The Labour Party

[Dr Gloom 19822]

corbyn did a storming job of proving your point in copeland

[Rayvin 4964]

As I said, we're going to be able to see this point being 'proven'. As I said, I hope you're right. And if you ignore all wider context of what's happening both in the UK and the world in general, you probably would be. But unfortunately we can't ignore that wider context.

 

There's no point in me repeating my views on this since you know them anyway, but the only way the centreground succeeds here is if you believe that widespread discontent is just going to go back in its box again and that people will get over it. Maybe that will be the way it goes. It'd suit me. Can't see it myself though, and so I can't see what returning to Blairism, which is culpable for bringing us to this point, is going to grant us.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Rayvin

[Rayvin 4964]

they're more likely to vote for corbyn you reckon?

 

Just to be clear, I don't think they'd vote for either. And I also believe Corbyn should go. My belief is that Labour should be allowed to die.

[Happy Face 29]

Just to be clear, I don't think they'd vote for either. And I also believe Corbyn should go. My belief is that Labour should be allowed to die.

Christ, even MySpace still isn't allowed to die. At no point has labour sunk as low as the conservatives in the first decade of this century.

 

Corby to stay a year or so more and then someone less extreme to rebuild ahead of the next election.

[Rayvin 4964]

Christ, even MySpace still isn't allowed to die. At no point has labour sunk as low as the conservatives in the first decade of this century.

 

Corby to stay a year or so more and then someone less extreme to rebuild ahead of the next election.

 

Genuinely don't think Corbyn will see out the year, think we're seeing death throes of his movement at the moment.

 

Maybe if Brexit swallows up a lot of the desire to 'lash out' at the system, people will go back to choosing between two nigh on identical parties again, I guess. If it turns out that Brexit and Trump are just coincidences, at least.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Rayvin

[ewerk 26326]

Who the fuck are the working class btw? It's been a redundant phrase in this country for decades

 

[Alex 30396]

She's one of them ladies who lunch

[Park Life 70]

Basically England is full of clueless idiots who would vote for a budgie if it had the right feme tune.

 

The Tories have moved into a huge vacuum of ignorance and political fatigue that is the center ground.

 

More so the middle Eng issue is paramount and it is highly unlikely that any Labour leader even if he was Tom Cruise could drag the country to the left. UK as a whole just doesn't want it...To a lesser extent the same has

happened to the SPD (left wing) in Germany.

 

The fundamental issue is that Capitalism is no longer delivering what it did up to say the 00's. Whereas before there was wiggle room for the 'social contract and wealth distribution' that is no longer the case. Capitalism is

now in a slow losing battle to hold onto what it has and therefore there will never again be a situation where the state can use soft power to divvy out some of the rewards. Capital flight and the international nature of business and perhaps the so called 'free movement of Labour' and those 'free trade deals' have sped up the rush to the bottom. This will continue for some time.

 

The future is more sovereign debt, less workers rights, more privatization, more youth unemployment and 'double speak' about nationalism and identity.

 

The generations coming up after us are even more distracted with snapchat and Facebook and twitter etc...Wielded to their mobiles they don't read or watch documentaries or have any interest in history.

 

It's why the right have grown all over the Europe and America. Most of the foot soldiers probably have more in common with the left but don't understand the complex all inclusive messages of the left.

 

They understand 'Take our country back' and 'Make America great again'.

 

The left refuse to make clear who the enemy is.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Park Life

[Renton 17765]

Basically England is full of clueless idiots who would vote for a budgie if it had the right feme tune.

 

The Tories have moved into a huge vacuum of ignorance and political fatigue that is the center ground.

 

More so the middle Eng issue is paramount and it is highly unlikely that any Labour leader even if he was Tom Cruise could drag the country to the left. UK as a whole just doesn't want it...To a lesser extent the same has

happened to the SPD (left wing) in Germany.

