Johnson that popularism is a vote winner. Despite who he is, and what he's done, people voted for him. Corbyn as well was a popularist, but he lacked the ability to carry it off long term. Whether Johnson can do so is up for argument. However, Blair came in as a young, thrusting pm, determined to change everything for the better, went into a war illegally, did much else that was wrong, but still, I believe, would have won the election for labour in 2017. Johnson came in with few expectations in most I would say. Clearly the problem is partly Corbyn being utterly crap in his Andrew Neil and other interviews, but also a combination of the lack of a labour position on Brexit, the unaffordable see-thru magic money tree giveaway, the threat of McDonnell taking everyone's hard earned stuff and money away, the ludicrously nasty campaign on twitter and other social media directly by Labour and their acolytes, and the terrible shadow cabinet such as Abbott and Crayons. Also I suspect the general public see things like their Party Conference earlier in the year, which receive greater coverage these days, and just think "W.T.F.".
Heard a rumour that Corbyn will try to hang around until May to try to help Sadiq Khan get re-elected as London Mayor in May but not sure they can stretch it out that long, also not sure Corbyn will be that much of a help to Khan.
It does appear that they are going to try very hard to elect a woman leader, mostly "just because", as Labour is actually now the only UK party that hasn't already had a woman leader. I don't really care which one they go with, all of the contenders will be entertaining!
I think that part of the problem is the method used to elect a leader in the labour party. It is left in the gift of unions to a considerable extent, and they have their own agenda. I don't see their choice being any more inspired than it has been in the past.
The labour party doesn't appear to stand for anything in particular. Whilst the majority of the electorate, and a massive majority of rail travelers, want the railway nationalised, most seem to draw the line either there or taking in the post office. Would being more pragmatic sell? It didn't with Corbyn and his 'I don't really care either way' stance at the election.
The local elections, where brexit is not a factor, will be interesting to say the least. In my constituency, there was a leap in the vote for the libdems. However, after a general election there is a honeymoon and this gives a boost to the incumbent party. After all, to suddenly change allegiance would suggest you were wrong last time. But four months is a long time in politics. The GE ran with Mogg and Gove kept under wraps to a great extent. When they did let the latter of his lead for a few minutes, he let his mouth run away. Who'd have thought?
With them both trying to push for what they want from brexit, it might put voters off.
It is a fascinating time in politics all the time, but now we are at a point that will be discussed, talked of and written about in years to come.
I'd like to see Starmer or Phillips come through as leader, but would lean towards Starmer. Once this Brexit nonsense has gone through, I think Starmer is the man to take apart Johnson's bluster on a weekly basis at PMQs - the way he ripped Steve Barclay a new one during one of the Brexit debates has stuck with me.
A lot of people seem to be saying that he's too London and won't energise the northern base, but the northerners voted for Johnson so that can't be their only criteria. If Labour had a leader tearing strips off the PM every week, it would surely energise all potential Labour voters
I don't expect it to happen though, the left will just vote through one of their own, the thought of Long-Bailey being the leader of the opposition is quite terrifying but she's the bookies favourite
A lot of people seem to be saying that he's too London and won't energise the northern base, but the northerners voted for Johnson so that can't be their only criteria. If Labour had a leader tearing strips off the PM every week, it would surely energise all potential Labour voters
I don't expect it to happen though, the left will just vote through one of their own, the thought of Long-Bailey being the leader of the opposition is quite terrifying but she's the bookies favourite
I think the open borders thing scared a lot of voters off, rightly or wrongly that was what Brexit was about for a lot of folk.
If you want to end austerity, spend more on services then the last thing you do is let the population the state has to accommodate burgeon further and further, its like pumping up a tyre you haven't actually fixed the puncture in.
Also, it seemed fashionable to call those voters dumb and racist, and I am damn sure some were but there are also a lot of pragmatists who aren't perhaps hugely political but have enough common sense to realise if you want services to cope it isn't just throwing more and more money at it, perhaps you need to keep the demand down on it as well.
Labour used to represent the interests of the working person, seems to be now a sideline to importing more voters and giving stuff away to those who aren't contributing, and not because they cant.
Diane Abbot I think didn't help, she cries sexism and racism to pretty much any criticism but she just doesn't come across as equipped to operate at that level, its not a gender or race thing, its the fact she seems a bit thick.
