Current Affairs The Labour Party

[dead_soft]

In the PLP, the likes of Abbott, Osamor, Long-Bailey, Burgon, McDonnell, and further afield the more off-putting PLP members like Lammy and Dodds. Get rid of the ideologically ridiculous and the politically incompetent.

Basically he should have purged all these. Don't get me wrong, Corbyn should have done the same in reverse - it wouldn't have won him an election, in fact done the opposite, but it would have saved any excuses for him not doing so.

The membership you can't really do much about. They're going to be Corbynites no matter what, and it was only his drubbing that subdued them enough to get Starmer in. But for me this was the final chance for Labour to be of relevance again; to do so it needed a severe shift to competence to gain public trust. The reason Labour can't get a foothold is because of the damage of recent years, where the Tories can now do anything and the perception is "well, Labour would be worse."

Starmer, unfortunately, hasn't done anything to rectify that.

Quite a bold strategy - axe nearly 4% of your party's current MPs in order to be victorious. Dodds as a Momentum member or extremist is quite a spectacular position as is wanting to get rid of one of Labour's most consistently electorally successful MPs.

Your quite spectacular misreading of how the Labour Party works or how any of that would be received within the party is genuinely mystifying.

 

[Tubey]

Ridiculous argument.

Some people need to be reminded of what the Labour Party is and who it should represent.

I’m not a fan of momentum myself, but to suggest a purge of some very good politicians who fight social justice more than most of the shadow cabinet is counter-productive.

Starmer has waged war with the left of the party and through that he’s completely destroyed a demographic of voters Corbyn helped solidify.

That’s fine, if you can get votes from elsewhere, but he hasn’t. There’s not one demographic of people that can be relied upon to vote Labour, whilst the tories pretty much have the right of the spectrum sewn up.

He’s been a disaster and it’s all his own doing.

It’s hard to see where Labour will go from here

They can represent people as much and as hard as they want; the reality is they don't do a jot for them because they're perpetually out of power.

The country is centre-right. The Tories are not infallable. They've 'sewn up' the electorate due to the increasingly ridiculous lurch to the left to a point of irrelevance to the vast majority of this country.

Starmer has been a disaster so far, but to say it's his doing? No. This all started the moment 'Red Ed' beat David Milliband and Labour proceeded to eat itself.

 

[Tubey]

Quite a bold strategy - axe nearly 4% of your party's current MPs in order to be victorious. Dodds as a Momentum member or extremist is quite a spectacular position as is wanting to get rid of one of Labour's most consistently electorally successful MPs.

Your quite spectacular misreading of how the Labour Party works or how any of that would be received within the party is genuinely mystifying.

I quite specifically said 'further afield' in relation to her. I didn't say she was Momentum. I said she was off-putting. Crap basically. Incompetent. One of those people you look at and go "oh God never let them in power", much like Lammy.

Again, you don't read. You really don't.

 

[dead_soft]

I quite specifically said 'further afield' in relation to her. I didn't say she was Momentum. I said she was off-putting. Crap basically. Incompetent. One of those people you look at and go "oh God never let them in power", much like Lammy.

Again, you don't read. You really don't.

I did read, I just assumed it was more poor phrasing especially when you'd previously mentioned MPs who aren't members of Momentum. Once again it's always down to others not reading rather than very clever Tubey being muddled.

But good of you to pick up on this rather than answer how removing 4% of Labour MPs makes the party or its leader stronger. Or how this would help Labour win elections.

 

[Charro]

They can represent people as much and as hard as they want; the reality is they don't do a jot for them because they're perpetually out of power.

The country is centre-right. The Tories are not infallable. They've 'sewn up' the electorate due to the increasingly ridiculous lurch to the left to a point of irrelevance to the vast majority of this country.

Starmer has been a disaster so far, but to say it's his doing? No. This all started the moment 'Red Ed' beat David Milliband and Labour proceeded to eat itself.

He’s losing votes from every angle.

It’s ridiculous to say it’s not his doing. He appeals to no one, and went against everything he campaigned on.

 

[Tubey]

He’s losing votes from every angle.

It’s ridiculous to say it’s not his doing. He appeals to no one, and went against everything he campaigned on.