 

The fundamental issue is that Capitalism is no longer delivering what it did up to say the 00's. Whereas before there was wiggle room for the 'social contract and wealth distribution' that is no longer the case. Capitalism is

now in a slow losing battle to hold onto what it has and therefore there will never again be a situation where the state can use soft power to divvy out some of the rewards. Capital flight and the international nature of business and perhaps the so called 'free movement of Labour' and those 'free trade deals' have sped up the rush to the bottom. This will continue for some time.

 

The future is more sovereign debt, less workers rights, more privatization, more youth unemployment and 'double speak' about nationalism and identity.

 

The generations coming up after us are even more distracted with snapchat and Facebook and twitter etc...Wielded to their mobiles they don't read or watch documentaries or have any interest in history.

 

It's why the right have grown all over the Europe and America. Most of the foot soldiers probably have more in common with the left but don't understand the complex all inclusive messages of the left.

 

They understand 'Take our country back' and 'Make America great again'.

 

The left refuse to make clear who the enemy is.

Bravo!

 

An enjoyable read.

[Rayvin 4964]

 

 

The left refuse to make clear who the enemy is.

 

True.

[Dr Gloom 19822]

True.

 

the MSM, obvs.

[Rayvin 4964]

 

Actually, no. Somewhat predictably, it's the incredibly rich.

[Dr Gloom 19822]

For Ken Loach, Paul Mason and everyone else comparing New Labour to the shits who've been running the country this decade, here's a reminder of why a centre left government wasn't as bad as some make out.

 

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2017/03/what-did-new-labour-actually-achieve-epic-twitter-thread-hits-back-at-ken-loach-and-paul-mason/

 

I suppose it depends on what you want the Labour Party to be - a debating club, or a political party with a chance of being elected and helping people who need it, once in power.

[Renton 17765]

For Ken Loach, Paul Mason and everyone else comparing New Labour to the shits who've been running the country this decade, here's a reminder of why a centre left government wasn't as bad as some make out.

 

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2017/03/what-did-new-labour-actually-achieve-epic-twitter-thread-hits-back-at-ken-loach-and-paul-mason/

 

I suppose it depends on what you want the Labour Party to be - a debating club, or a political party with a chance of being elected and helping people who need it, once in power.

It's like the life of Brian "what have new labour ever done for us?".

 

It's simply incredible people dismiss the Blair and Brown governments as equivalent to Cameron and May, with much worse to follow. This viewpoint is consistently argued on this forum and hundreds like it, but just isn't reflective of reality as far as I can tell.

 

Edit: I might add, that nearly all this positive legislature NL introduced was contested by the Tories of the day. They were fortunately as irrelevant as Labour are today though. So both parties are the same? No, I don't think so.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Renton

[Dr Gloom 19822]

new labour clearly didn't get it all right - iraq was a massive fuck up, as was the continuation of thatcher's light touch banking regulation. but that links shows why you can't compare them with the tories, even the so-called soft tories like cameron.

[Rayvin 4964]

I think it's worth considering that Labour did a lot of things right while in power. And at the time, I had no complaint whatsoever (beyond Iraq) - I would still argue that Labour improved a number of vital public services and generally made things better for people.

 

The problem is one that I don't actually really blame them for as it's only really visible with hindsight. The alienation of their core voter base, and decision to stick with Neoliberal principles when it came to austerity (which is the issue I consider they hold 'no different position from the Tories' on, at least under Miliband), is what we are now being punished for. So maybe 'blame' isn't the right word, but it tends to come up because of the need to 'blame' Corbyn.

 

The truth is probably more as Renton has put it before. The world has changed, the negative effects of globalisation and rampant neolib (Thatcherite) policies are being felt by many more people than had previously been the case. Labour backed the wrong horse with austerity IMO, but at the end of the day this whole event may have come to pass anyway. If I blame them for anything it's losing the argument on austerity. And Gloom, you've agreed on that point before if I recall. So, they've been unlucky in how the world panned out, and they made some poor decisions. It doesn't change that they did a lot of good, but it does limit how relevant that 'good' is now.

