Next Labour Leader II

[jackbarron]

I've never quite understood the arrogance of Labour leavers turning against Labour because the party was a majority Remain membership and support.

Exactly. A lot of them are racists/xenophobes who wanted to put up borders and live in a very little England. ^^^^ 'em. They should be left with the Tories and Farage Inc.

I won't bother with the Labour leadership election. I went for Corbyn twice. What a waste of time he was.

I don't like any of the current candidates for Leader. Only Dr Rosena Allin-Khan has impressed me and she is running for Deputy.

Unless Labour follow what the majority of the Party want, instead of the minority of racists who backed the Tories, the chances are I will vote Green in future.

Jack

 

[Seanm]

Hang on a mo these militant moderates were only invented a few posts ago. Give them a chance to notice and pop into existence, make contact with each other, pull together what is important, attract support from the general population, support from within the political system, etc... This is going to take at least a few more pages.

Given labour has a couple of hundred MPs we first need to sort out whether it is going to remain a hard left controlled party or revert to a moderate left party and hence how much of a part it would play in this militant moderate movement.

This is your problem right here h.g., if I may say so. Your general diagnosis of the situation is basically unarguable, even if you couch it in abstract terms (1% vs 99% etc.) But presented with an actually existing means of changing it - a 500 000 strong mainstream movement with coherent policies that in 2017 came within a few thousand votes of taking power - you prefer to wait for the appearance of a non-existent and in fact impossible cadre of moderate-radicals.

 

[ks.234]

That is nonsense, & to be clear I talking about the leadership election rather than the general election, if you voted for Corbyn you can hardly blame those who didn’t for him being a crap leader. I voted Burnham in the leadership election & Labour in the GE.

Ultimately he was a divisive figure.

That was not clear from your first post.

 

[Stunsworth]

But presented with an actually existing means of changing it - a 500 000 strong mainstream movement with coherent policies that in 2017 came within a few thousand votes of taking power - you prefer to wait for the appearance of a non-existent and in fact impossible cadre of moderate-radicals.

That was against one of the feeblest, most split, governing parties since Major’s. And still he lost. Two years later he led Labour to a record defeat. He was just as unelectable as people predicted when he became leader, in fact if anything he was more unelectable than predicted.

 

[Seanm]

That was against one of the feeblest, most split, governing parties since Major’s. And still he lost. Two years later he led Labour to a record defeat. He was just as unelectable as people predicted when he became leader, in fact if anything he was more unelectable than predicted.

Change the record. This is nonsense. May's government was a good deal stronger than the two that preceded it. And if you can command 40% of the popular vote on an increased turnout you are by definition not unelectable.

 

[Stunsworth]

And if you can command 40% of the popular vote on an increased turnout you are by definition not unelectable.

Err, except that Corbyn was.

 

[Seanm]

To my mind as a life-long centre-left/progressive floating voter it isn’t the voters they should be looking at. Labour lost the election because they entirely failed to make a coherent argument that people actually wanted to get behind. That’s 100% on them, not on those of us who were not convinced by their sales pitch!

And...remain?

 

[Woodface]

That was not clear from your first post.

Ok, fair enough

 

[Tony L]

You don’t thing the ‘thick racist’ jibe against leave voters had an adverse effect? You don’t think Swinson’s shameless politicking had an impact? If people started to look at themselves rather than projecting blame onto others who should be on the same side, perhaps it might be possible to mount a coherent opposition to Johnson.

Ah, the classic ‘audience too ignorant and ill- informed to buy our new album’ defence! Maybe it was just a badly written and produced album from a naff has-been band and actually deserved to end up in the remainder bin?!

PS Swinson damaged her own party, not Labour. She drove a lot of us over to the Greens or simply not voting at all. We’d not have voted for that particular Labour, so no huge issue to you.

 

[ks.234]

Ah, the classic ‘audience too ignorant and ill- informed to buy our new album’ defence! Maybe it was just a badly written and produced album from a naff has-been band and actually deserved to end up in the remainder bin?!

PS Swinson damaged her own party, not Labour. She drove a lot of us over to the Greens or simply not voting at all. We’d not have voted for that particular Labour, so no huge issue to you.

No. Not at all. I said nothing like that.

 

[h.g.]

This is your problem right here h.g., if I may say so. Your general diagnosis of the situation is basically unarguable, even if you couch it in abstract terms (1% vs 99% etc.) But presented with an actually existing means of changing it - a 500 000 strong mainstream movement with coherent policies that in 2017 came within a few thousand votes of taking power - you prefer to wait for the appearance of a non-existent and in fact impossible cadre of moderate-radicals.

I am waiting for either:

1) The labour party to remain hard left controlled and move to being a fully hard left party by, possibly, electing RLB and continuing the purge of moderates. This would likely lead to 50-150 current labour MPs leaving to form or join a centre left or centre party. This might get our militant moderate movement going even though one might have some reservations about the likely quality of the people involved given their track record for the last decade or two. We might get a libdem's mark 2 playing to the gallery.

2) The labour party returning to a moderate (electable) position and disempowering the hard left. This is what a number of people seem to be expecting if, for example, Starmer is elected. My suspicion is that the hard left will refuse to get back in their box and will possess enough power to resist at least for a while. Labour would then continue it's internal conflict and a starring role in an ineffective opposition. Perhaps things will get resolved and perhaps not. They would stand a good chance of being elected next time if social and economic conditions fall sufficiently as seems likely. I wouldn't have high expectations for a militant moderate movement lead by labour but the possibility would still exist.

The radicalisation of moderates is not easy. A negative way for it to occur might be if social and economic conditions seriously fall which is a possibility if a hard brexit is combined with a significant loss in confidence in the UK by the rest of the world. A positive way might be the appearance of a decent leader/movement talking openly and truthfully about the UK's current situation and how to move forward in a balanced way. The key here would be winning the trust of both the working population and the wealth generating component of capital. Not one or the other but both. Opposition from those benefiting excessively from the current setup will be inevitable as it will be from those on the hard left and right. It could come from labour, the libdems or from outside but at the moment there isn't even a hint of it that I can see. Let's hope I am just useless at looking and the militant moderates really are out there getting their act together.

 

[Seanm]

I am waiting for either:

1) The labour party to remain hard left controlled and move to being a fully hard left party by, possibly, electing RLB and continuing the purge of moderates. This would likely lead to 50-150 current labour MPs leaving to form or join a centre left or centre party. This might get our militant moderate movement going even though one might have some reservations about the likely quality of the people involved given their track record for the last decade or two. We might get a libdem's mark 2 playing to the gallery.

2) The labour party returning to a moderate (electable) position and disempowering the hard left. This is what a number of people seem to be expecting if, for example, Starmer is elected. My suspicion is that the hard left will refuse to get back in their box and will possess enough power to resist at least for a while. Labour would then continue it's internal conflict and a starring role in an ineffective opposition. Perhaps things will get resolved and perhaps not. They would stand a good chance of being elected next time if social and economic conditions fall sufficiently as seems likely. I wouldn't have high expectations for a militant moderate movement lead by labour but the possibility would still exist.

The radicalisation of moderates is not easy. A negative way for it to occur might be if social and economic conditions seriously fall which is a possibility if a hard brexit is combined with a significant loss in confidence in the UK by the rest of the world. A positive way might be the appearance of a decent leader/movement talking openly and truthfully about the UK's current situation and how to move forward in a balanced way. The key here would be winning the trust of both the working population and the wealth generating component of capital. Not one or the other but both. Opposition from those benefiting excessively from the current setup will be inevitable as it will be from those on the hard left and right. It could come from labour, the libdems or from outside but at the moment there isn't even a hint of it that I can see. Let's hope I am just useless at looking and the militant moderates really are out there getting their act together.

Well, keep the faith I guess. Recent history suggests that moderate-moderates (?) are not really that electable, while actually existing militant-moderates are pretty much limited to the self-defeating sabotage of their own party, but anything can happen. I mean who saw Corbynism coming. Not me.

 

[Seeker_UK]

Not my point.

You mean there are Labour members who want to go back to the dark days of running the country? The b*stards. Christ, that would run the risk of having to make compromises to your politics.

