Current Affairs The Labour Party

[peteblue]

To be fair though, Corbyn's credentials are no better, having been an officer in some small trade unions, flunking out of university and then becoming a Councillor and MP. It's not the kind of CV that would get you many senior positions.

I could find him a role collecting empty pint glasses if that would help.....

 

[tsubaki]

....the Party is now run by a left-wing membership who select union officials to be MPs and even elect the Party leader. i’m a Labour voter, but I recognise the Party alienate many traditional Labour voters. i’m frustrated because to win, this Labour Party needs appeal to people who voted Tory in previous elections.

This is a really depressing post - are you really saying that the party being run by its membership, selecting its prospective parliamentary candidates and electing the leader is a bad thing?

As for the frustration, I agree that the Labour Party needs to appeal to all voters. I'd just hope that voters would listen to what it is actually saying rather than repeating what the media or opponents drone on about, of which the "Labour is run by a cult" meme is by far the most annoying.

Finally Labour has always selected some union officials to be its MPs.

 

[dwightschrute]

I feel like survation always poll labour higher than all the other polls for some reason.

Are they tapping into a part of the population the others aren’t?

Survation excluded undecided from their 2017 prediction and predicted the young would turn up and vote in big numbers for Labour, while every other pollster predicted the young wouldnt turn up more than normal. Survation were the only ones who correctly predicted a hung parliament and had Labour correct

(Not saying they'll be the only ones right this time like, but still good numbers at this stage for Labour)

 

[Khalekan]

Not bad numbers at all compared to what Labour were polling this time in the election cycle in 2017 for Survation

Very encouraging indeed.

I was pretty depressed last night but I am more bullish about our prospects today.

When you think about it, what Farage did yesterday in running away fron the Tories is a sign of weakness.

One imagines both the Tories and Farage’s tribe of gullible idiots whom wasted their money buying a nomination have seen polls like that and the while Brexit cult has blinked in astonishment.

‘mon Jezza.....we’ll smite the buggers and kick Brexit into touch by summer

 

[Aberblue]

Not bad numbers at all compared to what Labour were polling this time in the election cycle in 2017 for Survation

It remains to be seen how the decision of the Brexit Company not to contest Conservative held seats will affect the polls. This survey was taken before that decision was announced.

 

[The binman chronicles]

The result was almost 4 million fewer votes in 2015 than in 2017, and exactly the same sort of hysterical shrieking in the media about deficits and national security that we see today. And the now likely permanent loss of Scotland.

That doesn't take into account the leaders at the time. Cameron's one nation Tories (HA!) were going to do better. By 2017 Corbyn's re-energised Labour were going to get more votes as soon as May declared 'The lady is not for campaigning' and crawled into a hole.

To know the true answer to these type of theoretical questions we would have to put Miliband of 2015 up against Johnson of 2019. In my mind he would be able to put up the same numbers (as in constituencies) or better than Corbyn. Obviously we'll never know so basing anything from it one way or another is just spin.

I agree Labour will get more votes in total under a leader like Corbyn but unless we get a PR system that doesn't exactly help.

 

[Eggs]

This is a really depressing post - are you really saying that the party being run by its membership, selecting its prospective parliamentary candidates and electing the leader is a bad thing?

As for the frustration, I agree that the Labour Party needs to appeal to all voters. I'd just hope that voters would listen to what it is actually saying rather than repeating what the media or opponents drone on about, of which the "Labour is run by a cult" meme is by far the most annoying.

Finally Labour has always selected some union officials to be its MPs.

...the membership selecting the leader sounds democratic and correct, but I honestly don’t think it works. Even the Tory Party MPs filter the candidates down to two.

The Milliband selection was the beginning of the end, with TU membership voting for the weaker candidate over the strong one. In my opinion, that was the start of the demise. MPs should have a strong part in selecting their leader, it almost acts as a safety net.

The Party governance is now bottom-up, it results in a very inward looking strategy that simply isn’t effective. Sadly, I can’t see anyway out of it unless there’s an influx of moderate members who change how things are done. The Party is run like a Trade Union and sadly much of the quality have moved out.

