Next Labour Leader II

[deanf]

Taking their fingers out of their ears and leaving the vacuum of people telling them what they want to hear, I've posted about this on a few occasions. Before, during and after the election some members just won't accept that what Labour offered is not what the people want. There is a hard core who think the people need more time to come round to their way of thinking, or they just didn't understand.

(I voted for Corbs in the leadership contest on both occasions)

 

[Seanm]

Taking their fingers out of their ears and leaving the vacuum of people telling them what they want to hear, I've posted about this on a few occasions. Before, during and after the election some members just won't accept that what Labour offered is not what the people want. There is a hard core who think the people need more time to come round to their way of thinking, or they just didn't understand.

(I voted for Corbs in the leadership contest on both occasions)

But I mean, practically, what does listening to people mean? How do we determine what people want? Does it mean polling? Because most polls tell us that the manifesto was actually full of things that people want. They tell us that people don't like Corbyn, of course - but also that they don't like Starmer.

Do we listen to the focus groups? Because they seem to show a sudden fixation on trans issues and university debating societies which is very difficult to account for if you think that the press has nothing to with shaping popular attitudes.

Do we listen to referenda? Well, apparently not. Do we listen to the poll that really counts, the general election result? Because an unusually large number of people did vote for a party which, on the face of it, was offering a basket of promises comprising racism, regressive nostalgia, outright lies and wishful thinking.

I mean, what are we to make of this, if we've decided that people are not capable of being misled or mistaken, and that we mustn't disagree with them? How do we listen? And how is listening going to translate into power?

 

[Woodface]

Perhaps the electorate is not very nice & they want to vote nasty/Tory? Who do you listen to, the Labour membership or the wider electorate? At least there is 5 years of listening ahead (putting a positive spin on the current shit storm). This is one area where Nandy has put great focus upon.

 

[Seanm]

Perhaps the electorate is not very nice & they want to vote nasty/Tory? Who do you listen to, the Labour membership or the wider electorate? At least there is 5 years of listening ahead (putting a positive spin on the current shit storm). This is one area where Nandy has put great focus upon.

Irresistible as it is to some, the question isn't who do we listen to, members or electorate, it's how do we listen to the electorate. My preference, and the preference of the "continuity Corbyn" leadership candidate, is to build institutions that will allow people to participate meaningfully in local and national politics. Nandy's is to "listen listen to legitimate concerns" - i.e., to legitimise tabloid-fuelled bigotry. I'm not sure Starmer has a position on "listening to the electorate" and TBH, given what people usually mean by the term, which is either nothing at all or the Nandy routine, I'm ok with that.

 

[Woodface]

Irresistible as it is to some, the question isn't who do we listen to, members or electorate, it's how do we listen to the electorate. My preference, and the preference of the "continuity Corbyn" leadership candidate, is to build institutions that will allow people to participate meaningfully in local and national politics. Nandy's is to "listen listen to legitimate concerns" - i.e., to legitimise tabloid-fuelled bigotry. I'm not sure Starmer has a position on "listening to the electorate" and TBH, given what people usually mean by the term, which is either nothing at all or the Nandy routine, I'm ok with that.

I don’t think the various methods you’ve outlined are mutually exclusive. I don’t think Nandy is quite how you’ve painted her but you are entitled to it.

 

[ks.234]

I don’t think the various methods you’ve outlined are mutually exclusive. I don’t think Nandy is quite how you’ve painted her but you are entitled to it.

I don’t think RLB is anything like how she’s been painted either, but that doesn’t stop people forming judgements of her based on very little evidence or open minded assessment. She’s been linked with Corbyn and that on its own seems to be enough for some people to form very fixed and angry positions

 

[Woodface]

I don’t think RLB is anything like how she’s been painted either, but that doesn’t stop people forming judgements of her based on very little evidence or open minded assessment. She’s been linked with Corbyn and that on its own seems to be enough for some people to form very fixed and angry positions

Not sure I have a view on her either way, I don’t really understand what makes her even a candidate for leader.

 

[ks.234]

I went to see Rebecca Long Beelzebub in Bournemouth last night. She seemed almost human. She was in truth, very good, spoke for an hour without missing a beat. She outlined her plan in a way that was clearly thought out, sensible, and entirely reasonable. Her thoughts on Aspiration, democracy, the Green Deal and Localism are sound, considered policies that would improve the lives of the 99% in a costed and non disruptive way that shouldn’t frighten the 1%. She does not want to take us to hell, she has a vision for a better brighter future that is good

Such a shame that so many people have decided she’s the devil incarnate before they’ve given her a chance. Perhaps it’s because she does like to wear red a lot?

 

[eternumviti]

Trevor Philips, anyone?

Nothing like the sound of deafening silences.

 

[Tony L]

Such a shame that so many people have decided she’s the devil incarnate before they’ve given her a chance. Perhaps it’s because she does like to wear red a lot?

