What now for Labour? (Part 1)

First topic message reminder :

A post mortem

We lost. I feared the worst a few days ago when walking my dog. I met a left-wing man I’ve known for years who said that he was voting for the Peace Party. Someone of his persuasion was going to throw his vote down the drain instead of opting for the only party which could replace the Tories. That made me apprehensive about whether millions of anti-Tory voters would use their votes effectively. (The Peace Party came seventh in my constituency.) Worse was to follow when I logged in here. To read that a serious Tory hater couldn’t “become enthused by any party on offer” and chose not to vote for the only viable alternative to Cameron’s evil regime, was further evidence, albeit anecdotal, that the Labour campaign, despite having so many troops on the ground, was failing to motivate enough people to secure a victory.

About eleven million people in the UK (about 37% of those who voted) chose the Tories, and it resulted in them winning 331 of the 650 seats in Parliament, 12 more than all the other parties combined. In our so-called democracy, we have to respect their choice, even if it’s difficult to understand it. I’ve never come to terms with how anyone of modest means, or anyone with a social conscience, could ever vote Tory. I have a brief encounter with OCD whenever I go into a polling booth, checking what I’ve done on the ballot paper several times before I put it in the box.

What makes it even more difficult to understand now is that many people believed Cameron in 2010, he lied to them and has since broken a string of promises (which have been recorded elsewhere on this forum any number of times). He’s presided over the cruellest government in living memory, and yet so many people don’t seem to care. He’s stuffed the House of Lords with cronies, often after the Tories have received generous donations from them, and he's sold off state assets at knockdown prices, in the case of the Royal Mail enabling Osborne’s best man to make a fortune. He and his government have even been reprimanded several times for falsifying statistics.

The Tories often complain that the BBC is ‘left-wing’, which it isn’t, as a thread on this forum fully demonstrates; if anything it leans to the right these days, and it has always fawned over so-called ‘royalty’. But the Tories never complain about the rabid right-wing nature of most of the press, with even ‘The Independent’ giving them a tepid endorsement this week. That press, and programmes such as ‘HIGN4Y’ and ‘News Quiz’, have participated in the character assassination of Ed Miliband over a long period of time, gradually corroding his credibility, and dismissing him as “not being prime ministerial”. Whether he is we will never find out now, but does Cameron fit the bill? So often he’s shown himself to be an arrogant, bad-tempered, out-of-touch bully with a sense of entitlement. His behaviour on the day after the Scottish independence referendum incited the Scots and drove many of them from Labour into the arms of the SNP. In this campaign, he created fear of the SNP to scare many English voters towards the Tories. Had he been alive today, Machiavelli could have learned lessons from Cameron.

Ed Miliband sometimes looks awkward on television and isn’t very good at eating a bacon sandwich (who is?). But what does it say when the issue of choosing a potential prime minister is reduced to the level of a vote for ‘Britain’s Got Talent’ or ‘The X Factor’? Would Clement Attlee - in my opinion the greatest PM we’ve ever had - have won many votes for his celebrity status? Shouldn’t it be more important to choose between the bedroom tax and a mansion tax, and between democratically managed public services or private ones controlled by unaccountable corporations? Did those who voted Tory really want the ultimate destruction of the welfare state? Are they really so blasé about the possibility of becoming sick, unemployed or disabled one day? Instead of thinking about such issues, so many were distracted by the Tory charge that Miliband was ‘weak’, even though Cameron was too scared to debate head-to-head with him.

So it was rather like 1992 after all. No triumphalist Sheffield rally this time, just a silly stone monument, but the polls telling us that it was neck-and-neck and then the Tories winning easily. Three party leaders have resigned, but so should the pollsters. Electoral Calculus was claiming only yesterday that the chance of a Tory majority was just 4%. I don’t think I’ll ever bother to look at an opinion poll again; studying tea leaves is probably a more reliable guide to election outcomes.

