Current Affairs The Labour Party

[mahermi1]

Do you think Corbyn would win this election?

No simply because his policies are not as popular with enough of the electorate to win an election, this is coming from someone who wanted Jeremy to win the two previous elections that he competed in. There was also far too much infighting with Labour when he was in charge, look now with what has happened with Diane Abbot, every time there is any sign of division within the Labour party the media multiply it a hundredfold, because it was Labour. The media gave Corbyn a terrible time, but Starmer has saw that and like Blair has changed to suit, I know you will probably laugh, but it has made the Labour party far more acceptable to the public. You can do nothing in opposition, something is better than nothing.

 

[mahermi1]

Well the first part of their yet to be published manifesto is...Bring down NHS waiting lists.
By how much, a day,a week? Someone waiting months for a triple bypass with be thrilled to hear that. Starmer has spent days speaking but saying nothing of substance.

The more he says the more it will be picked holes in, as I have said consistently the Conservatives have mucked up this Country and left us in a terrible state, it will take time and patience.

 

[davids]

No simply because his policies are not as popular with enough of the electorate to win an election, this is coming from someone who wanted Jeremy to win the two previous elections that he competed in. There was also far too much infighting with Labour when he was in charge, look now with what has happened with Diane Abbot, every time there is any sign of division within the Labour party the media multiply it a hundredfold, because it was Labour. The media gave Corbyn a terrible time, but Starmer has saw that and like Blair has changed to suit, I know you will probably laugh, but it has made the Labour party far more acceptable to the public. You can do nothing in opposition, something is better than nothing.

I'd have thought the tables have turned so much that this time Sunak is the unelectable one. Michael Foot would be the next PM after this election. You've highlighted my main point Blair and Starmer have watered down the Labour party so much it's now the homeopathic party.

 

[edge]

Do you think Corbyn would win this election?

No not even now if he were leader it would be a lot closer.
You need to spread your net a bit further than natural labour voters, he just didn't have .any appeal to them.

 

[mahermi1]

I'd have thought the tables have turned so much that this time Sunak is the unelectable one. Michael Foot would be the next PM after this election. You've highlighted my main point Blair and Starmer have watered down the Labour party so much it's now the homeopathic party.

They have watered it down they had to otherwise Blair would never have got power and Starmer wouldn't stand a chance, the bias media, the so called unbiased political commentators would see to that. You're point about Sunak being the unelectable one sounds good to me, but I don't trust the polls as much as most seem to do. Be honest when was the last truly Socialist, or even near enough Socialist Labour Government ? For me it was the Harold Wilson's, (loved him) regime back in the 60's. The World has definitively turned more moderate in modern time's, look around how many left wing Governments do you see.

 

[tsubaki]

Tsubaki isn't this what Tony Blair done in 1997, he changed traditional Labour policies to gain voters who wouldn't dream of voting for the Labour party, because at the time Labour was unelectable and as Blair said most of his time being a labour MP was spent in opposition. He said he/ Labour could do nothing in opposition, they needed to be in power to govern for people who had traditionally voted Labour all their lives, but we're denied a voice. So he decided to create New Labour that appealed to a greater variety of voted and New Labour went on to have their longest time I power.

So look today the Labour party have been in opposition for 14 years, isn't Starmer trying out the Blair way out of necessity ? As Blair found out then and was right Starmer is now going along the same path now, he needs to, to win the election. I know some people won't like it, but the alternative is simply another 5 years in opposition.

There is an awful lot that is very questionable here.

For a start, the change took place under Smith not Blair; just before he died they were twenty plus points ahead in the polls and had almost certainly would have won under Smith by a similar margin as they did under Blair.

Then you have "needed to be in power to govern for people who had traditionally voted Labour all their lives" - Labour did need to win for those people, but the reaction of many of those people to Blairism when it was in government was to stop voting Labour (or stop voting entirely). The destruction of the Labour vote in Scotland, and across much of the midlands and north, is a direct result of New Labour being trusted by those people and then letting them down.

Which of course then leads on to what Blair did with the mandate of 1997. He had the greatest opportunity that a PM has ever had to make this country into a better place - a favourable economy, favourable international situation and a big majority. He wasted it.

 

[tsubaki]

I fear that you are wasting your time here, mate. He is a Corbyn ideologue and part of the problem we face in trying to get rid of the nightmare that the country has been living through.

The lunacy of the situation is that many of us want the same sort of things but, as these threads attest, we are set upon eachother by the current political system.

What we all need are potatoes, lots and lots of potatoes

Ah yes, the Melchett approach to politics - lets do exactly the same things we've done the past twenty years, they are bound to get us out of the mess we are in.

 

[Xizor]

Do you think Corbyn would win this election?

Honestly, I'm not sure. If you took the country as it is, and have the Johnson>Truss>Sunak mess play out exactly as it did to ensure the same view of the Tories, I still think that the attack lines against Corbyn would make it competitive. The big question would be whether Reform would be playing so much of a spoiler role or whether the dislike of Corbyn would see them a bit less attractive for a lot of Tory voters.

