Current Affairs The Labour Party

Status
Not open for further replies.
The binman chronicles said:
In the last election the vote for both the Lib Dems and UKIP collapsed. The Lib Dems because they got in bed with the Tories which imho means a lot of them must have swung back to Labour. The UKIP vote could have been shared between the larger parties but whatever got added to Labour helps explain why their share of the vote spiked. Along with a the Tories in a mess it was always going to create a boost no matter how competent or not they looked.
Click to expand...

That really is not supported by the evidence, though. Most of the ex-UKIP vote went Tory, which is why their vote spiked. The reason that happened is because of the one dominant political issue of our age - Brexit - and that factor is still present, so to be more Remain than before doesnt really attract any extra voters. In fact if you look at one of the biggest studies done into how the 2015 vote voted in 2017, Brexit - and the possibility of stopping it - is the dominant reason why people voted.

The binman chronicles said:
To me Labour should seem together, there should be minimal in-fighting and questioning of the leader, any bad things should be dealt with swiftly and not let drag on (You know what I mean by that!). I still don't see that Corbyn has made peace with the centre left folk or offer policies that would help broker that.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the centre demand that he surrender as the price of peace - and even then it probably wont stop the conflict, because they will want control of the party back as well.
 
Number_25 said:
Contextualisation of the time period wouldn't go a miss here. Things had radically shifted toward the right, and the Labour Party needed reform in order to get into power. I accept that.
Click to expand...

With respect, thats nonsense. Blair won power from the centre. He made the party more electable by appealing to folk who float around there. I guess you could call that a move to the right, as any move away from the left is defacto a move to the right, but the country as a body hadnt really drifted anywhere.
 
davek said:
It's not winning power it's what you do with it that matters. You think three terms of Blair/Brown were a big step forward?
Click to expand...

This really is the issue here. If people are prepared to accept what Blair did - what he actually did, not the fantasy of reform that was flashed before us all at the time - then really they have no business commenting negatively on anyone.
 
roydo said:
With respect, thats nonsense. Blair won power from the centre. He made the party more electable by appealing to folk who float around there. I guess you could call that a move to the right, as any move away from the left is defacto a move to the right, but the country as a body hadnt really drifted anywhere.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that, after Thatcher and Major - the overton window hadn't shifted further toward the right?
 
Number_25 said:
Are you suggesting that, after Thatcher and Major - the overton window hadn't shifted further toward the right?
Click to expand...

I dont even know what the overton window is. Back then, folk were fed up with the Tories. Blair et al knew that, and they needed to appeal to enough floating voters in key marginals to get in. He did that, and some.

The country hadnt drifted anywhere at all. In the real world.
 
The binman chronicles said:
All this war crimes and murderous crap is exactly why Labour are doomed to failure. Even if they get elected it wouldn't last as a left wing party that doesn't serve the middle ground will be turfed out in next to no time.

We went to war off the back of a seismic event, it wasn't correct in the end but that is easy to say with hindsight. Bottom line is Blair took the party to win three GEs but he is a monster, however Corbyn is the best thing to happen despite already losing one to probably the weakest Tory government in history?? As a party Labour need to own the good and bad things Blair and the government at the time did as a collective and make the party electable (& not just for one election that people have voted out just to give a bloody nose) by claiming the centre and the left. Or stay out on the sidelines and throw rocks into the sea. Your choice people.
Click to expand...


Much context missing here, the financial sercurity of the country was much different back then. And course Labour under Blair benefited from this, however, they also contributed to financial markets crashing by allowing their need to deregulate and let them get rich mantra, to coin Mandleson They also furthered Private financial intiative in the NHS, disastrous on going consequences. Also foundation hospital status that led to Stafford NHS deaths and of course the billions wasted on the NHS IT systems. Failed in social housing. All lessons when a Government and Party is trying to be something it was never designed to be.

Lots is said about Corbyn losing election, however Labours plan was always to be 2020 at the time and were in the process of restructuring to centre left and developing policy to match. The fact they destroyed a conservative majority of what was to be routed at least a 60 seat majority in the era of fixed term parliaments was a small miracle. The vitriolic behaviour of centrist and the right leading up to purdah was something never experienced, but the fact this vitrolity is now amplified many times tells the opponents of centre left policy are running scared right behind their greed.
 
davek said:
It's not winning power it's what you do with it that matters. You think three terms of Blair/Brown were a big step forward?
Click to expand...

With the best will in the world. Yes! It is all about winning as you can't do naff all else. Anyone can be dignified, principled and learned in opposition, only when you get power do you understand the compromises that have to be made to be able govern well. You can't have it all your way, you can't just serve half of the people. New Labour was created because of that and look they won elections. I think services/welfare were looked after a little bit better than they are at the moment.
 
Number_25 said:
How did he do that?
Click to expand...

By not being seen as a hard left loon like Foot was. Or to a lesser degree, Kinnock, who lost an election by going all shouty at a rally in Sheffield imo.

I am sorry if my references might offend, but in the real world, folk dont talk constantly about politics, (Brexit aside atm, granted.), in a way that party members of any party do.

Generally, they want to like a PM, one that has some charisma, one that does not scare them.
 
roydo said:
By not being seen as a hard left loon like Foot was. Or to a lesser degree, Kinnock, who lost an election by going all shouty at a rally in Sheffield imo.

I am sorry if my references might offend, but in the real world, folk dont talk constantly about politics, (Brexit aside atm, granted.), in a way that party members of any party do.

Generally, they want to like a PM, one that has some charisma, one that does not scare them.
Click to expand...

So you'd agree that he shifted the party toward the right, in order to do away with concerns that the party had become too left wing - and thus incompatible with the views of the wider public?
 
Last edited:
roydo said:
Generally, they want to like a PM, one that has some charisma, one that does not scare them.
Click to expand...

That is true, though it should really be pointed out why people think someone they've never met and probably will never meet has charisma, or aren't scared by them. It is after all something that not unconnected to why Blair "got through" to them whilst Kinnock and Foot didn't as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top