Maybe the similarities with 1992 (which turned out to be a good election to lose) won’t end there. Five months after John Major lied his way back into office with scaremongering and promises of “tax cuts year on year”, Tory economic incompetence was there for all to see on ‘Black Wednesday’. His hapless government, riddled with sleaze and tearing itself apart over Europe, limped through five unhappy years, and we all know what happened next. So maybe 2020 will be like 1997, but five years is a long while to wait to find out, and sadly a lot of vulnerable people are going to suffer in the meantime.

OW, I strongly agree.

In that case we would never have a change of government at all would we?

On 19 May, Professor Vernon Bogdanor delivered a lecture on the 2015 general election. If you have a spare 50 minutes, it is available here for the next four weeks:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05y9fgc/briefings-election-2015-lecture

If you watch from around 24:50, Bogdanor explains why the Tories succeed by peddling fear: “Fear of losing what one has is a stronger motivation than hope of future gains. Voters turn to the Conservatives when they are fearful.”

Later he explains how, when the global crash occurred in 2008, social democrats assumed that the crisis would be blamed on the failure of free market capitalism. Instead it led to a growth of nationalism, not just in the UK but across Europe. Ironically, whilst there is an increasingly integrated global economic system, the political system is becoming more fragmented as a reaction against globalisation. Maybe it’s time to stop blaming Ed Miliband for being too left-wing for England and too right-wing for Scotland, and to accept that there are economic and political forces throughout Europe which are way beyond the control of any one politician or party.

However, we shouldn’t ignore the fact that our electoral system is seriously unfit for purpose. We also shouldn’t forget that if given the choice between Tory and Tory-lite, many voters will either opt for the real thing or stay at home on polling day. If Liz Kendall should become Labour leader, I will stay in the party and still vote for it, but I don’t somehow believe that supporting free schools and increased defence expenditure is the way to win back traditional Labour voters. But not for the first time, I could well be wrong!

Is it yourself supporting Liz Kendall Ivan,or the Professor?

Thanks for posting that link, Ivan.

My own feeling is that, for Labour to win, what's needed is to establish some clear. blue (or red) water between us and the Tories.
There's a lot of evidence that voters don't want austerity policies - as shown by the various anti-austerity demonstrations which, despite lack of media coverage, are well attended.
What they want, as Professor Bogdanor commented, is policies of fairness combined with convincing evidence that Labour can be competent in managing the economy and also competent politically, which will mean getting the message over in a powerful way.
The evidence is there about Labour's economic competence (and about the Tories' economic incompetence) - to date, maybe there's been not enough evidence to show that Labour has a plan for fairness - maybe for that we need a leader who is manifestly decent like Ed Milliband but who can also shine in the beauty pageant that is Westminster.

Not really sold on any of the candidates but maybe Andy Burnham has some of the qualities we need

" Not really sold on any of the candidates but maybe Andy Burnham has some of the qualities we need "

Me neither boatlady, If we look back at the leaders of past parties, where were the statesman, in that sorrowful bunch? Churchhill, Macmillan and dare I say it, Thatcher? Where is there a potential leader who looks the part I ask. Apearances and character are important, before any policies are promoted. Labour needs a strong good looking leader. I fear there just isn't one that springs to mind.

Perhaps Labour should find a pink faced toff, who is arrogant, non caring, a lying cheating tyrant who goes back on his promises and is worth millions. The electorate seem to love this kind of leader as we have found out.

Mel they will for the time being or until the 8th July when Osborne brings forth his emergncy budget how many people that voted Tory on thw 7th May willl start Screaming blue murder when his cuts hit them ??

Very few, because most of those who voted Tory won't be affected by the cuts. It will be the disabled, the working poor and the unemployed who will be kicked again.

Meanwhile, back on the subject....

“If Labour shifts further to the right, and in doing so loses even more traction with its core, then its core will go somewhere”, writes Michael Chessum:-

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/labours-left-flank-must-ask-itself-it-time-walk-away

I’d like to have seen either Dan Jarvis or Keir Starmer become Labour leader, but it isn’t going to happen at this point in time. Mary Creagh had only received 5 of the required 35 nominations when I last checked, so her name won’t be on the ballot paper. In my opinion, Andy Burnham is the best of the three people on offer, Yvette Cooper is very bright and just about acceptable, but Liz Kendall is in the wrong party. Would her Tory-lite agenda motivate the ground troops to knock on five million doors, as Ed Miliband did? Would the prospect of extra spending on defence win back defectors to the Green Party? Would the promise of more free schools (probably in areas where more schools aren’t needed) appeal to those who went to UKIP? I don't somehow think so.

