Current Affairs The Labour Party

[davek]

I sincerely hope you’re just a vocal minority, otherwise welcome to another decade of Tory rule.

A Starmer government would be a continuation of Tory rule, just as Blair was.

We need either for the left within the LP to stand tall and demand a left set of policies to be maintained by Labour, or form a new party with the cash from left wing unions who (again) disaffiliate from the LP.

This unctious get Starmer and his front banch of weasels wont be getting my vote.

 

[Amw79]

A Starmer government would be a continuation of Tory rule, just as Blair was.

We need either for the left within the LP to stand tall and demand a left set of policies to be maintained by Labour, or form a new party with the cash from left wing unions who (again) disaffiliate from the LP.

This unctious get Starmer and his front banch of weasels wont be getting my vote.

No. Tory rule would be a continuation of Tory rule.

Splitting the Labour Party would result in neither being elected, barring a change to PR.

Voting under first past the post has always been a “choosing the least bad option” vote.

To not vote for Labour in the next election, is a tacit acceptance of Tory rule, so accept your new status as a boot licking serf.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

I see Labour have also sacked three junior shadow ministers who joined with Jeremy Corbyn.

 

[catcherintherye]

A Starmer government would be a continuation of Tory rule, just as Blair was.

We need either for the left within the LP to stand tall and demand a left set of policies to be maintained by Labour, or form a new party with the cash from left wing unions who (again) disaffiliate from the LP.

This unctious get Starmer and his front banch of weasels wont be getting my vote.

I can see Starmer winning in a few years actually, but the rest you say will also come true.

The real worry with this, is the far right with fascists it it's core will greatly benefit in working class communities. We know they already have a not insubstantial base in those areas, and a Labour government, presiding over an economic mess with essentially further austerity will push people towards fascistic ideas.

A similar worry is in America too, with Biden as president. The right are openly organising armed squads and opposition will be mounted from day 1.

All the while the centrists continue to attack the left, they feed into this as well.

 

[catcherintherye]

No. Tory rule would be a continuation of Tory rule.

Splitting the Labour Party would result in neither being elected, barring a change to PR.

Voting under first past the post has always been a “choosing the least bad option” vote.

To not vote for Labour in the next election, is a tacit acceptance of Tory rule, so accept your new status as a boot licking serf.

I can definitely see sense in a short-medium term plan of vote Labour. I've always voted Labour, whoever was leader. However, until we build an orgaised counter weight to the left of Labour, that they actually start fearing losing votes too (akin to UKIP/Tory dynamic) the left will remain impotent.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

A Starmer government would be a continuation of Tory rule, just as Blair was.

We need either for the left within the LP to stand tall and demand a left set of policies to be maintained by Labour, or form a new party with the cash from left wing unions who (again) disaffiliate from the LP.

This unctious get Starmer and his front banch of weasels wont be getting my vote.

We need the far left to go back to their natural parties and Labour to remain the moderate voice of the left. Though it does seem Labour are now pushing these sorts out.

If the parties that are more in tune with your political ideals, Dave, Socialist, Communist parties etc are what the masses want then they'll get into power. Be brave, stand by your convictions comrade.

 

[Amw79]

I can definitely see sense in a short-medium term plan of vote Labour. I've always voted Labour, whoever was leader. However, until we build an orgaised counter weight to the left of Labour, that they actually start fearing losing votes too (akin to UKIP/Tory dynamic) the left will remain impotent.

Think this is fair. But one of the problems in the left for many years has been chasing idealism, rather than pragmatism. There’s no such thing as a perfect party, compromise is at the heart of party politics. The tories are very good at this. No matter how divided they are, they know that being in power, imperfectly, is better than being out of power.

 

[BlueToff]

Starmer is much more likely to get Labour in power than Corbyn was.

 

[catcherintherye]

Think this is fair. But one of the problems in the left for many years has been chasing idealism, rather than pragmatism. There’s no such thing as a perfect party, compromise is at the heart of party politics. The tories are very good at this. No matter how divided they are, they know that being in power, imperfectly, is better than being out of power.

Yes they are a very resilient organisation.

