Current Affairs The Labour Party

[catcherintherye]

Again, I’m sorry but reading even a basic history of the Tory party would help you understand just how much nonsense this is. The Tory party is the most successful western political party in history because it changes constantly (which has always struck me as rather odd for a ‘conservative’ party, but I digress). They started out as a protectionist anti-trade party, morphed into a populist working-class party, then became a jingoistic semi-socialistic party, then muddled around for 25 years being nothing, then became a radical free-trade party, before slowly morphing into the soapy middle-of-the-road born-to-rule center-right party they are now.

The Tories never put ideology over winning - they’ve understood that you win, then change the country to think your way.

Yes I agree with you. They are singularly the most succesful party of their type in Europe.

However the idea they are happy to have to move leftwards on economics is untrue. Both things are true.

Lets put it this way, if they loved Corbyn so much, why did they get their mates in the media, to hound him out? Why not lay off him, and give him a favourable press?

To be absolutely blunt, conversations I had with 1 or 2 of them pre 2019 were they were very spooked by Corbyn as they had no idea how he did so well in 2017. They couldn't fathom it out at all.

 

[davek]

Again, I’m sorry but reading even a basic history of the Tory party would help you understand just how much nonsense this is. The Tory party is the most successful western political party in history because it changes constantly (which has always struck me as rather odd for a ‘conservative’ party, but I digress). They started out as a protectionist anti-trade party, morphed into a populist working-class party, then became a jingoistic semi-socialistic party, then muddled around for 25 years being nothing, then became a radical free-trade party, before slowly morphing into the soapy middle-of-the-road born-to-rule center-right party they are now.

The Tories never put ideology over winning - they’ve understood that you win, then change the country to think your way.

So what you're saying is that only the name 'conservative' is the same, given your argument that they've morphed from one form to another. So not one single party winning all the time then?

 

[Mrk]

So what you're saying is that only the name 'conservative' is the same, given your argument that they've morphed from one form to another. So not one sigle party with a single philosophy winning at all then?

I think it would be fair to look at it that way - but it would certainly be over-simplifying it.

 

[catcherintherye]

Pretty much this.

And if it weren't on that pretext today, it'd be on another one some time soon.

He was suspended about 6 minutes after his statement wasn't he?

I saw a billboard from the New Labour era today of Michael Howard, imposed onto Shylock waving a gold Watch with "would you trust him to stay in charge of your money". Explicitly anti-semitic. I remember the stuff with Oliver Letwin at that time as well, it was very close to the bone but in truth it was well over the line. Forgive me if I am a little sceptical if the people who had previously likened a Jewish Conervative leader to crude Jewish stereotypes like Shylock and made fairly clear dog whistles to him being a thief are not overly concerned by anti-semitism.

 

[catcherintherye]

Pretty much this.

And if it weren't on that pretext today, it'd be on another one some time soon.

And for anyone wanting to see said billboards, here they are.

Campaign posters get nasty

www.standard.co.uk

BBC NEWS | Politics | Labour attacked on Howard poster

news.bbc.co.uk

So please forgive me while I retch as the people who oversaw and championed these racist billboards think they are in any position to judge anyone else, least of all anti-racist campaigners on issues of racism.

 

[davek]

I think it would be fair to look at it that way - but it would certainly be over-simplifying it.

Well, in that case (and given your historical assessement) it's reasonable to claim that a political party primarily represnting the interests of workers has been in power for quite some time: the nineteenth century populiist and semi-socialist party operating under the umbrella of the conservatives, then the early LP under McDonald, then the Atlee LP and the Butler, MacMillan governments which carried on with welfare statism. Only Thatcherism on being true Tory wins operating neo-liberal policies against the working class.

 

[Mrk]

Yes I agree with you. They are singularly the most succesful party of their type in Europe.

However the idea they are happy to have to move leftwards on economics is untrue. Both things are true.

Lets put it this way, if they loved Corbyn so much, why did they get their mates in the media, to hound him out? Why not lay off him, and give him a favourable press?

To be absolutely blunt, conversations I had with 1 or 2 of them pre 2019 were they were very spooked by Corbyn as they had no idea how he did so well in 2017. They couldn't fathom it out at all.

They might not be ‘happy’ at moving leftwards on anything, but again, they don’t look at things as left and right in the same way the Labour Party probably does. They look at winning and losing. The concept of ‘sound money’ and low deficits is more of a liberal tradition than a conservative one. The Conservative party from the mid-late 50’s until mid 70’s was very pro-spending. They literally just stick their finger in the air, see which way the wind is blowing and go that way.