The result of the election suggests that many voters simply don't like other people:

They voted Tory because they fear that poverty might be contagious, and scroungers might not leave enough for the rest of us.

They voted UKIP if they don't like johnny foreigner.

Green from a deep mistrust of Capitalists.

SNP because there are no bloody English in it.

Plaid Cymru ditto

Lib Dem wanted to carry on frustrating the Tories.

Sinn Fean: said F... the lot of 'em

That sounds spot on to me OW, nice one.

Whoever next leads Labour has -inter alia - to find a way of minimising the effects of the constant Press attacks on their character - most -if not all - of which will be unfair and exaggerated . Some may be blatant lies if the lesser propaganda has too little effect.

How to do this? I have absolutely no idea...

I know of a way PH give the right wing media and the Tory party a taste of there own medicine plus call for the people of the UK not to buy any of the right wing rags. That is why we need somebody that is just as sharp tongued as Davy boy to lead the Labour party if he is getting just as much back tt he is giving out he will not like it at all and it may stop him in his tracks.

Redflag wrote:I know of a way PH give the right wing media and the Tory party a taste of there own medicine plus call for the people of the UK not to buy any of the right wing rags.    That is why we need somebody that is just as sharp tongued as Davy boy to lead the Labour party if he is getting just as much back tt he is giving out he will not like it at all and it may stop him in his tracks.

"Right-wing rags" don't rely upon the cover-price to survive, Redflag. Their profits will mostly come from advertising, which means they have to sympathise with Business in order to generate income. It's the same motivation that encourages donations to the Tory Party.

The recent defeat provides the Labour Party with an opportunity to re-group, and address itself to the concerns of ordinary people. Playing the toffs at their own game requires the hard slog which party-workers such as yourself are so good at. Talking to people will always succeed against media propaganda, but first there must be a programme that appeals directly to voters' sense of fair-play as well as their self-interest.

oftenwrong wrote:The recent defeat provides the Labour Party with an opportunity to re-group, and address itself  to the concerns of ordinary people.  Playing the toffs at their own game requires the hard slog which party-workers such as yourself are so good at.  Talking to people will always succeed against media propaganda, but first there must be a programme that appeals directly to voters' sense of fair-play as well as their self-interest.

The development of forms of communication not directly controlled by the tories is in this case a cause for hope - while it lasts!

So, where does Labour go from here?

From an article by Michael Sheen:-

The muted and confused narrative of the past five years has made it difficult to know if Ed Miliband lost because he was seen as too left-wing or not left-wing enough. Or just not anything enough. Neil Kinnock welcomed Miliband’s election by saying: “We’ve got our party back”. Tony Blair said that when a traditional party of the left goes up against a traditional party of the right it ends in the traditional result – a Labour loss. Labour did lose, but was Blair right? The SNP swept the board north of the border with the kind of rhetoric and vision that has been seen as a traditional-left position. Could Labour have done the same? How would that kind of message have played with the voters in England, and what if it had been delivered by a leader who was seen as more substantive and electable than Miliband? At the time of writing, the Labour leadership candidates are essentially trying to be everything to everyone. Aspiring to be aspirational to the aspirants who aspire towards aspiration.

Whether Labour moves back towards the centre, doing more to seem business-friendly or breaking away from the unions, is totally secondary to the fundamental question: “What do you believe in?” Then, how do you turn that into policy that can make concrete change? You should have deeply held beliefs and core principles based on your experience of living with and listening to the people you are representing, shouldn’t you? Then that becomes the bedrock from which you can face the challenges of the future. Your adaptability and flexibility in the moment is precisely related to how solid you are at your core.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/michael-sheen-tyranny-mere-wealth-destroying-our-democracy

No, Labour needs to stop pandering to the right wing capitalist system.

Why vote Labour when you can just vote for the real thing: the Tory party?