Corbyn made noises about having the wealthy over for a few quid, well guess what, they are cleverer and just f
k off, same with big corporations with loads of highly paid accountants and lawyers, its like amateur chess players vs Gary Kasparov. So, you know what happens next, anyone one on half decent money shackled into the PAYE system gets hit even harder than 42p in the pound we get taxed anyway. Whilst all those with cash businesses carry on with impunity.
If you want to end austerity, spend more on services then the last thing you do is let the population the state has to accommodate burgeon further and further, its like pumping up a tyre you haven't actually fixed the puncture in.
Also, it seemed fashionable to call those voters dumb and racist, and I am damn sure some were but there are also a lot of pragmatists who aren't perhaps hugely political but have enough common sense to realise if you want services to cope it isn't just throwing more and more money at it, perhaps you need to keep the demand down on it as well.
Labour used to represent the interests of the working person, seems to be now a sideline to importing more voters and giving stuff away to those who aren't contributing, and not because they cant.
Diane Abbot I think didn't help, she cries sexism and racism to pretty much any criticism but she just doesn't come across as equipped to operate at that level, its not a gender or race thing, its the fact she seems a bit thick.
Corbyn made noises about having the wealthy over for a few quid, well guess what, they are cleverer and just f
k off, same with big corporations with loads of highly paid accountants and lawyers, its like amateur chess players vs Gary Kasparov. So, you know what happens next, anyone one on half decent money shackled into the PAYE system gets hit even harder than 42p in the pound we get taxed anyway. Whilst all those with cash businesses carry on with impunity.I think it's going to be very hard for Labour to come back from this quickly. Assuming they install another union/momentum backed leader to replace Corbyn, then I fully expect them to lose the next election as well. The UK population is centrist at heart and will continue to reject a hard-line socialist agenda time after time. Their best chance of hoodwinking the electorate was back in 2017, but since then the veil has slipped and everyone knows full well what the UK would look like under a hard-left Labour government. Plus, you can add in the effect of the boundary changes which are bound to be implemented before the next election now that Boris has a massive majority. Another factor which I don't think has been mentioned yet is that now that many traditional Labour voters have been persuaded to vote conservative once, it's going to be much easier to persuade them to do so again. Boris knows this - hence his comments about votes being 'lent' and his visit to the North straight after the election to say thank you. I fully expect him to throw a lot of money into the North to consolidate his position there and make it doubly difficult for Labour to regain the seats lost this time round.
LetsTryAgain said:
Adjective: conservative
1. Averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.
Because they aren't conservative. They're a left wing party.
And no, Thatcher wasn't conservative either.
She did little to advance social or moral conservatism.
The conservatives have never believed that. The name comes from the definition.1. Averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.
Because they aren't conservative. They're a left wing party.
And no, Thatcher wasn't conservative either.
She did little to advance social or moral conservatism.
Edited by LetsTryAgain on Monday 16th December 07:23
OED said:
That conserves, or tends to conserve.
They didn't want to change laws unless it was necessary. Thus trying to conserve as much as possible of the existing laws. 230TE said:
El stovey said:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/emily-tho...
Thornberry vs Flint now over calling voters stupid row.
Thornberry's problem of course is that she has "previous" and now everyone gets to be reminded of it just in time for the leadership election:Thornberry vs Flint now over calling voters stupid row.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30139832
king hilarious...Derek Smith said:
It is a fascinating time in politics all the time, but now we are at a point that will be discussed, talked of and written about in years to come.
We think it’s all monumental at the moment because we’re living in it and it all gets blown up by 24 hour news and social media and people are all polarised and angry.In reality though, even on a recent U.K historic scale, it’s much less monumental than the global financial crisis or Blair’s victory in 97 or the suez crisis or black Wednesday (when interest rates went up to 15%) or the Cuban missile crisis or the falklands war or the gulf war or the Profumo affair or the Thatcher years etc. etc.
All the things that have happened in the last couple of years have also happened in recent history with landslide victories and parliament fighting government or proroguing and politicians lying and seats changing hands.
Obviously it’s newsworthy and part of our history but I don't think what’s going on at the moment, is as seismic as we might think.
We’re not at war, the economy is doing ok, people are generally enjoying a good quality of life, unemployment is low.
Look at brexit (so far) - dire warnings of financial meltdown, riots by leavers, sale of the NHS, no deal crash out. None of these things have happened. Boris looks set for a soft brexit with some issues to resolve but nothing insurmountable. The pound is holding, business is generally happy that the uncertainty is nearing an end.
