advertisement


Next Labour Leader II

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, I don’t agree with that. I’m a member of the Labour part because it’s the best way of getting my values across, not because I like everything it does. Breaking the whip should be the exception and not the rule.

Aside from the fact he’d been an MP for four months, there's no way in the world Starmer or any other labour member supported that legislation (ok, maybe Liz Kendal), but he took collective responsibility. If you don’t like something, change it. And that’s what Starmer is doing now, taking control.

The guy is a born leader, we'd be beyond stupid to miss this opportunity.
Well I agree on the basic point: there are lots of things about the Labour Party I don't like but go along with anyway to campaign for certain values. But those values were exactly what was at stake in the welfare bill and the immigration bill that brought us Windrush, and so those are exactly the exceptions on which I'd expect credible candidates to break the whip, on grounds of both principle and strategy. Really, if we can't oppose legislation that deliberately sets out to persecute minorities and the poor there's simply no point to us, and a lot of people had already come to that conclusion by the 2015 GE. Lots of Labour MPs rebelled on the welfare bill (SNP, LDs, Greens and DUP - the DUP! - also voted against), including Clive Lewis and Long-Bailey, who were also new. I don't see their position as dodging collective responsibility, far from it.

It was the wrong decision on Starmer's part and the question for me, really, is whether he'd make it again - because he's going to be facing that kind of choice a lot.
 
The Conservatives have moved left, economically - almost certainly thanks to Labour's own journey.
How can we know which way the conservatives are going to jump economically? If they are going for the Caymen Islands option they cannot reveal their hand until after we have left the EU which is why the type of brexit will almost certainly tell us which way they are going to jump. (If they don't follow this route then brexit will harm both the 99% and the 1% and will have been completely pointless). The manifesto promises and the "big society" noises which always happen at the start of any conservative government are irrelevant because our current government is dishonest in a way we have not seen before. They are going to break a whole raft of promises but which ones?

Anyway according to your own logic, Labour have left a massive hole in the centre of politics where the true desires of the electorate lie: so really that should have left the way clear for the Tories to become less rather than more extreme.
Both labour and the conservatives moving to the extremes has left the hole. There is currently no electable centre party (the libdems must shoulder a lot of responsibility here) which forces people to choose the least worst option from a list of parties they don't support. Labour may move to fill the hole as might the conservatives. I doubt the libdems will get their act together but the possibility exists. Conditions exist for a Macron-like movement if labour and the conservatives both opt to remain on the extremes. The next year is going to be politically interesting.
 
Absolutely agree. The Welfare Bill was a real low point for the Labour Party, a sign, large and flashing neon, that Labour had totally lost its way. Corbyn bought Labour back on track and it needs to make sure it does it doesn’t lose its way like that again.

Also agree that whoever becomes leader will hammered by the press, that’s obvious to anyone who isn’t myopic, but I fear that as with Corbyn, any message RLB has will get drowned about by the press squealing in unison, ‘yes, but what about Corbyn?’ Maybe someone who has the support of the centrists will be able to be heard?
I can't see it happening! But, well, I've been wrong before.
 
That's a beautiful photo (and goat). I wonder if it can be encouraged to throw its hat into the ring?
It’s a painting by Holman Hunt, currently on display at Manchester Art Gallery I believe.

According to Wiki, it depicts the "scapegoat" described in the Book of Leviticus. On the Day of Atonement, a goat would have its horns wrapped with a red cloth – representing the sins of the community – and be driven off. How prescient is that?
 
Both labour and the conservatives moving to the extremes has left the hole.

Just because you say something 1000 times doesn't make it a truism. The Tories are extreme yes, but that shouldn't mean everything else gets dragged rightward. Unfortunately that is the inevitable outcome of this contest, whoever goes on to win.
 
Yes, though I always thought that support for remain has been overestimated by remainders by some way.