I'd guess he probably would win, but it would be a tight victory with a small majority. This would probably end up badly for Labour as the party would be fractious under his leadership and he might struggle to do anything meaningful.

It is an interesting question though and a reminder of just how important timing is in politics - if Starmer had toppled Corbyn after 2017 and then lost badly to Johnson in 2019, he'd likely be gone already and who knows what Labour would look like now.

 

[mahermi1]

There is an awful lot that is very questionable here.

For a start, the change took place under Smith not Blair; just before he died they were twenty plus points ahead in the polls and had almost certainly would have won under Smith by a similar margin as they did under Blair.

Then you have "needed to be in power to govern for people who had traditionally voted Labour all their lives" - Labour did need to win for those people, but the reaction of many of those people to Blairism when it was in government was to stop voting Labour (or stop voting entirely). The destruction of the Labour vote in Scotland, and across much of the midlands and north, is a direct result of New Labour being trusted by those people and then letting them down.

Which of course then leads on to what Blair did with the mandate of 1997. He had the greatest opportunity that a PM has ever had to make this country into a better place - a favourable economy, favourable international situation and a big majority. He wasted it.

Appreciate the answer, but probably true about John Smith, thoroughly decent and popular man, who was took far too early from us. But was John Smith changing things before Blair too ? Who could honestly say. You say people stopped voting Labour, Tsubsaki, Blair had three terms, so it could not have been that many who stopped voting for him. Yes the Blair Government could have done better, but he got in by appealing to a wider section of voters. I would personally have liked him to repeal some of them anti union Thatcher laws.

 

[Blue 1]

No simply because his policies are not as popular with enough of the electorate to win an election, this is coming from someone who wanted Jeremy to win the two previous elections that he competed in. There was also far too much infighting with Labour when he was in charge, look now with what has happened with Diane Abbot, every time there is any sign of division within the Labour party the media multiply it a hundredfold, because it was Labour. The media gave Corbyn a terrible time, but Starmer has saw that and like Blair has changed to suit, I know you will probably laugh, but it has made the Labour party far more acceptable to the public. You can do nothing in opposition, something is better than nothing.

Corbyn didn't lose because of policy. His policies, when presented by themselves without people being told who was proposing them, were largely popular.

He lost because of the presentation, his own personal failings as a politician, a rabidly vicious and biased media, and the snides in his own party briefing against him and actively working to stop him reaching #10.

The same snides who Starmer is rewarding with safe seats.

 

[davids]

Honestly, I'm not sure. If you took the country as it is, and have the Johnson>Truss>Sunak mess play out exactly as it did to ensure the same view of the Tories, I still think that the attack lines against Corbyn would make it competitive. The big question would be whether Reform would be playing so much of a spoiler role or whether the dislike of Corbyn would see them a bit less attractive for a lot of Tory voters.

I'd guess he probably would win, but it would be a tight victory with a small majority. This would probably end up badly for Labour as the party would be fractious under his leadership and he might struggle to do anything meaningful.

It is an interesting question though and a reminder of just how important timing is in politics - if Starmer had toppled Corbyn after 2017 and then lost badly to Johnson in 2019, he'd likely be gone already and who knows what Labour would look like now.

For me the sad thing was most of the more damaging attacks on Corbyn were generated from within the party by people more interested in taking over the reigns of power rather than upholding the socialist principles of the Labour party.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Corbyn didn't lose because of policy. His policies, when presented by themselves without people being told who was proposing them, were largely popular.

He lost because of the presentation, his own personal failings as a politician, a rabidly vicious and biased media, and the snides in his own party briefing against him and actively working to stop him reaching #10.

The same snides who Starmer is rewarding with safe seats.

Up against ‘get brexit done’ with all tories refusing to discuss anything else he was on a hiding to nothing as Starmer would have been.

 

[davek]

"Corbyn this and Corbyn that"...the Labour leaders who cratered that party were centre ground politicians: Brown and Miliband. Corbyn got the party back on track as an electoral force in 2017; and at the 2019 'debacle' the party still got 10 million votes, which way outstripped Blair in his final election victory and Brown and Miliband's defeats.

The utter BS trotted out by some people. They should go and look at electoral performance between the left and centre-right leaders before they talk about success and failure. Just trotting out media lies won't cut it I'm afraid.

 

[Blue 1]

Up against ‘get brexit done’ with all tories refusing to discuss anything else he was on a hiding to nothing as Starmer would have been.

2017 was the one the snides ruined. That was the blown chance.

2019 they made a proper bollocks of, and were up against Johnson's bare-faced Brexit lies to a Brexit-fatigued electorate.

 

[davek]

Up against ‘get brexit done’ with all tories refusing to discuss anything else he was on a hiding to nothing as Starmer would have been.

It was his baby and his defeat...which is why it's laughable to pin the 2019 defeat on Corbyn.

The second referendum bright idea that the tit insisted having in the manifesto for fear of splitting the party handed Labour that defeat.

Only the feeble minded forget that...or the cynical.