It's hard with Labour though, as frankly there is a group of people, who a particular ideological wing of the party who are unhappy to be anything other than in charge. If they are not in charge, they look to sabotage from within. It's very hard to forgive that behaviour. It's sort of like if you were playing a football match, you'd dislike your opponent, but probably dislike someone a lot more if he started scoring own goals and deliberately helping your opponent unless they got to becaptain and take the penalties. Now they are back being captain and going on about how rubbish we were when we lost (largely due to their own goals) and also the need for unity. It sticks in the throat a bit.

As for the left, for the most part it is clueless on power and you are right to say doesn't think enough in those terms. You have lots of people on the left, who are still desperately trying to tell people to stay in Labour to recapture it, with seemingly no real analysis or understanding of why it failed last time? Say they are successful again (which they/we won't be) what is going to stop it being exactly the same result again?

I'll be frank, I don't think there will ever be a successful left led Labour party. People point to Atlee, but he himself wasn't a massive left winger, he just existed in times where the argument had shifted. The Labour Party is not going to magivally become a Syriza/Left Bloc/Die Linke type "party of protest" (to coin Paul Masons phrases before he dropped that idea for the next bandwagon to jump on).

I am quite relaxed about Labour. If people won't want to vote for Labour, thats up to them. Personally I will, but I understand why you wouldn't. I think the bigger mistake in this context though, is to go ploughing endless energy into an organisation in the hope you might one day run it. I mean if people want to do it, again good luck to them, but the alleged intellectual leaders are just leading people down a trap. You either make peace that you are helping what will always be a fairly moderate party who will govern for the rich at times of crisis (with a few more crumbs being given out to the rest) or you havw a way of squring the contradictions above that I can't see.

I should add, it is possible to look to build an alternative on the ground, but also vote for Labour in the short/medium term. It'sa bit of a grubby approach, but the politics of purity doesn't get us so far. We need to have a more honest, and at times self serving relationship with Labour in my view.

 

[RetroCat]

What was your score mate?

I got 80%. Mainly I think because totalitarianism in any form makes me twitchy.
Still a woke, lefty, snowflake terrorist like.

 

[Amw79]

Yes they are a very resilient organisation.

It's hard with Labour though, as frankly there is a group of people, who a particular ideological wing of the party who are unhappy to be anything other than in charge. If they are not in charge, they look to sabotage from within. It's very hard to forgive that behaviour. It's sort of like if you were playing a football match, you'd dislike your opponent, but probably dislike someone a lot more if he started scoring own goals and deliberately helping your opponent unless they got to becaptain and take the penalties. Now they are back being captain and going on about how rubbish we were when we lost (largely due to their own goals) and also the need for unity. It sticks in the throat a bit.

As for the left, for the most part it is clueless on power and you are right to say doesn't think enough in those terms. You have lots of people on the left, who are still desperately trying to tell people to stay in Labour to recapture it, with seemingly no real analysis or understanding of why it failed last time? Say they are successful again (which they/we won't be) what is going to stop it being exactly the same result again?

I'll be frank, I don't think there will ever be a successful left led Labour party. People point to Atlee, but he himself wasn't a massive left winger, he just existed in times where the argument had shifted. The Labour Party is not going to magivally become a Syriza/Left Bloc/Die Linke type "party of protest" (to coin Paul Masons phrases before he dropped that idea for the next bandwagon to jump on).

I am quite relaxed about Labour. If people won't want to vote for Labour, thats up to them. Personally I will, but I understand why you wouldn't. I think the bigger mistake in this context though, is to go ploughing endless energy into an organisation in the hope you might one day run it. I mean if people want to do it, again good luck to them, but the alleged intellectual leaders are just leading people down a trap. You either make peace that you are helping what will always be a fairly moderate party who will govern for the rich at times of crisis (with a few more crumbs being given out to the rest) or you havw a way of squring the contradictions above that I can't see.

I should add, it is possible to look to build an alternative on the ground, but also vote for Labour in the short/medium term. It'sa bit of a grubby approach, but the politics of purity doesn't get us so far. We need to have a more honest, and at times self serving relationship with Labour in my view.