I must confess to knowing Conservatives in the real world (turns out it’s hard to avoid 40% of the population) - and they thought Corbyn was the best thing to happen in years. He may well have shifted debates. He may have got young people excited. But ultimately, he gave the Tories their biggest majority since Thatcher. That’s what they actually care about.

 

[Mrk]

Well, in that case (and given your historical assessement) it's reasonable to claim that a political party primarily represnting the interests of workers has been in power for quite some time: the nineteenth century populiist and semi-socialist party operating under the umbrella of the conservatives, then the early LP under McDonald, then the Atlee LP and the Butler, MacMillan governments which carried on with welfare statism. Only Thatcherism on being true Tory wins operating neo-liberal policies against the working class.

Again, I think that’s a perfectly reasonable way to look at it. It goes back to my point that the Tories will literally adopt any stance to win.

 

[ToffeeTim]

The problem they have, in truth is that they lean in different directions. How you need to in in Burnley is vastly different to Swindon.

We are in an era now, where only Labour (twice) have won a majority bigger than 50 (in old money, IE 50 seats over 375). Multi party politics has essentially prevented big workable majorities. Had the BXP not stood aside, Johnson would have had a tiny majority too. That's the era we are in now, minority governments, small majorities and the odd coalition.

Labour will govern with the SNP if it is going to govern.

Thats true that they need to lean in different directions but it's exactly the same for the Tories. They managed to appeal to new voters in the North East etc but also retain their more traditional voters in the south and rural areas.

You win elections by appealing to the broadest range of voters you can. You have to be flexible and thats why pragmatism is usually more successful than ideology.

The SNP coalition looks the most likely pathway back to power to me as well. Normally I'd say it would take 2 elections to overturn an 80 odd seat majority. But politics are so unpredictable right now that anything could happen in 2024. It's wide open for Starmer.

 

[davek]

And for anyone wanting to see said billboards, here they are.

Campaign posters get nasty

www.standard.co.uk

BBC NEWS | Politics | Labour attacked on Howard poster

news.bbc.co.uk

So please forgive me while I retch as the people who oversaw and championed these racist billboards think they are in any position to judge anyone else, least of all anti-racist campaigners on issues of racism.

Wow. Blair was some anti-semite. All that's missing off this is Howard saying "Oy vey!"

 

[catcherintherye]

His exact words...

"[Anti-semitism in the Labour party was] dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party."

Anti-semitic trope of conspiracy. He continues to do this despite the EHRC finding:

• Harassment, including the use of anti-Semitic tropes and suggesting that complaints of anti-Semitism were fake or smears.

He's contributing directly to this. He enabled anti-semitism, even if he wasn't anti-semitic directly himself. Although of course there's quite a bit of evidence he is.

I suppose to the letter of that law it is yes.

Surely you can see though, that that rule is like Orwellian madness?

Like if someone accuses you of anti-semitism, you are to accept anti-semitic. If you challenge it, or say you don't believe it's true and try to defend yourself, then you are then guilty of harassment so are anti-semitic.

This is like the method used to try witches isn't it?

I mean I am probably one of the biggest anti-racist advocates you will meet. But even I have to concede there has to be some room built in for someone who is accused of racism to defend themselves and be able to chalenge the accusation.

Surely you can see the limitations in the rules? I don't actually think such an approach helps anyone. (I should also add, this is very much not just an issue fo anti-semitism. This is across the spectrum and partially why there are sections of people now who think that racism, sexism etc is all a load of rubbish, as you are guilty either way before you are tried. I don't think it actually helps progressive causes to behave in such a way).

 

[catcherintherye]

Thats true that they need to lean in different directions but it's exactly the same for the Tories. They managed to appeal to new voters in the North East etc but also retain their more traditional voters in the south and rural areas.

You win elections by appealing to the broadest range of voters you can. You have to be flexible and thats why pragmatism is usually more successful than ideology.

The SNP coalition looks the most likely pathway back to power to me as well. Normally I'd say it would take 2 elections to overturn an 80 odd seat majority. But politics are so unpredictable right now that anything could happen in 2024. It's wide open for Starmer.

Labour could definitely rule on coalition. As you say they need to probably turn 50 seats off the Tories, which when you consider the lack of coalition options they have is very doable.

People tend to do this alot, they assume the consensus of the last election will hold forever. It really doesn't.

The Tories have a very loyal, older demographic of voters who are well spread to maximise seats.At the risk of sounding crude, they are dying off and not being replaced very well. They are ok in the short term, but have a real medium term challenge.

 

[Tubey]

I suppose to the letter of that law it is yes.

Surely you can see though, that that rule is like Orwellian madness?

Like if someone accuses you of anti-semitism, you are to accept anti-semitic. If you challenge it, or say you don't believe it's true and try to defend yourself, then you are then guilty of harassment so are anti-semitic.

