Current Affairs The Labour Party

[The binman chronicles]

But to claim that replacing Corbyn with a Blair clone is the answer, when it was Blair who more than anyone else is responsible for 'losing' Scotland, is to take leave of political history and reality altogether.

You do realise the 2005 election was after the start of the Iraq war don't you? After the stop the war campaigns and he still had 41 seats in Scotland.

It is a total fallacy to believe that the reason why Labour have lost the last 3 elections is because they weren't left wing enough. What damaged the party was the in-fighting between them in the handover to Brown/Miliband/Corbyn and the shift away from New Labour. The heartlands would have still voted for Labour regardless and we would pick up enough blue seats to have a majority.

Of course that's not to say they were perfect, no government is, and they could have done better and indeed pushed harder on social inequality. Just through different means.

The only thing that is keeping Corbyn in the race is due to the nutter in no.10 and his horrific front bench. Had they had a stable centre figure instead Labour wouldn't even get a look in.

 

[catcherintherye]

You do realise the 2005 election was after the start of the Iraq war don't you? After the stop the war campaigns and he still had 41 seats in Scotland.

It is a total fallacy to believe that the reason why Labour have lost the last 3 elections is because they weren't left wing enough. What damaged the party was the in-fighting between them in the handover to Brown/Miliband/Corbyn and the shift away from New Labour. The heartlands would have still voted for Labour regardless and we would pick up enough blue seats to have a majority.

Of course that's not to say they were perfect, no government is, and they could have done better and indeed pushed harder on social inequality. Just through different means.

The only thing that is keeping Corbyn in the race is due to the nutter in no.10 and his horrific front bench. Had they had a stable centre figure instead Labour wouldn't even get a look in.

I'm not sure I can agree to it being "total fallacy" mate. Its's clearly more complicated than to say it's just that they weren't left wing enough, though to me it's very telling that on getting a left wing leader they win back millions of votes that were lost during the period of 97-15.

The problem Labour had in my opinion was that they took for granted whole swathes of their core vote. I don't think this was as strictly ideological as people make out, it was just deemed the most efficient was to win elections. It's very hard to argue with their results between 97-05 as well. Without winning enormous vote shares they won massive majorities. They recognised that the critical seats lay often in the south of the country and put a message to appeal to them. They also banked on the loyalty of areas that had always voted for Labour.

The difficulties come, partly due to our electoral system. Wider trends are often masked by what could be described simplistically as a somewhat undemocratic way we elect. However once you get over a tipping point, all of the seats tend to go. In Scotland they simply didn't recognise these changes and the dominos flew off in 2015. Their position on the Scottish referendum killed them and it's hard to see much of a way back. That, alongside the lack of more meaningful redistribution led people to draw the conclusion Labour were not representative of them.

The same is happening in Northern/Midlands UK too, with the exception being that we are not as long along the process and that they are politicised to the right more than the left (as with Scotland). It's a concern for Labour, and had they managed to bump Corbyn off I have little doubt much of northern England outside of City centre's would look like most of Scotland does now.

 

[abelard]

You do realise the 2005 election was after the start of the Iraq war don't you? After the stop the war campaigns and he still had 41 seats in Scotland.

People change their minds. The fact that people who supported the war in 2005 later turned against it after realising they'd been duped doesn't validate the initial blunder. Nor does it cancel out the long-term consequences at the ballot box.

he heartlands would have still voted for Labour regardless and we would pick up enough blue seats to have a majority.

Ah yes, the Blair gambit - "they will have no where else to go".

But they didn't go to other parties, they stopped voting altogether. Or, in Scotland, they switched to the SNP.

Corbyn did so well in 2017 not by appealing to Tories, but by appealing to people who otherwise wouldn't have bothered.

The number of people who don't vote but might if a candidate addresses their concerns is at least ten times larger than the number of regular but undecided voters.

Had they had a stable centre figure instead Labour wouldn't even get a look in.

I mean.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election

 

[catcherintherye]

Lol

You said he was part of the elite; on it being pointed out to you that your statement was nonsense you then accuse me of mental gymnastics whilst also changing your argument to something completely different to what you initially said.

Corbyn was born into privilege; he did go to a private prep school and a private grammar school, as a day student. That does not make him part of “the elite”.

In as far as an "elite" exist Corbyn is to many part of it (even going as a day pupil to a private school for some of his time). He's in the top 5-10%.

However the key for me is that you'd be hard pressed to suggest he's working on behalf of said "elite". Most of them hate him and have fundamental disagreements with him. I'm not sure anyone would seriously say Corbyn poses as a continuity of the ruling classes position.

People have no control what sort of family you are born into. You have control over what your values are. People should really only be judged on the latter.

 

[abelard]

People have no control what sort of family you are born into. You have control over what your values are. People should really only be judged on the latter.

Which is, ironically but not surprisingly, exactly the point the poster slating Corbyn for being elite was making in defence of private schools not long ago.

The implication is that you went to private school, your only honest option is to conduct yourself like Rees-Mogg, because you're inherently hypocritical if you actually try addressing the inequality that it represents.

 

[catcherintherye]

Which is, ironically but not surprisingly, exactly the point the poster slating Corbyn for being elite was making in defence of private schools not long ago.

The implication is that you went to private school, your only honest option is to conduct yourself like Rees-Mogg, because you're inherently hypocritical if you actually try addressing the inequality that it represents.

Thats a fair point and I didn't see that exchange.

You can criticise the institutions that exist without criticising those who attend them. One of my literary hero's (Orwell) attended Eton and chose to live his life fighting for ordinary people both here and abroad. To me there's no contradiction in that, and it's relatively straightforward, but I suppose people see offence where they want to see offence really (increasingly now).

 

[The binman chronicles]

People change their minds. The fact that people who supported the war in 2005 later turned against it after realising they'd been duped doesn't validate the initial blunder.



Ah yes, the Blair gambit - "they will have no where else to go".

But they didn't go to other parties, they stopped voting altogether. Or, in Scotland, they switched to the SNP.

Corbyn did so well in 2017 not by appealing to Tories, but by appealing to people who otherwise wouldn't have bothered.

The number of people who don't vote but might if a candidate addresses their concerns is at least ten times larger than the number of regular but undecided voters.



I mean.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election

May was not stable and folded like a deck of cards come the election time. She was also badly undermined...yet she still won a small majority.

Let's strip this back. So if Corbyn fails to become PM this time around and we're are not talking about a majority here, that still looks unobtainable despite the Tories having a mare to kick off this election, what next? Do we go further left? Have we failed because it is Corbyn and someone else would be able to win with the same policies? Or do you still blame it on Tony Blair and that the British voters are just self destructive?

While the voting system is the way it is you can't have your cake and eat it. You have to compromise to win elections outright and by not, Labour might have a rocky time at the head of a coalition which will see them jettisoned into space if they are not on top of their game and the policies don't return instant yields. Sad but true.

 

[abelard]

May was not stable and folded like a deck of cards come the election time. She was also badly undermined...yet she still won a small majority.

Erm... no, she didn't.

Corbyn overcame an enormous deficit in the polls via a massive surge in voter turnout. Even Conservative Party supporters on here acknowledge that he would have won had the campaign lasted an another week.

The possibility that any of his leadership rivals could have managed a similar showing is zero. And it would be insane for Labour not to learn from the enthusiasm his departure from Party orthodoxy generated.

Let's strip this back. So if Corbyn fails to become PM this time around and we're are not talking about a majority here, that still looks unobtainable despite the Tories having a mare to kick off this election, what next? Do we go further left? Have we failed because it is Corbyn and someone else would be able to win with the same policies? Or do you still blame it on Tony Blair and that the British voters are just self destructive?

While the voting system is the way it is you can't have your cake and eat it. You have to compromise to win elections outright and by not, Labour might have a rocky time at the head of a coalition which will see them jettisoned into space if they are not on top of their game and the policies don't return instant yields. Sad but true.

If Labour doesn't win Corbyn should be replaced immediately, by somebody who will continue to champion policies which are overwhelmingly popular with the public rather than by somebody who will resume championing policies which are popular with Rupert Murdoch or the CBI.