Thanks for the considered response. I don’t disagree with much in there, and take your point about those within who actively sabotaged. I’m ideologically closer to Corbyn than I am to Starmer, but his lack of leadership always seemed obvious to me, but he still got my vote in both elections. When taking his leadership credentials in conjunction with internal sabotage, and strong Corbyn supporters telling long term labour supporters who expressed doubt to “F off and join the tories”, it‘s not surprising that many did exactly that.

The last decade of Tory rule, and the rising dominance of the right has opened my eyes to the instinctively conservative (small c) nature of much of the country, and radical change to me seems a much harder sell than incremental improvement.

 

[catcherintherye]

Thanks for the considered response. I don’t disagree with much in there, and take your point about those within who actively sabotaged. I’m ideologically closer to Corbyn than I am to Starmer, but his lack of leadership always seemed obvious to me, but he still got my vote in both elections. When taking his leadership credentials in conjunction with internal sabotage, and strong Corbyn supporters telling long term labour supporters who expressed doubt to “F off and join the tories”, it‘s not surprising that many did exactly that.

The last decade of Tory rule, and the rising dominance of the right has opened my eyes to the instinctively conservative (small c) nature of much of the country, and radical change to me seems a much harder sell than incremental improvement.

Likeise, same for you!

I think its a nuanced debate, and a debate that often lacks nuance. At times people get angry, and indeed I get angry and you lose sight of the other perspective.

I agree with you that Corbyn was a poor leader. He was probably a worse leader than his critics say. He was portrayed as too hard, the reality was he was nowhere near hard enough.

I mean if the lefts response is "get a better leader then Corbyn next time" fine, but how did we end up with RLB who was uninspired? Some of this is poor decisons/planning, but more of it is structural. Labour is simply not a vehicle to allow for, and encourage layers of young, competent left wing leaders. What you do with that reality is up to people, but that won't change. We will never develop the pool of talent we really require who hold those views as things stand.

I'm not going to slate people who would essentially rather accept a smaller improvement that is achievable than trying to get a big change that isn't. Thats completely understandable. However strategically, those who put themselves at the top of the movement (your Jones's, Masons, Novara Media etc) to me need a far clearer strategy. I don't think the Labour Party will be the vehicle for major social change, or just having leadership of it will. It's not structurally set up to do that.

 

[davek]

No. Tory rule would be a continuation of Tory rule.

Splitting the Labour Party would result in neither being elected, barring a change to PR.

Voting under first past the post has always been a “choosing the least bad option” vote.

To not vote for Labour in the next election, is a tacit acceptance of Tory rule, so accept your new status as a boot licking serf.

This is an opportunity to set up a new party.

It happens. Nothing stays the same in politics. It can move at a glacial pace and then all of a sudden we have new parties and new possibilities. This is one of those times.

The LP drift back to neo-liberalism offers the electorate effectively no choice. No substantial choice anyway. That's why this is back to Blairism.

No thanks. I'm done with Labour if Starmer et al turn away from the LPs economic programme...and I susepct I wont be the only one either.

 

[davek]

We need the far left to go back to their natural parties and Labour to remain the moderate voice of the left. Though it does seem Labour are now pushing these sorts out.

If the parties that are more in tune with your political ideals, Dave, Socialist, Communist parties etc are what the masses want then they'll get into power. Be brave, stand by your convictions comrade.

Suits me.

Leave the sinking ship.

 

[davek]

I can see Starmer winning in a few years actually, but the rest you say will also come true.

The real worry with this, is the far right with fascists it it's core will greatly benefit in working class communities. We know they already have a not insubstantial base in those areas, and a Labour government, presiding over an economic mess with essentially further austerity will push people towards fascistic ideas.

A similar worry is in America too, with Biden as president. The right are openly organising armed squads and opposition will be mounted from day 1.

All the while the centrists continue to attack the left, they feed into this as well.

There'll be a move back to the centre and away from populist politics, yes. But this is an epochal crisis, and that wont hold.

New parties are required on the left. A mass based party with an organic link to the working class through unions and community organisations is possible.

Starmer can keep his trainset. I dont want it.