This is like the method used to try witches isn't it?

I mean I am probably one of the biggest anti-racist advocates you will meet. But even I have to concede there has to be some room built in for someone who is accused of racism to defend themselves and be able to chalenge the accusation.

Surely you can see the limitations in the rules? I don't actually think such an approach helps anyone. (I should also add, this is very much not just an issue fo anti-semitism. This is across the spectrum and partially why there are sections of people now who think that racism, sexism etc is all a load of rubbish, as you are guilty either way before you are tried. I don't think it actually helps progressive causes to behave in such a way).

Oh, without question there's an element of truth in what Corbyn is saying. He was factionally attacked on it, without question. It'd be mad to pretend otherwise; it happened.

But it's the level of blame he places on it that is uncomfortable. He's using it as his get out of jail card constantly, belittling the actual anti-semitism by saying it barely exists. Which is quite blatantly false.

He's reacted this way to an EHRC report slamming the party under his leadership. He's completely, totally incapable of accepting blame or acknowledging the problem, even when presented with something as damning as an EHRC report. To blame factional politics in the face of a report like that is insane.

He enabled anti-semitism through his words and actions. He continues to enable it now. Which is why I think any right minded person would see his suspension as completely fair, given he's absolutely bang to rights on this. But there was always a cult around Corbyn and people leave their brains at the door when he's the subject matter.

 

[catcherintherye]

They might not be ‘happy’ at moving leftwards on anything, but again, they don’t look at things as left and right in the same way the Labour Party probably does. They look at winning and losing. The concept of ‘sound money’ and low deficits is more of a liberal tradition than a conservative one. The Conservative party from the mid-late 50’s until mid 70’s was very pro-spending. They literally just stick their finger in the air, see which way the wind is blowing and go that way.

I must confess to knowing Conservatives in the real world (turns out it’s hard to avoid 40% of the population) - and they thought Corbyn was the best thing to happen in years. He may well have shifted debates. He may have got young people excited. But ultimately, he gave the Tories their biggest majority since Thatcher. That’s what they actually care about.

We are both in agreement they have an institutional desire to win. It's a good point and often one that is missed when people hold the view of "oh the tories will never do x,y or z" and you think, if they can see a shortt term electoral benefit they will try most things.

It is probably unhelpful to view things as classically "left" and "right" but they ultimately want to govern in the interests of allowing the wealthy to maximise profits. In general that involves lower taxation, less regulation etc. That is the marriage that governs the tories though, that contradiction between longer term, broader goal for a narrower group, and a shorter term pragmatism to attract a bigger group of voters.

I know plenty of Tories as well. The ones who were more political were very spooked by Corbyn. They also knew that Corbyn didn't really gift them anything, they could see that the decision to turn on Brexit, allied to Farage's decision to step aside gave them an opening. When they recorded their lowest electoral performance ever 6 months before the election, they were a long long way off being delighted at facing Corbyn. They had no idea how he managed 2017.

There's a lot of nonsense in what is said and what is felt by them. Their main ploy electorally is to drive down Labour voters. Voter suppression is their biggest goal. They will give it the churchillian rhetoric, but they want to suppress enthusiasm, and were always concerned Corbyn could outdo that.

 

[Tubey]

We are both in agreement they have an institutional desire to win. It's a good point and often one that is missed when people hold the view of "oh the tories will never do x,y or z" and you think, if they can see a shortt term electoral benefit they will try most things.

It is probably unhelpful to view things as classically "left" and "right" but they ultimately want to govern in the interests of allowing the wealthy to maximise profits. In general that involves lower taxation, less regulation etc. That is the marriage that governs the tories though, that contradiction between longer term, broader goal for a narrower group, and a shorter term pragmatism to attract a bigger group of voters.

I know plenty of Tories as well. The ones who were more political were very spooked by Corbyn. They also knew that Corbyn didn't really gift them anything, they could see that the decision to turn on Brexit, allied to Farage's decision to step aside gave them an opening. When they recorded their lowest electoral performance ever 6 months before the election, they were a long long way off being delighted at facing Corbyn. They had no idea how he managed 2017.

There's a lot of nonsense in what is said and what is felt by them. Their main ploy electorally is to drive down Labour voters. Voter suppression is their biggest goal. They will give it the churchillian rhetoric, but they want to suppress enthusiasm, and were always concerned Corbyn could outdo that.

The figures from that election give a good clue.

Basically, May attacked her own base with the Triple Lock pension threat, and the "nothing has changed" nonsense.

Loads of her voters then either abstained or gave her a kicking, thinking Corbyn had no chance anyway.

They crapped their pants when it actually made a difference, and Johnson didn't make the same mistake; hence Corbyn getting battered the next one.