Andy Burnham and David Milliband two decent, intellectual MPs who have moved on after defeats by Ed Milliband and Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn beating Burnham, Ed beating David Milliband says the system is wrong. I’m a Labour voter but I don’t support them blindly.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Very encouraging indeed.

I was pretty depressed last night but I am more bullish about our prospects today.

When you think about it, what Farage did yesterday in running away fron the Tories is a sign of weakness.

One imagines both the Tories and Farage’s tribe of gullible idiots whom wasted their money buying a nomination have seen polls like that and the while Brexit cult has blinked in astonishment.

‘mon Jezza.....we’ll smite the buggers and kick Brexit into touch by summer

Oh ye of little faith...

Lots of pouted cheek and pursed lip from the liberal elite and it's chattering enablers with that poll.

 

[abelard]

disagree, i think alot of people who arent generally interested in politics would vote labour with a different leader and policies when up against johnson

Which leader, what different policies (lol), and what is their Brexit position?

That doesn't take into account the leaders at the time. Cameron's one nation Tories (HA!) were going to do better. By 2017 Corbyn's re-energised Labour were going to get more votes as soon as May declared 'The lady is not for campaigning' and crawled into a hole.

Sorry, do better than whom? May increased her share of the vote by 5.5%. She had a historically good election, unmatched since early Thatcher.

The only thing that stopped her from sweeping away everything in her path was Corbyn gaining an unprecedented surge in votes and performing almost as well.

So yes, Labour getting more total votes under a leader like Corbyn did help. It was the only thing that saved the Labour party.

To know the true answer to these type of theoretical questions we would have to put Miliband of 2015 up against Johnson of 2019. In my mind he would be able to put up the same numbers (as in constituencies) or better than Corbyn. Obviously we'll never know so basing anything from it one way or another is just spin.

I agree Labour will get more votes in total under a leader like Corbyn but unless we get a PR system that doesn't exactly help.

So, what is Milliband's Brexit policy then? How does he win Remainers without losing Leavers, or vice versa? Where are his same numbers or better than Corbyn coming from?

Given that he was utterly routed and humiliated in Scotland, possibly destroying Labour's hopes there forever (though it was not all his fault), it is safe to say that they aren't coming from there.

So how and where does a generic leader (aka a Miliband) perform better?

Regardless of the leader, Labour is in a terrible position because of Scotland and above all Brexit. Without Scotland, it was always going to be exceedingly difficult for any Labour leader to win power, never mind a majority. And Brexit makes everything worse, in either the North, the Southeast, or both.

I have still yet to see anyone who thinks a 'moderate' leader would automatically do much better explain how they'd overcome these any more effectively than Corbyn has. It is so far little more than idle speculation.

Corbyn as an emblem is not ideal (though as we know from 2015, anyone - no matter how moderate - will get the same press treatment), but the shift in policy and messaging and surge in party infrastructure that he enabled are the only reasons why Labour is even still competitive, and not the SPD or the French or Italian socialists.

 

[tsubaki]

...the membership selecting the leader sounds democratic and correct, but I honestly don’t think it works. Even the Tory Party MPs filter the candidates down to two.

The Milliband selection was the beginning of the end, with TU membership voting for the weaker candidate over the strong one. In my opinion, that was the start of the demise. MPs should have a strong part in selecting their leader, it almost acts as a safety net.

The Party governance is now bottom-up, it results in a very inward looking strategy that simply isn’t effective. Sadly, I can’t see anyway out of it unless there’s an influx of moderate members who change how things are done. The Party is run like a Trade Union and sadly much of the quality have moved out.

Andy Burnham and David Milliband two decent, intellectual MPs who have moved on after defeats by Ed Milliband and Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn beating Burnham, Ed beating David Milliband says the system is wrong. I’m a Labour voter but I don’t support them blindly.

I don't think that decision (in 2010) was necessarily the wrong result, though it was a bit of a fix.