Then look at the conservative victory, If you look at some social media you’d think the Nazis have just risen to power but we’ve actually got “one nation tory” Boris promising massive spending in public services and investment in poor parts of the country.
It all seems pretty good tbh.
El stovey said:
In reality though, even on a recent U.K historic scale, it’s much less monumental than the global financial crisis or Blair’s victory in 97 or the suez crisis or black Wednesday (when interest rates went up to 15%) or the Cuban missile crisis or the falklands war or the gulf war or the Profumo affair or the Thatcher years etc. etc.
It's more significant than Blair's victory or black Wednesday. Much more so than the Profumo scandal.I'd say it's like the 79 and 83 elections rolled into one. Andrew Neil was scathing about comparisons with the fall of the Berlin wall but I don't think they are that far fetched. The UK public have been given a choice between capitalism and hard left socialism and made their choice abundantly clear. It's going to be very difficult for the commies to come back from this, or even understand what's happened.
Dr Jekyll said:
It's more significant than Blair's victory or black Wednesday. Much more so than the Profumo scandal.
I'd say it's like the 79 and 83 elections rolled into one. Andrew Neil was scathing about comparisons with the fall of the Berlin wall but I don't think they are that far fetched. The UK public have been given a choice between capitalism and hard left socialism and made their choice abundantly clear. It's going to be very difficult for the commies to come back from this, or even understand what's happened.
Does the fact that you’re going on about commies suggest you might be a bit caught up in the hyperbole? I'd say it's like the 79 and 83 elections rolled into one. Andrew Neil was scathing about comparisons with the fall of the Berlin wall but I don't think they are that far fetched. The UK public have been given a choice between capitalism and hard left socialism and made their choice abundantly clear. It's going to be very difficult for the commies to come back from this, or even understand what's happened.
otolith said:
biggbn said:
I am fairly socialist in my thought and would like the Labour Party to remain a genuine alternative...but...that burgon fella has liability written all over him.
It's amazing that you can be caught lying through your teeth and still stay on in frontline politics.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47952275
Quite hard for him to attack Boris on dishonesty after that performance.
kev1974 said:
Heard a rumour that Corbyn will try to hang around until May to try to help Sadiq Khan get re-elected as London Mayor in May but not sure they can stretch it out that long, also not sure Corbyn will be that much of a help to Khan.
That’ll be a nonstarter for Khan. During the last mayoral election, Khan deliberately kept his distance from Corbyn and won it on his own merit at a time that was peak ‘Corbyn’.Corbyn is now toxic and Khan will want him as far away as possible during the next election. The fact they sit at completely opposite sides of the party won’t endear themselves to one another either.
230TE said:
I'm not even going to bother trying to unpick this one. Kippers for breakfast? Not today, thanks.
Why not?What’s to be unpicked?
They are a left wing party.
Shouldn’t be too difficult or time consuming for you to unpick...
Edited by LetsTryAgain on Monday 16th December 13:54
LetsTryAgain said:
Why not?
What’s to be unpicked?
They are a left wing party.
Shouldn’t be too difficult or time consuming for you to unpick...
I'm more used to defending the Tories against accusations of being far-right Fascists, worse than Hitler etc. Defending them against accusations of Trotskyism is likely to do my head in. If Boris renationalises the railways and ramps up taxes on higher rate taxpayers I might give your claim some consideration, but for now it's a bit What’s to be unpicked?
They are a left wing party.
Shouldn’t be too difficult or time consuming for you to unpick...
Edited by LetsTryAgain on Monday 16th December 13:54
.230TE said:
I'm more used to defending the Tories against accusations of being far-right Fascists, worse than Hitler etc. Defending them against accusations of Trotskyism is likely to do my head in. If Boris renationalises the railways and ramps up taxes on higher rate taxpayers I might give your claim some consideration, but for now it's a bit .
Well I’m right wing and I’d nationalise the railways tomorrow..But it’s far from a silly claim.
They ARE a left wing party.
They’re completely sold on our membership of the EU, which robs us of sovereignty.
They’re completely sold on the failed comprehensive education system experiment.
They’re egalitarian.
They’re against the traditional married family, which is the foundation of social and moral conservatism.
They’ve done nothing to reverse or undo the harm done by themselves and the Labour Party in the last 5 decades when it comes to the cultural and sexual revolution.
If you’re used to defending the Tories against claims of being too far right, you clearly spend some time arguing with half wits.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff