Current Affairs The Labour Party

[The binman chronicles]

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.

Is there a charter that says the centre-left MUST screw over the poor that I have missed? Labour 97 to 10 were a damn sight better than what came before and what has come afterwards. Still could have been better for sure but no one is perfect. So why can't a Labour leader address the universal credit issue, tackle homelessness, inequality in education, housing and health, whilst being pro-business and free market? There is no reason why.

Taxes will need to be raised to pay for this but if they are fair, open and don't look like they are specifically targeting a group that create a lot of the wealth then hopefully people will get behind it.

 

[carlos21]

Is there a charter that says the centre-left MUST screw over the poor that I have missed? Labour 97 to 10 were a damn sight better than what came before and what has come afterwards. Still could have been better for sure but no one is perfect. So why can't a Labour leader address the universal credit issue, tackle homelessness, inequality in education, housing and health, whilst being pro-business and free market? There is no reason why.

Taxes will need to be raised to pay for this but if they are fair, open and don't look like they are specifically targeting a group that create a lot of the wealth then hopefully people will get behind it.

I agree with what you are saying here.

 

[Milkman]

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

How on earth did you find that post patronising?

 

[The binman chronicles]

Tried that. Got rejected spectacularly by the public in 2015.

So if Ed Miliband tries something he gets one shot at glory and that is that for that brand of politics, but Corbyn can get as many shots as he likes? Which are more or less broadly alongside the ones spectacularly rejected in 83/87/92 and to a lesser degree but still nowhere close to winning 2017.

Then there is a fact that the voters gave Labour 3 massive election wins within that time from the centre-left. I think I can spot a pattern emerging in this...

 

[Jebus_lives]

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.

It doesn't have to.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Is there a charter that says the centre-left MUST screw over the poor that I have missed? Labour 97 to 10 were a damn sight better than what came before and what has come afterwards. Still could have been better for sure but no one is perfect. So why can't a Labour leader address the universal credit issue, tackle homelessness, inequality in education, housing and health, whilst being pro-business and free market? There is no reason why.

Taxes will need to be raised to pay for this but if they are fair, open and don't look like they are specifically targeting a group that create a lot of the wealth then hopefully people will get behind it.

Free market and deregulating was a key component to what led to the banking crash in 2008, arguably root cause as to why the UK finds itself in such a mess 11 years on. So you want more of the same, give people some tax credits to make up the short fall in a working wage...

 

[dannyboy]

So if Ed Miliband tries something he gets one shot at glory and that is that for that brand of politics, but Corbyn can get as many shots as he likes? Which are more or less broadly alongside the ones spectacularly rejected in 83/87/92 and to a lesser degree but still nowhere close to winning 2017.

Then there is a fact that the voters gave Labour 3 massive election wins within that time from the centre-left. I think I can spot a pattern emerging in this...

Bigger share of the vote than Blair in 2005 and they didn't need to cosy up to Murdoch either.

The political spectrum changes, Thatcher smashed the consensus apart when she came to power and now Labour are looking to do the same.The idea you can be static and just continue to parrot the centrist Blair line is exactly why Labour lost in 2010 and badly in 2015.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Free market and deregulating was a key component to what led to the banking crash in 2008, arguably root cause as to why the UK finds itself in such a mess 11 years on. So you want more of the same, give people some tax credits to make up the short fall in a working wage...

Again no one is frozen to act in exactly the same way. Tweaks to regulations for their and our own protection isn't smashing the free market. I think most people would see that as sensible. I'd expect that to have happened whether it was a right wing Tory party or a Labour on the other side. I think banks have to have more capital than previously and the investment arms have to be separate from the banking side(?) but I would certainly be happy to see more put in place.

Bigger share of the vote than Blair in 2005 and they didn't need to cosy up to Murdoch either.

The political spectrum changes, Thatcher smashed the consensus apart when she came to power and now Labour are looking to do the same.The idea you can be static and just continue to parrot the centrist Blair line is exactly why Labour lost in 2010 and badly in 2015.

Labour had already shifted two steps back to old(ish) Labour by the time 2015 arrived. I'll happily trade your bigger slice of the popular vote for 90+ seats and being sat in government.

I wouldn't disagree with you that the spectrum changes but what we have seen throughout the life of the (standard) Labour party is that yes it will be voted in when the public wants to give the Tories a good kicking, but it is almost as quickly kicked out as the nation (based on current voting regulations) is one that prefers a centre-right or even just right over a left leaning Labour government. And this was during times that Labour was more relevant as part of the big blocks of industry.

I can understand why Corbyn has appeal and the will to try something new but from my perspective all I can see is this not going down with the voters enough (as in winning constituencies - not the popular vote) or it being a flash in the pan and that doesn't really help anyone.

Time will tell.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Bigger share of the vote than Blair in 2005 and they didn't need to cosy up to Murdoch either.

The political spectrum changes, Thatcher smashed the consensus apart when she came to power and now Labour are looking to do the same.The idea you can be static and just continue to parrot the centrist Blair line is exactly why Labour lost in 2010 and badly in 2015.