 

[dwightschrute]

If Labour doesn't win Corbyn should be replaced immediately, by somebody who will continue to champion policies which are overwhelmingly popular with the public rather than by somebody who will resume championing policies which are popular with Rupert Murdoch or the CBI.

Correct, without Corbyn there wouldn't be Corbynism and a left wing major party in the UK. But he's just the vehicle to get through these policies and not some Christ like figure we all worship like every paints us as. The policies are what we are fighting for and I'm sure if we lose this election we'd elect RLB or Piddock or someone else as leader providing they continue the good fight and dont succumb to being lukewarm tory-lite where people will just vote for the real thing like in 2015

 

[The binman chronicles]

If Labour doesn't win Corbyn should be replaced immediately, by somebody who will continue to champion policies which are overwhelmingly popular with the public rather than by somebody who will resume championing policies which are popular with Rupert Murdoch or the CBI.

What difference will that make though? Maybe it will pull a few more votes as Corbyn's image has been tarnished but most of the country vote for what the party promises to do and not the leader themselves. The media will still have their crosshairs aimed at whoever picks up and runs with the same policies ready to knock the new person down.

So just from my humble point of view a slight twist will make all the difference. Say instead of targeting landlords (some might have lucked into second home ownership - in fact I know someone who has) why don't labour come out and say they will kick-start the biggest social housing building programme (happy @tsubaki ?) since WWII. That way the end result is the same, more housing available. The council get assets which they can eventually sell to the tenants (once the build has been paid) at discounted rates, which they should use to build more. Private rents and house prices should go down due to the increased availability. That sounds a positive policy to announce, instead of one targeting people who have helped themselves. Later on policies can be put in place to curb the Fowler's and Rodgers' property empires of this world with capped rents and gains taxes, but these are on the down low.

 

[zzr45]

Which is, ironically but not surprisingly, exactly the point the poster slating Corbyn for being elite was making in defence of private schools not long ago.

The implication is that you went to private school, your only honest option is to conduct yourself like Rees-Mogg, because you're inherently hypocritical if you actually try addressing the inequality that it represents.

Hang on, I seem to remember others in that debate suggesting that private schools are breeding grounds for the elite, who have suddenly come to the defence of them now people have inconveniently remembered that Corbyn went to one. So are they a breeding ground for the elite, or are they actually a school, albeit with higher quality of education (mainly) for parents that have the luxury of paying for it?

As @catcherintherye says, that percentage that go are very fortunate. To then go on and spend an entire working life (pretty much) within the political circle is extremely lucky. But to include themselves in the struggles that the less fortunate have with the word 'we' in speeches is grating.

An old video now, but one that for me encapsulates that perfectly.



There's a young bloke that gives his opinion a few times in this. It's absolutely clear that he cannot emphasise with the Labour party, nor can a party activist really emphasis with him. The political classes/elite/privileged using the word 'we' to connect themselves to the issues that those people face is frankly, insulting.

Nobody is saying don't represent those struggles, but don't pretend you're living it when you aren't, especially for those people at the bottom that in all reality can't tell the difference between you and 'the Elite' that you tell them are holding them down.

A story I've shared before, but I will inevitably again. When it all came out that it was a travesty that teachers were being forced to buy supplies out of their own cash, I pretty much shrugged. It was happening in the school I was at in 2000. It wasn't exactly anything new. Stoke being 10 miles down the road, I have no doubt it was happening there too. To most people, it's just another gang of b*stards about to come in. They'll still get shafted no matter what happens in their mind.

 

[dwightschrute]

What difference will that make though? Maybe it will pull a few more votes as Corbyn's image has been tarnished but most of the country vote for what the party promises to do and not the leader themselves. The media will still have their crosshairs aimed at whoever picks up and runs with the same policies ready to knock the new person down.