Every poll I've seen has had it at about 50/50. There was some evidence that a significant proportion of those who voted remain were prepared to accept the referendum result, though, and they hated the stalemate as much as everyone else. Still, overall, it should have been possible to win a GE with either definite position. Whether it was in theory possible to win without taking a position is harder to say.

What was never in doubt was that Corbyn was hugely unpopular, and the cumulative effect of all this was that Brexit was more popular than Corbyn. I had hoped that an impending/actual GE would have forced some serious change in the Labour approach but, alas, it was not to be.

Kind regards

- Garry
 
Just because you say something 1000 times doesn't make it a truism. The Tories are extreme yes, but that shouldn't mean everything else gets dragged rightward. Unfortunately that is the inevitable outcome of this contest, whoever goes on to win.

True. But you don't get to re-set the goalposts until you win.
 
How can we know which way the conservatives are going to jump economically? If they are going for the Caymen Islands option they cannot reveal their hand until after we have left the EU which is why the type of brexit will almost certainly tell us which way they are going to jump. (If they don't follow this route then brexit will harm both the 99% and the 1% and will have been completely pointless). The manifesto promises and the "big society" noises which always happen at the start of any conservative government are irrelevant because our current government is dishonest in a way we have not seen before. They are going to break a whole raft of promises but which ones?


Both labour and the conservatives moving to the extremes has left the hole. There is currently no electable centre party (the libdems must shoulder a lot of responsibility here) which forces people to choose the least worst option from a list of parties they don't support. Labour may move to fill the hole as might the conservatives. I doubt the libdems will get their act together but the possibility exists. Conditions exist for a Macron-like movement if labour and the conservatives both opt to remain on the extremes. The next year is going to be politically interesting.
They have been making big promises on public spending and investment. I think it's likely that they're lying, but it's clear that they think they needed to at least appear to move left on the economy - and that's down to Labour's move to the left: these kind of noises appeared after May's humiliation, and they are different to the Big Society noises, which were to justify austerity.

In a two party system, one party moving to an extreme doesn't compel the other to move to the opposite extreme if there's a genuine appetite for the centre ground. It's just not logical.
 
Every poll I've seen has had it at about 50/50. There was some evidence that a significant proportion of those who voted remain were prepared to accept the referendum result, though, and they hated the stalemate as much as everyone else. Still, overall, it should have been possible to win a GE with either definite position. Whether it was in theory possible to win without taking a position is harder to say.

What was never in doubt was that Corbyn was hugely unpopular, and the cumulative effect of all this was that Brexit was more popular than Corbyn. I had hoped that an impending/actual GE would have forced some serious change in the Labour approach but, alas, it was not to be.

Kind regards

- Garry
Sadly the PLP decide whether or not that kind of change is going to be led from the top. In piling up votes for Starmer and denying Lewis they've made it very clear that they don't want to even talk about change.
 
They have been making big promises on public spending and investment. I think it's likely that they're lying, but it's clear that they think they needed to at least appear to move left on the economy - and that's down to Labour's move to the left: these kind of noises appeared after May's humiliation, and they are different to the Big Society noises, which were to justify austerity.

In a two party system, one party moving to an extreme doesn't compel the other to move to the opposite extreme if there's a genuine appetite for the centre ground. It's just not logical.

True, however, it gives the other party more freedom of movement. To win the centre ground, you just have to be closer to the centre than your opponent. Both parties are in flux right now, and Brexit adds to the turbulence. Labour does have the 'luxury' of not being in government, and so not having to pin its colours to the mast until later.
 
Sadly the PLP decide whether or not that kind of change is going to be led from the top. In piling up votes for Starmer and denying Lewis they've made it very clear that they don't want to even talk about change.

On the contrary, I think it is clear they do want change. Specifically, the change from losing to winning.
 
On the contrary, I think it is clear they do want change. Specifically, the change from losing to winning.
This is a truism. But Lewis was talking about actual change and Starmer is not talking about change at all: he's explicitly saying he doesn't want to change policy direction and has mentioned no other kind of change, either institutional or strategic. He's the ultimate continuity candidate.

