1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

Next Labour Leader II

Discussion in 'off topic' started by Sue Pertwee-Tyr, Jan 11, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Brian

    Brian Eating fat, staying slim

    Not at all. Just saying how it is.
     
  2. gavreid

    gavreid pfm Member

    Labour is on a relative high in terms of its number of councillors, having won back a lot of the losses from the Blair/Brown era.
     
  3. Brian

    Brian Eating fat, staying slim

    So you think people who voted tory to get brexit done should immediately flip back to Labour? I’m not getting your thought process here if that’s what you mean. Many Labour voters will continue to feel let down by Labour ignoring the outcome of the referendum, they will vote accordingly for some time to come, imo.

    The LibDems are an irrelevance other than how they contribute to helping the tories into govt.
     
  4. Tony L

    Tony L Administrator

    The message from the ‘true Corbynites’/defeat apologists was that Labour’s policies were popular on the doorstep, but the Brexit strategy wasn’t credible. The latter is no longer a factor as Labour will have next to zero part to play in Brexit for the next four years, but Labour councils may be able to implement some of the other “popular” ideology. Either that or the party is just screwed!

    FWIW my view is the Tories only have the northern working class vote on loan, mainly for Brexit, but partly because Corbyn was so hopeless. Those votes will return, and local councillors are not Corbyn/McDonnell etc.

    PS Covid-19 is likely to be far more of a factor than anything else IMO, e.g. no way in hell am I going into a polling station with this thing around! It could actually be very interesting as the virus seems to hit so much on an age demographic, as does voting with Labour voters younger and healthier, rancid right-wingers older, and the latter may well be staying at home. If Labour can really mobilise their young vote they could likely clear up in May (as will the LDs, Greens, SNP etc). The Tories and UKIPers will either be hiding at home or fighting over ventilators in hospital.
     
  5. h.g.

    h.g. pfm Member

    I doubt the public will have observed much change of significance in labour by May, the libdems have a very low profile at the moment and the conservatives haven't yet revealed which way they will jump. To the extent national politics influences local elections I would not be expecting it to have changed much since the general election.

    If Starmer wins and starts off by appeasing the hard left rather than digging them out (he obviously has to make placating noises to get elected) then anything other than a bad result is likely to reinforce this position. Labour will then remain neither hard left or centre left and unable to pull together in one direction. Under Corbyn the direction of evolution was at least clear enabling people to make a decision about whether to move away. Not sure how clear this will be under Starmer if he wins as seems likely at the moment.
     
  6. Woodface

    Woodface pfm Member

    Local elections are very different to GEs, often a way of giving incumbent Govt a bloody nose (this happened with Blair/Brown certainly). When I am voting for a councillor I always look to see whether they live in the relevant parish, this has caused me to vote Lib Dem on occasion.
     
  7. gavreid

    gavreid pfm Member

    The cumulative losses in number of councillors was substantial, and that's the era that you and others hark back to. Remember too that they lost their majority in the Scottish parliament to the SNP in 2007

    1998 88
    1999 1161
    2000 568
    2001 0
    2002 334
    2003 833
    2004 464
    2005 114
    2006 319
    2007 665
    2008 331
    2009 291

    Total during Blair's 'popular' years 5168. These people started to let us down from the moment they were in office, and with the largest majority imaginable, by accepting the Tory fiscal rules.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2020
  8. Seanm

    Seanm pfm Member

    Really think you would find this helpful:
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/01/labour-leadership-contest-new-factions
     
  9. gassor

    gassor There may be more posts after this.

    No, it's not any sense the equivalent of jabbing my finger in your chest. I'm trying to get to specifics that's all, but maybe you see it as shouting at myself again!
     
  10. Seanm

    Seanm pfm Member

    I mainly come on here to shout at myself so there was possibly some projection.
     
    Tim Jones and gassor like this.
  11. Brian

    Brian Eating fat, staying slim

    What is it specifically you trying to get at, gassor? Do you live in an alternatve universe, blissfully unaware of what the tory government has been doing?

    Since the Tory government’s imposition of austerity a decade ago, councils have lost about half of their central government funding. As supposed compensation, they have been allowed to keep more of their own revenue. Planned changes may give prosperous areas a huge advantage over poorer communities by allowing them to raise more money through council tax and business rates, while having fewer social needs.
    Source : https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ouncils-suffer-tory-cuts-most-ignored-scandal

    Labour MPs have expressed their fury after Tory rebels dropped their objections to council cuts because of a new £300m government fund to ease funding difficulties in mostly wealthy Conservative-run areas.
    .

    .
    several Tory MPs openly acknowledged they were persuaded to back the government only after the new “transitional relief” was announced, of which about 83% will go to Conservative councils.
    .
    .
    Graham Stuart, Tory MP for Beverley and Holderness, expressed delight that the lobbying campaign for more money for rural areas had paid off.