David Miliband had a suspiciously easy political rise (SPAD, safe seat, straight into government), and the moment he was faced with any kind of actual challenge he buckled. Without having to learn a proper job or actually fight to get people to agree with him, he suffered when he suddenly encountered the sort of pressure that ministers are put under (as an aside, the way in which the political class develops and selects potential politicians is absolutely useless at preparing them for government; that is why they make bad decisions, implement them badly and basically 80% of why the country is in a mess).

That was why he was not a success as Foreign Secretary, failed to remove Brown even when urged and why he then lost the leadership contest. I am not sure he would have done any of the undoubted positives that his brother did either - ie: try to deal with the criminality of the media and prevent British troops being sent to Syria to fight Assad. His post-political career hasn't been exactly stellar too, obviously there is what happened with Sland but an even lower point is him being one of the best paid charity bosses in the world.

Burnham on the other hand should have won, probably by a long way if he had actually gone for it but when his time came he tried to triangulate instead - the result was that Corbyn roasted him. Politics is not a forgiving game.

 

[Eggs]

I don't think that decision (in 2010) was necessarily the wrong result, though it was a bit of a fix.

David Miliband had a suspiciously easy political rise (SPAD, safe seat, straight into government), and the moment he was faced with any kind of actual challenge he buckled. Without having to learn a proper job or actually fight to get people to agree with him, he suffered when he suddenly encountered the sort of pressure that ministers are put under (as an aside, the way in which the political class develops and selects potential politicians is absolutely useless at preparing them for government; that is why they make bad decisions, implement them badly and basically 80% of why the country is in a mess).

That was why he was not a success as Foreign Secretary, failed to remove Brown even when urged and why he then lost the leadership contest. I am not sure he would have done any of the undoubted positives that his brother did either - ie: try to deal with the criminality of the media and prevent British troops being sent to Syria to fight Assad. His post-political career hasn't been exactly stellar too, obviously there is what happened with Sland but an even lower point is him being one of the best paid charity bosses in the world.

Burnham on the other hand should have won, probably by a long way if he had actually gone for it but when his time came he tried to triangulate instead - the result was that Corbyn roasted him. Politics is not a forgiving game.

...I remember David Milliband being interviewed by Sky News foreign expert (Marshall? He’s left since). Anyway, Marshall is a very sharp mind, amazing knowledge of Middle East politics and interesting to listen to. He asked Milliband a lengthy question with very specific detail about a very specific incident. Milliband knew his portfolio to such an extent, he gave a full response with explicit detail.

Marshall recognised that Milliband had corrected something he asked but not in an obvious or point scoring way. He apologised to Milliband for not having his detail correct and thanked him for the way he responded.

That moment stuck with me. David Milliband had a big brain but he was a class act. There’s something very wrong with Labour when David Milliband and Andy Burnham are not only overlooked, they feel they have to progress careers away from Parliament.

I’d feel a whole lot better if they were running the show going into this election.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Sorry, do better than whom? May increased her share of the vote by 5.5%. She had a historically good election, unmatched since early Thatcher.

Miliband. Can we apportion partly some of May's increase because it was Corbyn as the opposition leader? Or is this totally not a reason in your mind?

The fact that as we push politics further away from the centre it is always going to re-energise the people who are for that branch but it is likely to cause a reaction on the opposite side too who may not have voted but will to stop Corbyn/Johnson* delete as required.

It's a bit like Batman/Joker being two sides of the same coin, one would not exist without the other. The reason the Tories could vote a BJ for a leader to turn it into an uber Tory party, is because of the strength of feeling against Corbyn to be able to take that risk. So by Labour going down this route is kind of creating it's own (or at least the people's) misery.

So, what is Milliband's Brexit policy then? How does he win Remainers without losing Leavers, or vice versa? Where are his same numbers or better than Corbyn coming from?