Labour has utterly lost its core support and doesn't seem to care. Andy Burnham - who will likely win - is in the Guardian using the rhetoric of the undeserving poor, championing the 'striver v skiver' nonsense.

Labour are dead. It's time to move on.

Ivan wrote:“If Labour shifts further to the right, and in doing so loses even more traction with its core, then its core will go somewhere”, writes Michael Chessum:-

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/labours-left-flank-must-ask-itself-it-time-walk-away

I’d like to have seen either Dan Jarvis or Keir Starmer become Labour leader, but it isn’t going to happen at this point in time.

You mean the same Keir Starmer who wanted benefit fraud to be met with a ten year custodial sentence?

ghost whistler wrote:No, Labour needs to stop pandering to the right wing capitalist system.

Why vote Labour when you can just vote for the real thing: the Tory party?

You could saythe same thing about Ukip GW, why did so many people vote for a second hand Tory party, according to the media & some people Ed Miliband took Labour too far to the left and we all know the out come of that. Before you say anything about Eds policies take a good look at his policies; getting rid of the bedroom tax putting the high rate of tax back to 50p which the Tories had reduced to 45p getting to grips with tax avoidance and evasion making the Nom-Doms pay there correct amount of tax, these are just a few of Labours policies but it seems people in England do not mind being bled dry by the Tories.

Labour needs to capture the hearts and minds of those who don't need to vote for them , but who should want to - perhaps for the sake of others who are less fortunate.

There are hundreds of thousands of folk who are doing just fine, thank you and -as things stand -feel no need to turn their back on what they see as a comfortable blanket of Toryism. Those people need to be persuaded that the world would be a better place if the truly disadvantaged were given more help. The narrative needs to bring out the generosity of spirit of the public which is evident in charitable donations for 'good causes'. We can be certain that the Tories will never care about the 'undeserving poor'.

There is also a need to reassure that public that Labour is truly on their side and understands modern life and is not simply the party of protest and dissent by the underdog against the oppressor. Such notions -or , at least, such descriptions - are out-of-date and lack the ability to be persuasive ( however justified they sometimes are).

The attraction of Tory policies is that they allow people to stifle their conscience about the less fortunate, so long as the good times roll for "hard-working families".

Labour's task is to stimulate moral attitudes of mutual self-help without suggesting a hair-shirt-mentality. The Trade Unions' part in that is to pay more attention to the plight of unemployed people, to whom they have little relevance for so long as their writ runs only in a "workplace".

Is there a trade union for unemployed OW?

ghost whistler wrote:No, Labour needs to stop pandering to the right wing capitalist system.

Why vote Labour when you can just vote for the real thing: the Tory party?

Labour has utterly lost its core support and doesn't seem to care. Andy Burnham - who will likely win - is in the Guardian using the rhetoric of the undeserving poor, championing the 'striver v skiver' nonsense.

Labour are dead. It's time to move on.

Communication is the problem. You can preach pure socialism and have very little effect, and it is destructive (I was a Branch Sec in the SWP at one time, and I know), whereas the Murdochs are constantly telling the careerists to be ditto tories.. To where do we move? I was able to bring lots of people into the Labour Party and persuade them to be socialist once - but in those days we had a democratic constitution. Let's get that back, for a start!

Now that would be a nice place to start Penderyn.

Redflag wrote:You could saythe same thing about Ukip GW, why did so many people vote for a second hand Tory party, according to the media & some people Ed Miliband took Labour too far to the left and we all know the out come of that. Before you say anything about Eds policies take a good look at his policies; getting rid of the bedroom tax putting the high rate of tax back to 50p which the Tories had reduced to 45p getting to grips with tax avoidance and evasion making the Nom-Doms pay there correct amount of tax, these are just a few of Labours policies but it seems people in England do not mind being bled dry by the Tories.

"according to the media" - you mean the right wing press that called him 'Red Ed' when none of his policies were remotely socialist or left leaning.