My point was that it seems to me you (and others) want Labour to prioritise playing politics, worrying about due process and the internal machinations of party governance ahead of getting into power. But then again, what do I know, I'm a militant centrist with the foolish notion that winning elections is the most important thing.

As for Blair not compromising. LOL. He bent like a reed in the wind, policy-wise if it meant he remained popular with the electorate.

 

[ks.234]

My point was that it seems to me you (and others) want Labour to prioritise playing politics, worrying about due process and the internal machinations of party governance ahead of getting into power. But then again, what do I know, I'm a militant centrist with the foolish notion that winning elections is the most important thing.

As for Blair not compromising. LOL. He bent like a reed in the wind, policy-wise if it meant he remained popular with the electorate.

I’m sorry, but I really have no idea what you mean by me ‘prioritising playing politics...due process...and internal machinations’. I’ll do my best to respond if you can tell me what this means.

 

[h.g.]

Well, keep the faith I guess. Recent history suggests that moderate-moderates (?) are not really that electable, while actually existing militant-moderates are pretty much limited to the self-defeating sabotage of their own party, but anything can happen. I mean who saw Corbynism coming. Not me.

Faith? I wish I had but I only have hope and not much of that at present.

Not sure we have any militant moderate MPs around at present. The moderates are either keeping a low profile or playing games to get in a position where they might be able to do things (e.g. if elected how closely are Starmer's actions likely to follow his current words given his current target audience?). When they get in position will they address what needs fixing and draw serious fire or will they continue playing games to maintain their position in the political heap? I know where I would put my money.

Giving the hard left a go was unexpected but after it happened it was understandable in that continuing with a mild tweak of what had gone before was going nowhere and perhaps enough people had lost touch with what the hard left is or possibly believed they weren't voting for the hard left. Why weren't any of the other leadership candidates standing on a rational centre left economic policy? Probably for the same reason as Blair and Brown didn't pursue one but why? I don't know given they had to know where the wealth was going. Perhaps they won't pursue one if given another chance but here's hoping.

 

[Seeker_UK]

I’m sorry, but I really have no idea what you mean by me ‘prioritising playing politics...due process...and internal machinations’. I’ll do my best to respond if you can tell me what this means.

Based on many posts one here since JC took up the leadership (from (primarily) Sean, you and Drood), there seems to have been a lot of time on 'navel gazing' - a focus on internal issues, changing how the party should be run. All very exciting for some but to those of us not interested in such things, unnecessary (the LP seemed quite democratic already) and really a distraction from what the party should be about; winning elections.

 

[ks.234]

Based on many posts one here since JC took up the leadership (from (primarily) Sean, you and Drood), there seems to have been a lot of time on 'navel gazing' - a focus on internal issues, changing how the party should be run. All very exciting for some but to those of us not interested in such things, unnecessary (the LP seemed quite democratic already) and really a distraction from what the party should be about; winning elections.

That’s not answering the question, if you have anything of substance it should be easy enough to put an example of ‘me.... (and others) want(ing) Labour to prioritise playing politics, worrying about due process and the internal machinations of party’.

 

[Seeker_UK]

That’s not answering the question, if you have anything of substance it should be easy enough to put an example of ‘me.... (and others) want(ing) Labour to prioritise playing politics, worrying about due process and the internal machinations of party’.

I'm not aware there was a question. You asked me to clarify. I did. It's a general feeling on my part. If I'm wrong, then I'm sorry.

Mods - please delete the posts related to this. My posts are not worth the bandwidth.

 

[ks.234]

I'm not aware there was a question. You asked me to clarify. I did. It's a general feeling on my part. If I'm wrong, then I'm sorry.

Mods - please delete the posts related to this. My posts are not worth the bandwidth.

OK, but speaking for myself, being accused of something without there being any substance to those accusations, is becoming tiresome, and speaking of others, to accuse two of the most thoughtful posters on pfm of navel gazing without basis is pretty poor

 

[Seeker_UK]

OK, but speaking for myself, being accused of something without there being any substance to those accusations, is becoming tiresome, and speaking of others, to accuse two of the most thoughtful posters on pfm of navel gazing without basis is pretty poor

You're right. I'm sorry.

As one of the less thoughtful posters on PFM, I'll back out of this for a while.