    Source : https://www.theguardian.com/society...nd-ease-council-cuts-conservative-authorities

    I'm guessing you'll complain this is from the Guardian, but the reality is you're aware of this anyway and are supportive of it because it is negative for Labour.
     
  12. h.g.

    h.g. pfm Member

    Thanks for the link but I had already seen it a few days ago. I am not much interested in the various sub-groups within the labour party beyond the split between faith (hard left) and rational/evidence based (centre left, soft left, etc...). The latter will largely trust each other, make compromises and pull together in pretty much the same direction. The former will not because of their faith. It is like "subjective audiophiles" and "objective audiophiles" who cannot pull together in the same direction because they reason in a different and incompatible way. The former are also incompatible with reality which becomes relevant when they try to get things done in the real world as the uselessness of the hard left controlling the labour party has demonstrated in spades over the last few years.

    If the centre left dig out the hard left will they address what needs fixing economically? I am pretty confident they can be trusted socially but they supported and drove forward centre-right economics to the point of collapse when they were last in power. It is hard at the moment to separate what is being said to get elected given the current audience and what is actually likely to be done if Starmer becomes leader and comfortably wins the next election due to a large drop in social and economic conditions.

    Our skewed wealth distribution and what flows from it is by far our biggest problem at the moment and neither our current government (obviously) or a possible next labour government is talking about or facing up to what needs to be done to turn back towards a more stable distribution. I would love to believe this is because the forthcoming labour leadership doesn't want to pick an all-in fight with the 1% while out of power but I have strong doubts.
     
  13. Seanm

    Seanm pfm Member

    What can you say to someone who politely insists that they're not interested in facts or analysis, before expounding a political cosmology based on the great struggle between Faith-Based Idiots and Evidence-Believers?

    Large parts of your analysis are unarguable but when you get to the details and the prescriptions it’s just fantasy, real unicorn stuff, because you pointedly refuse to engage with reality.
     
    ks.234 likes this.
  14. ks.234

    ks.234 pfm Member

    The fundamental reality being, of course, that moderate centrist politics do not serve the 99% or address the growing influence and wealth of the 1%. The history of the last half century is testament to that bald arsed fact. All we have seen from the militant moderates for decade after decade is more and more tacking to the right, and when that has been demonstrated to have failed, the only answer from the centrist faithful is to tack even further away from the 99% and more and more to the 1%.

    Faith has little to do with reality
     
    Seanm likes this.
  15. Tim Jones

    Tim Jones pfm Member

    Your definition of a "fact" is pretty out-there.
     
    Weekender likes this.
  16. Colin Barron

    Colin Barron pfm Member

    What you can say is that Labour lost the last election and will continue to lose elections in the future unless they listen to the electorate.
    This is a short reminder:
     
  17. Del monaco

    Del monaco Del Monaco

    Watched Nandy on GMB being grilled by the odious Morgan. I’m increasingly impressed with her. Morgan drilled in and gave her a hard time towards the end of the segment but she remained calm, composed natural. She appears serious and sincere. She also made him look childish which I think he did not like. He likes to win and interrogates like Paxman lite. Not sure that she would make the Leader but she will be an intelligent and fair ally at the very least.
     
  18. Seanm

    Seanm pfm Member

    The question is what it means to listen. The Tories' data scientists and propagandists "listen" very closely to people, by spying on them and polling them. They've uncovered vast reserves of frustration and have become experts in channelling it into spiteful, racist policies that render it harmless to the wealthy but very dangerous to marginalised people and the fabric of society as a whole.

    For a long time Labour has listened to the same noise and said, "How awful these people are! But in order to help them we must first listen to their awfulness and find ways to appease it!" Obviously this can't be done and it just helps the Tories, who can really commit to racism and spite. In any case, both the Tories and Labour have listened very intently to people - in the same way that conmen listen to marks (Tories), or cops listen to drunks (Labour), for signs of weakness or impending violence, with a view to manipulation and pacification.

    What Corbynism failed to do, despite some good intentions, was to build frameworks for actually listening to people - that is, for allowing people to come together and discuss matters that are important to them knowing that they could directly influence events.

    That kind of listening really puts the sh_ts up both the right and the centre. They will not countenance it and one of the reasons they came together together to fight Corbyn was that they sensed that this was the way things were heading: open selection, constitutional convention, workers on boards, no no no! Tories are instinctively aware that if people actually feel empowered they're going to demand real change, of the type that threatens privilege. Centrists are very committed to the idea that people are malicious idiots whose lot can only be improved by an enlightened caste i.e. themselves.
     
  19. deanf

    deanf pfm Member

    Corbynistas don't want to listen, and they certainly don’t want to change. I’m not sure what gave you that idea.

    What would you want to write a new speech when you’ve got a perfectly good one from 1983 that still gets a round of applause?

    ( :) )
     
  20. Seanm

    Seanm pfm Member

    Putting to one side the very unifying comment about the majority of members, can I ask what you think listening to the voters means?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice