advertisement


Labour Leader: Keir Starmer VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Foot's landslide GE defeat in 83 also occurred with the LP running on a socialist manifesto so maybe the British public just don't fancy it or at least not as much as the PF intellectuals.

Well, as I recall, the 'press' demonised/patronised Foot for highly policy-driven reasons like him wearing the wrong kind of coat at the cenotaph! Just as they attacked Millibland for the way he ate a bacon sandwich!
 
Well, as I recall, the 'press' demonised/patronised Foot for highly policy-driven reasons like him wearing the wrong kind of coat at the cenotaph! Just as they attacked Millibland for the way he ate a bacon sandwich!

Or Kinnock for falling over on a beach.

I suppose in fairness you can't get through a day in the Guardian without falling over references to Johnsons toddler haircut, unknown number of children, rumpled suits and nonsense about man spreading. Likewise BBCs "satirical" output majors on appearances while castigating others for doing the same.

It's all quite depressing and boring really. There's enough meat in what they all do (or don't do) without resorting to that kind of thing.
 
Corbynism was killed by Brexit, and Corbyn's attempt to ride two horses on that issue. Centrism had nothing to do with it, the 2019 election was almost entirely about Brexit.

As for Corbynism being some kind of radical socialist agenda, those of us who have memories might note that almost nothing in Corbyn's 2019 manifesto would have looked out of place in Kinnock's 1987 manifesto. Corbynism was very conservative, really. The illusions some people still have in it are a sign of how bereft of ideas the social democratic left has become, and how weak it is. Corbynism could capture the Labour Party for a while, but its impact outside that was minimal, and its devastating electoral defeat in 2019 entirely unsurprising.
 
Yes, yes. Centrists. Change. Change. Centrists. We heard you the first time. No need to keep repeating it.
No. Sorry, but every time Centrists regurgitate nonsense about Corbyn, certain truths need repeating.

The first and most obvious is that Corbyn and Socialism are dead, they’ve been dead for two and a half years now. Corbyn and Socialism are not the problem. The problem is in front of us, not behind us.

The second truth is that Centrism has the power. Elections are won in the centre ground so only Centrists have to power to address the problems in front of us

The third truth is that the number one virtue of Centrism is a belief in Social Justice. And this is the nature of the problem in front of us, that is, that we have moved a long, long way away from anything resembling social justice in the last half century or more. We have moved so far away from social justice that we have a government that has openly declared war on the very notion of social (and racial) justice.

Centrism has the power and the virtue to tackle the problem in front of us. But to do that it will have to get over it’s fear of change. It will need to think careful about what it wants social justice to look like and what changes it is prepared to accept to effect that change.

The bigger truth is that Social Justice is in the hands of Centrism. If it is to play that hand with any success it will need to see the problem ahead and avoid the tendency to keep raking over the past.
 
Knowing what the problem is & having a viable solution are two different things unfortunately.

Foot had far more substance than Corbyn, he was far more intelligent also.
 
6fslca.jpg
 
It's right up there with 'hard remainers' and 'liberals'; just a catch-all term that means 'people I don't agree with'.

Almost - but I think centrists has become a catch-all term for "people I blame because my flawed candidate did not get elected".

I agree with SSB - attempting to ride both horses on Brexit did for Corbyn. I think it would have been exceptionally difficult thing to do politically for even the most politically astute operator, which Corbyn is not.

Since the Tories owned Brexit I think Corbyn should have backed remain - in the end he lost the working class brexiter vote anyway, while alienating remainers in the process.
 
Corbynism was killed by Brexit, and Corbyn's attempt to ride two horses on that issue. Centrism had nothing to do with it, the 2019 election was almost entirely about Brexit.

As for Corbynism being some kind of radical socialist agenda, those of us who have memories might note that almost nothing in Corbyn's 2019 manifesto would have looked out of place in Kinnock's 1987 manifesto. Corbynism was very conservative, really. The illusions some people still have in it are a sign of how bereft of ideas the social democratic left has become, and how weak it is. Corbynism could capture the Labour Party for a while, but its impact outside that was minimal, and its devastating electoral defeat in 2019 entirely unsurprising.
This reminds me of the morning after the 2017 GE, when the same people who’d derided the manifesto as a suicide note suddenly started complaining that it was wasn't radical *enough*, just reheated Miliband.

It's silly, really, to think you can judge a program in terms of its intrinsic radicalism: comparing the 2019 Manifesto to Kinnock's and declaring Corbynism conservative shows just how silly it is. These things can't be judged except in relation to their context, the people involved, their direction of travel, and in all those senses Corbynism was really quite radical. Even leaving aside the actual substance of the manifestos, in the context of the last 20 years of British politics, having *any* kind of positive program for reform was a bombshell in itself.

It's also silly to say that Corbynism demonstrated the left's dearth of ideas. There was no end of ideas. The problem was the absence of a movement that could force them through, without which the project was never really going to succeed. That's clear to me in retrospect, which is why I'm not that hung up on what we got wrong or on the way it was sabotaged. I'm pleased for you that you weren't taken in. No flies on you.
 