I think its mainly that she just isn’t dynamic or charismatic. I have nothing at all against her, feel she is a decent and kind person, and likely an excellent constituency MP or backroom strategist. She just isn’t going to function any better than Corbyn in a political world that is based on vacuous soundbite or the very powerful slamming-down of same. Remember Corbyn was totally wiped out by just three words, ‘get Brexit done’, burped up endlessly by an entitled Bullingdon Club millionaire bully and racist. He was so useless that strategy actually worked. No one can even remember what R L-B said in response as she simply didn’t cut through at all. She never will. Contrast and compare with Nicola Sturgeon, Caroline Lucas or Layla Moran. She simply isn’t in the same league. That doesn’t mean I don’t like or respect her, or that I think she lacks talent, I just don’t think she is a good choice for this particular role. Some of us just aren’t public figures, and there is nothing wrong with that at all. The key is in realising it!

 

[ks.234]

I think its mainly that she just isn’t dynamic or charismatic. I have nothing at all against her, feel she is a decent and kind person, and likely an excellent constituency MP or backroom strategist. She just isn’t going to function any better than Corbyn in a political world that is based on vacuous soundbite or the very powerful slamming-down of same. Remember Corbyn was totally wiped out by just three words, ‘get Brexit done’, burped up endlessly by an entitled Bullingdon Club millionaire bully and racist. He was so useless that strategy actually worked. No one can even remember what R L-B said in response as she simply didn’t cut through at all. She never will. Contrast and compare with Nicola Sturgeon, Caroline Lucas or Layla Moran. She simply isn’t in the same league. That doesn’t mean I don’t like or respect her, or that I think she lacks talent, I just don’t think she is a good choice for this particular role. Some of us just aren’t public figures, and there is nothing wrong with that at all. The key is in realising it!

I agree with much of that, but I don’t think it was that Corbyn was useless at taking on the right wing media that was at the heart of the problem, it was that Labour did not have a dedicated media team with the specific remit of taking on the media exaggerations, distortions and outright lies.

But the biggest media damage wasn’t done by the media itself. The exaggerations, distortions and lies that came from within the Labour party itself were far more damaging. Certain parts of the Labour Party did the Tories work for them. When one part of the party declared war on the other, the Opposition were only ever going to be the winners regardless of spin.

Interestingly RLB was talking last night about why she supported readmitting Alistair Campbell to the party, and it wasn’t just about having him pissing out rather than in!

 

[Seanm]

I went to see Rebecca Long Beelzebub in Bournemouth last night. She seemed almost human. She was in truth, very good, spoke for an hour without missing a beat. She outlined her plan in a way that was clearly thought out, sensible, and entirely reasonable. Her thoughts on Aspiration, democracy, the Green Deal and Localism are sound, considered policies that would improve the lives of the 99% in a costed and non disruptive way that shouldn’t frighten the 1%. She does not want to take us to hell, she has a vision for a better brighter future that is good

Such a shame that so many people have decided she’s the devil incarnate before they’ve given her a chance. Perhaps it’s because she does like to wear red a lot?

If she were at a safe distance she'd be lionised in The Guardian as one of the new breed of young, no-nonsense, sober, female politicians. As it stands she just doesn't have the showbiz chops of, say, a Keir Starmer.

Trevor Philips, anyone?

Nothing like the sound of deafening silences.

Indeed. One could be forgiven for thinking that the Labour right and the media intentionally downplay Islamophobia because taking it seriously would spell the end of their careers.

 

[Seanm]

I agree with much of that, but I don’t think it was that Corbyn was useless at taking on the right wing media that was at the heart of the problem, it was that Labour did not have a dedicated media team with the specific remit of taking on the media exaggerations, distortions and outright lies.

But the biggest media damage wasn’t done by the media itself. The exaggerations, distortions and lies that came from within the Labour party itself were far more damaging. Certain parts of the Labour Party did the Tories work for them. When one part of the party declared war on the other, the Opposition were only ever going to be the winners regardless of spin.

Interestingly RLB was talking last night about why she supported readmitting Alistair Campbell to the party, and it wasn’t just about having him pissing out rather than in!

Corbyn was so useless it only took 4 years of co-ordinated effort between all the other parties and the entire media establishment to oust him!

 

[h.g.]

Before, during and after the election some members just won't accept that what Labour offered is not what the people want. There is a hard core who think the people need more time to come round to their way of thinking, or they just didn't understand.

Not sure I agree with this. The group of people who traditionally voted or considered voting labour in the past and didn't last time are likely to have wanted most of what was in the labour manifesto. Polls indicate this. One of the main reasons they then didn't then vote labour was because they didn't trust the hard left leadership to deliver it (and only it) and with very good reason in my view. Polls also indicate this.