The PLP are assuming of course that this is all in bad faith - and that he actually intends to change things *back* to the good old days before 2015. Or, being charitable, that they can make him change things back
 
You’ve referred to the need to service the interests of the 99% rather than the 1% before, yet the only politician who has addressed that issue head on in the last half century or so, you have nothing but contempt for, which I’m afraid I find quite contradictory.
You are suggesting Corbyn and the hard left faction controlling the labour party would service the interests of the 99% in the real world if they were in government? I am sure they would like to but where it ranks relative to other concerns like supporting the faith, keeping control of the host party, and such is open to debate. They have proved to be an incompetent ineffective intolerant opposition and would almost certainly be an incompetent ineffective intolerant government regardless of what they would like to achieve. This is the problem and it has little to do with policies.

Some of the most effective arguments I have seen for supporting the interests of the 99% have come from a few of the obscenely rich wishing to avoid the pitchforks that they see coming. Social stability is equally important to all rational parties whether from the left or right. The 1% in the UK are currently taking too much and are killing the host. This is the most important issue that needs to be addressed and if it is then restoring social and economic conditions, addressing climate change,... will follow. If it is not then the UK will continue and likely accelerate it's decline.
 
This is a truism. But Lewis was talking about actual change and Starmer is not talking about change at all: he's explicitly saying he doesn't want to change policy direction and has mentioned no other kind of change, either institutional or strategic. He's the ultimate continuity candidate.

The PLP are assuming of course that this is all in bad faith - and that he actually intends to change things *back* to the good old days before 2015. Or, being charitable, that they can make him change things back

I see him as a moderate in Labour Party terms, and someone wise enough to know what he has to do right now to become leader. I believe he will disappoint the ideological unmoveables on both sides, but delight those who want to see Labour build wider support. Whether he can beat Johnsonism, whatever that turns out to be, is harder to say. It's early days, of course.
 
Every poll I've seen has had it at about 50/50. There was some evidence that a significant proportion of those who voted remain were prepared to accept the referendum result, though, and they hated the stalemate as much as everyone else. Still, overall, it should have been possible to win a GE with either definite position. Whether it was in theory possible to win without taking a position is harder to say.

What was never in doubt was that Corbyn was hugely unpopular, and the cumulative effect of all this was that Brexit was more popular than Corbyn. I had hoped that an impending/actual GE would have forced some serious change in the Labour approach but, alas, it was not to be.

Kind regards

- Garry
Yes, I believe you’re right in what you say about Brexit, the Get Brexit Done thing chimed with a lot of people who voted remain, but were now plain bored.

If Corbyn had won then we’d now be in full on 24/7 Corbyn bashing. Just imagine if Corbyn had been on holiday during the Iran thing? It would’ve been monumental. Then off course every minutiae of a Labour Brexit plan would’ve been front page news and those already bored with Brexit would’ve turned away from Labour anyway.

If Labour had won the last election, it would’ve lost the next and had to rebuild from there with the addition of several more years of negative headlines.

Maybe rebuilding now might enable about to rebuild around core values of protecting public services and challenging private profiteering from taxpayers money?
 
You are suggesting Corbyn and the hard left faction controlling the labour party would service the interests of the 99% in the real world if they were in government? I am sure they would like to but where it ranks relative to other concerns like supporting the faith, keeping control of the host party, and such is open to debate. They have proved to be an incompetent ineffective intolerant opposition and would almost certainly be an incompetent ineffective intolerant government regardless of what they would like to achieve. This is the problem and it has little to do with policies.

Some of the most effective arguments I have seen for supporting the interests of the 99% have come from a few of the obscenely rich wishing to avoid the pitchforks that they see coming. Social stability is equally important to all rational parties whether from the left or right. The 1% in the UK are currently taking too much and are killing the host. This is the most important issue that needs to be addressed and if it is then restoring social and economic conditions, addressing climate change,... will follow. If it is not then the UK will continue and likely accelerate it's decline.
Sorry, I stopped reading after the first ‘hard left’
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top