[Dr Gloom 19822]

I don't think miliband was brave enough on austerity. he should have challenged the tory narrative. but i can sympathise -  the problem was the public sucked it up after the financial crisis and a campaign driven by the sun and the mail. but it's a bit rich blaming labour's current failings under corbyn on new labour.

 

like it, or not, to win power you have to speak to middle england. a labour leader who thinks the public finances should be in reasonable shape, but who won't slash public services like the tories have, could do this. corbyn will never, ever manage it. 

 

i've had the same arguments with my dad lately. he's convinced corbyn could win and the PLP is the problem. it's deluded. 

[Renton 17765]

I think it's worth considering that Labour did a lot of things right while in power. And at the time, I had no complaint whatsoever (beyond Iraq) - I would still argue that Labour improved a number of vital public services and generally made things better for people.

 

The problem is one that I don't actually really blame them for as it's only really visible with hindsight. The alienation of their core voter base, and decision to stick with Neoliberal principles when it came to austerity (which is the issue I consider they hold 'no different position from the Tories' on, at least under Miliband), is what we are now being punished for. So maybe 'blame' isn't the right word, but it tends to come up because of the need to 'blame' Corbyn.

 

The truth is probably more as Renton has put it before. The world has changed, the negative effects of globalisation and rampant neolib (Thatcherite) policies are being felt by many more people than had previously been the case. Labour backed the wrong horse with austerity IMO, but at the end of the day this whole event may have come to pass anyway. If I blame them for anything it's losing the argument on austerity. And Gloom, you've agreed on that point before if I recall. So, they've been unlucky in how the world panned out, and they made some poor decisions. It doesn't change that they did a lot of good, but it does limit how relevant that 'good' is now.

Completely agree with this and Gloom's post below.

 

It's quite impressive in a way that despite the shitstorm of 2008 and Brown's own lack of likability, Cameron failed to command a majority in 2010. But Miliband was the wrong leader to replace him and he made a tactical mistake in not opposing austerity (or to be frank he was a coward). He then made an even bigger mistake by changing the party electoral rules. I think he's a decent person but he has got a lot to answer for. In contrast, I don't see any decency in Corbyn.

[Rayvin 4964]

I also think that the moment things really went wrong was when Brown resigned immediately. Had he stayed on, Labour would have been able to actually resist and challenge the Tory narrative on austerity. It took months to replace him and the narrative was set and unchallenged by that point. Game already lost before Miliband even started (in defence of him, at least).

[Park Life 70]

I'd put rejoining the EU in the manifesto. The UKIP defectors aren't coming back to Labour anyway and this tactic will put back into the game for Labour all the Remainers of whatever allegiance. Around this Labour can campaign on a true internationalist and inclusive platform. It has the added benefit of re-connecting with the strong social contract of the EU, ECJ, ECHR. This posits the Tories and their loony wing as the enemy and puts to bed most of the infighting in Labour.

Would need a new leader obviously. *

Edited March 2, 2017 by Park Life

[Rayvin 4964]

Still about a third of Labour voters voted out though... I wouldn't say they've all gone for UKIP.

[Park Life 70]

Still about a third of Labour voters voted out though... I wouldn't say they've all gone for UKIP.

I reckon a third of them are regretting it now and we can also hoover up a lot of the LibDems and soft Tories (Middle England). Although this trick will only work once, it's a chance for power.

[Renton 17765]

It's so crazy it might just work. Nothing else to lose now tbh. It'd need some alliance with the lib dems though to avoid splitting the vote. Basically a new party.

[Rayvin 4964]

Agree on the new party aspect. I've always felt the Lib Dems did more to split Labour's vote than anything else, so merging with them in some form might be a decent way forward if achievable.

[Meenzer 14042]

I suggest the Liberal Socialist Democrats, or LSD for short.