The current labour party needs to be perceived as trustworthy by this group of people that used to vote labour or considered voting labour. Combined with current support this is a comfortable majority of the population and so worth taking seriously. It doesn't matter how enthusiastic and committed current hard left supporters might be because there are not enough of them and never will be. This trust will have to be earned unless the conservatives completely lose the tentative trust that was leant to them by much of this group at the last election. This is of course a distinct possibility if social and economic conditions decline substantially as is pretty likely.

So how does labour set about building trust in this group that is currently almost completely disengaged?

First they have to visibly remove from the leadership people fully committed to beliefs this group finds unacceptable such as a massive centralised command economy, unilateral disarmament, etc... The labour leadership has to be trusted to be pragmatic and not to impose their faith regardless of the consequences as would be expected of a hard left controlled labour party. The views of the hard left faction have been made clear over the decades and Corbyn was initially quite open that when in power which current labour policies would be subject to review. The cheering at conferences for unacceptable hard left policies that were not in the manifesto reinforced the expectation in this group of what would happen if a hard left controlled labour party were ever elected. This stream of reasons for reasonable moderate people not to trust the labour party has to stop. It is not enough in itself but unless it is done nothing else will matter.

If the labour party returns to being seen as trustworthy by this group then it has a chance to get it's message across and accepted. It will probably need to be a significantly better message than the pre-Corbyn one but the last manifesto would seem to be a reasonable place to start.

 

[droodzilla]

I agree with much of that, but I don’t think it was that Corbyn was useless at taking on the right wing media that was at the heart of the problem, it was that Labour did not have a dedicated media team with the specific remit of taking on the media exaggerations, distortions and outright lies.

But the biggest media damage wasn’t done by the media itself. The exaggerations, distortions and lies that came from within the Labour party itself were far more damaging. Certain parts of the Labour Party did the Tories work for them. When one part of the party declared war on the other, the Opposition were only ever going to be the winners regardless of spin.

Interestingly RLB was talking last night about why she supported readmitting Alistair Campbell to the party, and it wasn’t just about having him pissing out rather than in!

Yes, Conservatives get to play politics on "easy mode":

Sadly, there's not much to be done about it, other than to run a tight media strategy with a robust rebuttal unit. Galling though.

 

[gavreid]

Corbyn was so useless it only took 4 years of co-ordinated effort between all the other parties and the entire media establishment to oust him!

And McDonnell is probably the best person to lead on the economy. He should have been leader ahead of Corbyn but who knew how the cookie would crumble.

Drood, I don't think any amount of slick media or rebuttal would have made a blind bit of difference, the only things that matters are policy and timing. The electorate simply didn't trust Labour not to renege on the referendum result. All the stuff about the message being unclear etc is very much secondary and often is an excuse for people rather saying that they supported leave outright or the they voted Tory.

 

[JonR]

I don’t think RLB is anything like how she’s been painted either, but that doesn’t stop people forming judgements of her based on very little evidence or open minded assessment. She’s been linked with Corbyn and that on its own seems to be enough for some people to form very fixed and angry positions

Maybe that's something to do with the fact that she's the one candidate who has been endorsed by Corbyn himself..?

 

[h.g.]

Her thoughts on Aspiration, democracy, the Green Deal and Localism are sound, considered policies that would improve the lives of the 99% in a costed and non disruptive way that shouldn’t frighten the 1%.

Pretty much everything that is going to reverse the social and economic decline for the 99% will come at a price for the current 1%. The previous labour party was happy to give all the benefits of growth to the 1% and since the crash the 1% have been receiving more than all the benefits of growth and are now starting to kill the host which is in no way socially or economically sustainable. The current transfer of wealth from the 99% to the 1% has to at least stop and preferably be reversed.

Should labour members vote for a person expressing no direct interest in fixing or directly talking about what is almost certainly the largest current problem for the future of our country? Is it because she is smart in not to openly declaring war on the 1% while out of power but will should she get into power or, like last time, would it be largely business as usual for the 1%? We seem to live in tricky times where what politicians say they will do and what they intend but keep quiet about is expected to be interpreted.

 

[droodzilla]

And McDonnell is probably the best person to lead on the economy. He should have been leader ahead of Corbyn but who knew how the cookie would crumble.

Drood, I don't think any amount of slick media or rebuttal would have made a blind bit of difference, the only things that matters are policy and timing. The electorate simply didn't trust Labour not to renege on the referendum result. All the stuff about the message being unclear etc is very much secondary and often is an excuse for people rather saying that they supported leave outright or the they voted Tory.

Largely agree but I think good presentation also matters quite a lot. "Get Brexit Done" and "Take Back Control" won because they fitted the mood at the time, and were brutally clear and simple.

 

[droodzilla]

Maybe that's something to do with the fact that she's the one candidate who has been endorsed by Corbyn himself..?

False. McDonnell endorsed RLB (because of their joint work on Green New Deal and new models of shared ownership). Corbyn hasn't endorsed any of the candidates.