I agree. But so did Corbyn, so did Milliband.

It's like taking on the captaincy of the Titanic while it's sinking. He hasn't done a good job, but to claim it's 'all his own doing' is ridiculous; Corbyn in particular massacred the standing of that party.

 

[DanEFC92]

Zero self reflection from the sensible centrists.

 

[Charro]

I agree. But so did Corbyn, so did Milliband.

It's like taking on the captaincy of the Titanic while it's sinking. He hasn't done a good job, but to claim it's 'all his own doing' is ridiculous; Corbyn in particular massacred the standing of that party.

His massive drop in polling numbers over the last 12 months is all on him and nobody else.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

The country is centre-right.

That’s not necessarily true. Left wing policies such as redistribution of wealth, nationalising railways etc are generally favoured by the electorate.

 

[Tubey]

That’s not necessarily true. Left wing policies such as redistribution of wealth, nationalising railways etc are generally favoured by the electorate.

Because people are generally fair in theory, so policies that "do good" are generally universally popular.

In theory.

In practice, they are subsidiary issues that are tolerated rather than central to voting intentions. Above all, people vote for what effects them; their own lives. Nationalising the railways isn't a vote winner for someone who never goes on a train, especially if the net result of doing so would be a Corbyn government that perceivably harms you.

The left don't understand this and feel everyone should be altruistic. They're not. They're generous only when they can afford to be.

 

[ToffeeTim]

That’s not necessarily true. Left wing policies such as redistribution of wealth, nationalising railways etc are generally favoured by the electorate.

For a little while now I've thought that overall Britain is slightly to the left of centre economically, but slightly to the right of centre socially.

I could be completely wrong, just my take of the political landscape over the last few years. That's where I think a party needs to position itself to win an election right now, but politics changes a lot quicker these days. Just look at the last decade.

Starmer is in a slightly difficult position right now in terms of economic policy because the Tories have increased public spending. That's a result of the pandemic, but it's still difficult to offer an alternative that cuts through. There are 3 years till the next election though so he has plenty of time and these elections probably won't tell us much about how the next general might look.

 

[dead_soft]

Because people are generally fair in theory, so policies that "do good" are generally universally popular.

In theory.

In practice, they are subsidiary issues that are tolerated rather than central to voting intentions. Above all, people vote for what effects them; their own lives. Nationalising the railways isn't a vote winner for someone who never goes on a train, especially if the net result of doing so would be a Corbyn government that perceivably harms you.

The left don't understand this and feel everyone should be altruistic. They're not. They're generous only when they can afford to be.

There's quite a lot of work done with assumptions here. Do people only vote for what effects them? What percentage of people are altruistic and who aren't? How come you understand this and yet the left, who are actively working in politics don't?

In The Netherlands people voted for a government that would make cycling infrastructure central to the country despite only 20% of all trips being made by bike and most people not cycling. It is possible for non train users to be brought round to the advantages of it.

 

[davek]

You called it spot on a few weeks into his tenure. Hologram nails it.

Shame really, but perhaps post covid/pandemic real politics returning might be his salvation.

The Establishment's go-to guy in a tight spot. A back up. Just like Blair was called forward when Major's regime was bankrupt.

 

[roydo]

The Establishment's go-to guy in a tight spot. A back up. Just like Blair was called forward when Major's regime was bankrupt.

But at least Blair had "sommet". You dont win 3 elections being Starmeresq.

 

[davek]

Starmer is in big trouble with any type of loss.
The Tories are up to their eyes in sleaze and corruption and
Labour go and lose another Red Wall seat? Not acceptable.
Question is: who would replace him? Who would want to replace him?

If a PM can get away with "I'd prefer to see bodies piled high by the thousands" then I honelstly cant construct a scenario wshere the LP under Starmer makes an impact.

We could well be entering a period where the LP quickly diintegrates. Not before time. The Tories disintegrated under Johnson from a feasible party of law and order and propriety (with the odd exception) looking to Europe, to a party of the extreme right ruled by a populist and without any notions of playing by rules domestically or internationally. They just retained the name 'conservative'...but there's nothing much conservative about them...just as there's very little 'labour' about Labour.