For fairness we would say similar to Labour's now or maybe even the Liberal policy, but that doesn't matter. Again it is something you can never do. We will never know. It is your belief that Corbyn is the best way for Labour and I don't agree. You can use those numbers to try and back this up, but those numbers cannot ultimately definitively compare as it was a different Labour leader against a different Tory one. With a different backdrop also.

So how and where does a generic leader (aka a Miliband) perform better?

My opinion is more of us that were on the fence during the last election (or even towards Tory) would vote for a generic middle of the road Labour rather than a Corbyn led one. I believe this would be enough to take seats in Conservative held marginals, instead of boosting majority numbers in safe seats and securing the youth vote elsewhere but not enough to start taking seats to win a majority at a GE. A lot of people don't like Johnson and a lot of people don't like Corbyn, there is not much middle ground here. Was the strength of feeling against Miliband as bad as it is under Corbyn? Nowhere close in my book which should in theory help the 'generic centre left leader'.

Labour is in a terrible position because of Scotland and above all Brexit. Without Scotland, it was always going to be exceedingly difficult for any Labour leader to win power, never mind a majority. And Brexit makes everything worse, in either the North, the Southeast, or both.

Totally agree with that - but this is why a true socialist Labour is difficult for me to understand. If Corbyn could turn Scotland back then fine, they could get 40+ seats to add to the total and not have to worry about trying to reach out to the on-the-fence Tory voters in England. But as that is unlikely, to gain power to be able help the poorest they have to do this.

I have said previously that during the last election I didn't really mind that the Tories won it (not that I voted for them directly), as it kept a nationalist coalition (Labour/SNP) ticket from happening. The only problem was that happened anyway with the DUP! Now as it looks like Scotland is lost whatever happens, I will much prefer a Labour/SNP government to prevent the other lot staying in power. So you may have others that think like that too but the people I talk to around here are definitely ABC (Anyone but Corbyn).

 

[neil999]

Which leader, what different policies (lol), and what is their Brexit position?



Sorry, do better than whom? May increased her share of the vote by 5.5%. She had a historically good election, unmatched since early Thatcher.

The only thing that stopped her from sweeping away everything in her path was Corbyn gaining an unprecedented surge in votes and performing almost as well.

So yes, Labour getting more total votes under a leader like Corbyn did help. It was the only thing that saved the Labour party.



So, what is Milliband's Brexit policy then? How does he win Remainers without losing Leavers, or vice versa? Where are his same numbers or better than Corbyn coming from?

Given that he was utterly routed and humiliated in Scotland, possibly destroying Labour's hopes there forever (though it was not all his fault), it is safe to say that they aren't coming from there.

So how and where does a generic leader (aka a Miliband) perform better?

Regardless of the leader, Labour is in a terrible position because of Scotland and above all Brexit. Without Scotland, it was always going to be exceedingly difficult for any Labour leader to win power, never mind a majority. And Brexit makes everything worse, in either the North, the Southeast, or both.

I have still yet to see anyone who thinks a 'moderate' leader would automatically do much better explain how they'd overcome these any more effectively than Corbyn has. It is so far little more than idle speculation.

Corbyn as an emblem is not ideal (though as we know from 2015, anyone - no matter how moderate - will get the same press treatment), but the shift in policy and messaging and surge in party infrastructure that he enabled are the only reasons why Labour is even still competitive, and not the SPD or the French or Italian socialists.

You're patronising manner shows exactly why you don't understand ordinary voters who aren't generally interested in politics but will have massive sway on the election result

 

[abelard]

You're patronising manner shows exactly why you don't understand ordinary voters who aren't generally interested in politics but will have massive sway on the election result

I am not running for election at this time.

Answer the question please.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

The fact that as we push politics further away from the centre it is always going to re-energise the people who are for that branch but it is likely to cause a reaction on the opposite side too who may not have voted but will to stop Corbyn/Johnson* delete as required.

The centre ground of politics surrendered any of its little legitimacy the moment it allows people working full time in need of benefits to live a life basic life in the UK, that's what the center ground has presided over, therefore the political centre ground can go forth and multiply.