Seems to be cherry picking is that. Firstly, the 2 main parties earned around 67% of the popular vote in 2005, versus over 80% in 2017, so it's perhaps fair to say that the opposition were not up to much, especially in the case of the LDs, who had 22% of the popular vote in 2005 versus 7% in 2017. It's hard to imagine many of those votes going to the Tories, and very easy to imagine many traditional LD supporters saw Labour as the only viable anti-Brexit ticket in town. I suspect that myth has largely gone now, and the LDs are consistently polling at about the same level as they did in 2005.

Secondly, regardless of whether we like it or not, we operate under a system where seats matter more than votes, and Blair won 90 more seats than Corbyn did, despite having fewer people voting for him. Heck, May had 4 million more votes for her than Blair did, yet Blair secured around 40 more seats than she did. The game is the game.

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

So if Ed Miliband tries something he gets one shot at glory and that is that for that brand of politics, but Corbyn can get as many shots as he likes? Which are more or less broadly alongside the ones spectacularly rejected in 83/87/92 and to a lesser degree but still nowhere close to winning 2017.

Then there is a fact that the voters gave Labour 3 massive election wins within that time from the centre-left. I think I can spot a pattern emerging in this...

The Labour party periodically suffers from the delusion that floating voters are driven into the arms of the Tories because it wasn't left wing enough.

 

[abelard]

Again no one is frozen to act in exactly the same way. Tweaks to regulations for their and our own protection isn't smashing the free market.

Smashing the free market?

Time to stop reading the tabloids.

The Labour party periodically suffers from the delusion that floating voters are driven into the arms of the Tories because it wasn't left wing enough.

On the other hand it persistently suffers from the delusion that the tabloids will play nice and that it can actually win Tory voters by offering 85% of Tory austerity, but Woke and with apologies.

Or that this quixotic attempt doesn't drive a far, far larger share of potential voters who actually want Labour to fight for them away from the polls altogether.

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

Smashing the free market?

Time to stop reading the tabloids.



On the other hand it persistently suffers from the delusion that the tabloids will play nice and that it can actually win Tory voters by offering 85% of Tory austerity, but Woke and with apologies.

Or that this quixotic attempt doesn't drive a far, far larger share of potential voters who actually want Labour to fight for them away from the polls altogether.

I'd be genuinely interested to see the data on that, as it's something I've often wondered about

 

[Black Belt Jones]

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.

This seems too focussed on labour's problems, in isolation. I mean you're not wrong, they are boxed in something savage with Brexit and the loss of Scotland, it would take some sort of LBJ figure to credibly steer their way out of that predicament in the timeframe available. But all you have to do to win an election is convince people that your party's horrible, intractable, stinking issues are not as bad as the other side. The fat, wheezing labour kid can easily outrun the bear if the Tory lad is an obese asthmatic.

The Conservatives have massive issues of their own, which hardly needs saying on here - coming up to ten years in power over a difficult economic period. That would be a hard sell for a decent government to win an election, nevermind the current Tory rabble who have governed very poorly. Invented Brexit then made a complete circus of delivering it, and currently being led by some absolute frauds who would fold in a campaign if put under serious pressure.

Any credible non Corbyn figure delivers this election for labour, hypothetically speaking, and it's not because they bring some novel insight into squaring the circle of Brexit, or some brilliant strategy to contend with the electoral arithmetic, or anything like that. It's because they're not JC and the Tories are a joke.
So it's understandabe that people feel exasperated with the complete mediocrity of Corbyn. (WTF is he even still here, for example? He could have cemented his legacy and politics in a labour government for years if he'd made choosing an electable successor his priority)

 

[abelard]

I'd be genuinely interested to see the data on that, as it's something I've often wondered about

Sure, look at Christoph Arndt's The Electoral Consequences of Third Way Welfare State Reforms: Social Democracy’s Transformation and its Political Costs

It is probably the most comprehensive recent study on this question.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Smashing the free market?

Time to stop reading the tabloids.

Such a boring and lazy retort. Someone doesn't agree with you whole heartedly = must get news from the Daily Mail and Twitter. Ok. Luckily we have you as a genuinely free thinker on here to show us errors of our ways...who also keeps on posting links to articles that back up or have influenced his own thinking...hmmm.

Actually instead of constantly regurgitating those lines, Labour supporters of Corbyn and the way the party is at the moment would be far better off trying to empathise with people who are unsure or have issues with the direction it has taken and then just put the positive spin that it will be ok based on x/y/z. By closing ranks and dismissing legitimate concerns they just appear as a cult which doesn't help get the votes they need.

To get back on point I didn't even say Corbyn is going to smash the market (which I don't believe he is), I just said further regulation isn't smashing the market from their (businesses) perspective. I do however believe a Labour government who implement the policies they are indicating they will, will send a shockwave through the market. But we have a Tory government who will do the same or likely worse with Brexit, so just a choice of which method you prefer.