So just from my humble point of view a slight twist will make all the difference. Say instead of targeting landlords (some might have lucked into second home ownership - in fact I know someone who has) why don't labour come out and say they will kick-start the biggest social housing building programme (happy @tsubaki ?) since WWII. That way the end result is the same, more housing available. The council get assets which they can eventually sell to the tenants (once the build has been paid) at discounted rates, which they should use to build more. Private rents and house prices should go down due to the increased availability. That sounds a positive policy to announce, instead of one targeting people who have helped themselves. Later on policies can be put in place to curb the Fowler's and Rodgers' property empires of this world with capped rents and gains taxes, but these are on the down low.

Corbyn promises ‘largest council housebuilding programme for a generation’

Labour leader pledges to increase funding for new homes

www.insidehousing.co.uk

 

[The binman chronicles]

Corbyn promises ‘largest council housebuilding programme for a generation’

Labour leader pledges to increase funding for new homes

www.insidehousing.co.uk

I heard what he said. Make more of it - that said 30 years, I'm talking since the war. Then they shouldn't have to target the landlords. Or he can say what he said and don't go after another set with negativity. No point winning votes one side and then knocking a load off the other side.

 

[catcherintherye]

Hang on, I seem to remember others in that debate suggesting that private schools are breeding grounds for the elite, who have suddenly come to the defence of them now people have inconveniently remembered that Corbyn went to one. So are they a breeding ground for the elite, or are they actually a school, albeit with higher quality of education (mainly) for parents that have the luxury of paying for it?

As @catcherintherye says, that percentage that go are very fortunate. To then go on and spend an entire working life (pretty much) within the political circle is extremely lucky. But to include themselves in the struggles that the less fortunate have with the word 'we' in speeches is grating.

An old video now, but one that for me encapsulates that perfectly.



There's a young bloke that gives his opinion a few times in this. It's absolutely clear that he cannot emphasise with the Labour party, nor can a party activist really emphasis with him. The political classes/elite/privileged using the word 'we' to connect themselves to the issues that those people face is frankly, insulting.

Nobody is saying don't represent those struggles, but don't pretend you're living it when you aren't, especially for those people at the bottom that in all reality can't tell the difference between you and 'the Elite' that you tell them are holding them down.

I think lots of things are true at once. It's like the media debate. Some people say they reflect wider opinion, others say they exist to undermine parties like Labour. Both have aspects of truth to them. There is an editorial line, but people also have agency.

Private schools are also not a monolithic bloc. There is little doubt that those who attend (including Corbyn) are amongst the most privileged in society. I'd also say that many of them exist with the intention of providing the next managers of the ruling class. The take up from particular schools, to Oxbridge, via certain courses, to then aspects of the civil service/politics/media/legal professions are quite clear on this. I'm not sure how much experience you've had of them, but it's pretty explicit in many that this is their function.

However people do not automatically follow that trajectory. For many it grates upon them and they choose to oppose it. In truth I came from a fairly average family, went to a state grammar school and didn't like the messaging and value set of said school. As a result I've always opposed selection as a result of that (it's probably a whole other story in there!).

The 2nd part is a worthwhile point as well. I recognise bits of it in myself. It's a natural tendency and you have to try to check against it. The left has to be far better at championing the voices of ordinary people, be they working class, black, asian, female, LGBT etc. We have to be better at listening to people outside of our ranks. To me too many people on the left see it as almost a therapy group to get out their own personal gripes, rather than a tool to try to change society for people well beyond our ranks.

If you approach the left in that way, to me it doesn't matter what social class you are from then you are an asset. If all you want to do is tell people how hard done by you are, then it falls down a little bit. It's obviously harder for Corbyn, having the background he has, but I've never taken the view that only ordinary people should be involved in the left.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

If Labour doesn't win Corbyn should be replaced immediately, by somebody who will continue to champion policies which are overwhelmingly popular with the public rather than by somebody who will resume championing policies which are popular with Rupert Murdoch or the CBI.

He most certainly has won the democratic mandate to lead Labour in this election, if he were to fail he should step aside, and I also fully expect him to after a first term of being PM. He is bang on the money about entitlement and power, not just through wealth, it seeping it's way into academia with high handed slap downs, that has emotional intellect of a traped rat.