STFU about centrism lads. It was what you all called yourselves when you thought it just meant moderate and sensible.
 
No. Sorry, but every time Centrists regurgitate nonsense about Corbyn, certain truths need repeating.

The first and most obvious is that Corbyn and Socialism are dead, they’ve been dead for two and a half years now. Corbyn and Socialism are not the problem. The problem is in front of us, not behind us.

The second truth is that Centrism has the power. Elections are won in the centre ground so only Centrists have to power to address the problems in front of us

The third truth is that the number one virtue of Centrism is a belief in Social Justice. And this is the nature of the problem in front of us, that is, that we have moved a long, long way away from anything resembling social justice in the last half century or more. We have moved so far away from social justice that we have a government that has openly declared war on the very notion of social (and racial) justice.

Centrism has the power and the virtue to tackle the problem in front of us. But to do that it will have to get over it’s fear of change. It will need to think careful about what it wants social justice to look like and what changes it is prepared to accept to effect that change.

The bigger truth is that Social Justice is in the hands of Centrism. If it is to play that hand with any success it will need to see the problem ahead and avoid the tendency to keep raking over the past.

Corbyn is dead? I thought he was very much alive. I was interested to see the (US Government-funded) RFERL interviewed him the other day https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-corbyn-interview-russia-cease-fire/31838717.html

"Centrism has the power". Wasn't that a Patti Smith song? Patel, Johnson, Truss, Sunak… the four great offices of state. Would be more truthful if you said "incompetent, right-wing populism has the power".

Etc.
 
Corbyn is dead? I thought he was very much alive. I was interested to see the (US Government-funded) RFERL interviewed him the other day https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-corbyn-interview-russia-cease-fire/31838717.html

"Centrism has the power". Wasn't that a Patti Smith song? Patel, Johnson, Truss, Sunak… the four great offices of state. Would be more truthful if you said "incompetent, right-wing populism has the power".

Etc.
Elections are won in the centre. If "incompetent, right-wing populism has the power" then the centre gave it that power. If the centre wants to change where the power is, it will need to change what it votes for.
 
Elections are won in the centre. If "incompetent, right-wing populism has the power" then the centre gave it that power. If the centre wants to change where the power is, it will need to change what it votes for.

There seems to be a lot of voter-blaming going on here, though the simple reality is people can only vote for what exists on the ballot paper. This is obviously made more complex by a totally rigged electoral system where most people live in ‘safe’ seats that are set in stone, others live in marginals and have to vote tactically against their own core beliefs and red-lines just to attempt remove a far worse option.

That said reform needs to come from within the party. Labour being what they are is 100% on Labour. A handful of left-wingers trying to blame ‘centrist voters’, ‘liberal media’ etc is bullshit. Labour design, build and market Labour. They own what they place in front of the end-user come election just as much as say Apple own the latest iPhone design and marketing. The party has decided that say Patel’s human trafficking popularism, the Elections Bill vote-suppression etc are things not to stand against, and they must own that. That is absolutely not the fault of the wider public. We can only possibly vote for the least shit thing on the polling card, which for me in a safe seat where my vote isn’t counted at all is Green, and if they are not there, Lib Dem. They are both clearly better than Labour as they oppose more venal, racist and oppressive Tory policy and believe in electoral reform.

If I was in a marginal I would vote for *anything* to unseat the Tory candidate. Even Labour despite my viewing the party as spineless authoritarian right-wing crap and an active blockage to any real political progress. This is all a voter can possibly do. Labour being useless really isn’t on us.
 
There seems to be a lot of voter-blaming going on here, though the simple reality is people can only vote for what exists on the ballot paper. This is obviously made more complex by a totally rigged electoral system where most people live in ‘safe’ seats that are set in stone, others live in marginals and have to vote tactically against their own core beliefs and red-lines just to attempt remove a far worse option.

That said reform needs to come from within the party. Labour being what they are is 100% on Labour. A handful of left-wingers trying to blame ‘centrist voters’, ‘liberal media’ etc is bullshit. Labour design, build and market Labour. They own what they place in front of the end-user come election just as much as say Apple own the latest iPhone design and marketing. The party has decided that say Patel’s human trafficking popularism, the Elections Bill vote-suppression etc are things not to stand against, and they must own that. That is absolutely not the fault of the wider public. We can only possibly vote for the least shit thing on the polling card, which for me in a safe seat where my vote isn’t counted at all is Green, and if they are not there, Lib Dem. They are both clearly better than Labour as they oppose more venal, racist and oppressive Tory policy and believe in electoral reform.

If I was in a marginal I would vote for *anything* to unseat the Tory candidate. Even Labour despite my viewing the party as spineless authoritarian right-wing crap and an active blockage to any real political progress. This is all a voter can possibly do. Labour being useless really isn’t on us.
The old saw that elections are won in the centre is wrong then?
 
The old saw that elections are won in the centre is wrong then?

It hasn't been true since at least 2016, probably even not since 2010. Although I suspect after the last few years people's taste for right wing populism and chaos may be wearing off, and the centre may start to look appealing again as a viable electoral location
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top