We aren't discussing UKIP, we're discussing Labour. Though Labour lost a lot of support in the North to UKIP and never understood why. They don't seem to have grasped the point either; their hopeless array of clone candidates are a dismal lot offering nothing but a shadow of the Tories. What's the point of them? It's time for something to replace Labour, which died long ago.

I was able to bring lots of people into the Labour Party and persuade them to be socialist once - but in those days we had a democratic constitution. Let's get that back, for a start!

Fantasy island.

Though Labour lost a lot of support in the North to UKIP and never understood why. They don't seem to have grasped the point either; their hopeless array of clone candidates are a dismal lot offering nothing but a shadow of the Tories. What's the point of them? It's time for something to replace Labour, which died long ago.

Sad but true.

Quite true i'm afrad sickchip,we need Labour to move more back to the left of politics where it has been until after blair had finished with us.
Night all see you tomorrow sleep well.

Moving Left would be like a change from supporting Arsenal
( challenging hard for the title ) to buying a season ticket for Hartlepool ( lucky to still be in the league).

Blair was a man who knew how to win but, for those who like the prospect of permanent defeat - and , therefore, opposition- it may be acceptable to refuse to compromise pragmatically when entering the future political contests...

If you say so Phil.

Phil Hornby wrote:-
Blair was a man who knew how to win

That all depends on why you think Tony Blair won in 1997 – or why the Tories lost. There is an adage that governments lose elections, rather than oppositions win them.

- The Tories had been in power for 18 years – the “time for a change” argument certainly resonated.
- The Tories had shown their economic incompetence on ‘Black Wednesday’ in 1992 and were a long way behind in the polls from then on, well before Tony Blair became Labour leader in 1994.
- Instead of honouring their 1992 pledge to “cut taxes year on year”, the Tories had increased them more than any previous government in peacetime.
- The Tories were seriously divided - almost paralysed - over the EU, and riddled with sleaze, both sexual and financial.
- The Tories didn't have anything with which to frighten the voters in 1997. The best they could manage were some pathetic posters showing Blair with red eyes!

There’s no way of proving me right or wrong of course, but bearing in mind the unpopularity of the Tories in 1997, and the size of Blair’s majority (179 over all other parties), I’m convinced that anyone – even Arthur Scargill – could have led Labour to victory, though by a smaller amount.

I’m all for pragmatism, and that’s why I suggested that either Dan Jarvis (who has nominated Andy Burnham), or the former DPP Keir Starmer, could be an effective leader. Yes, Starmer did advocate up to ten years in the slammer for the most serious professionally planned multiple offences of benefit fraud (especially if they involve identity theft), and I trust he would be just as harsh on the far more significant crime of tax evasion. I think that either Jarvis or Starmer would give the Tories plenty to worry about, regardless of whether their politics lean to the left (Jarvis) or right (Starmer). At the same time, the party has to have sufficiently different policies from the Tories to motivate its core voters and its foot soldiers. So if anyone wants more free schools, they might as well support the Tories, not Liz Kendall; why have a poor imitation when you can have the real thing?

ghost whistler wrote:No, Labour needs to stop pandering to the right wing capitalist system.

Why vote Labour when you can just vote for the real thing: the Tory party?

Labour has utterly lost its core support and doesn't seem to care. Andy Burnham - who will likely win - is in the Guardian using the rhetoric of the undeserving poor, championing the 'striver v skiver' nonsense.

Labour are dead. It's time to move on.

I think it is time you moved on GW, in regards to your earlier post if the right wing press is losing readers the people that adverise in the right wing rags will not be buying any space or would you prefer us to believe the only way is vote Tory "NO THANKS"

sickchip wrote: I was able to bring lots of people into the Labour Party and persuade them to be socialist once - but in those days we had a democratic constitution. Let's get that back, for a start!

Fantasy island.

You doubt what I say, or prefer Murdoch? As far as I can see, most people still have sane opinions outside the South East, but they have no choice to express them and give up hope.

I actually agree with you there Ivan, that the Tories lost that election rather than Blair winning it for us, as I always thought that Blair was the right wing of labour and was very close to the tory ideas anyway.

Penderyn I was in Hallam Sheffield Carlisle & Wirral West during the run up to the 2015 general election & all I was hearing on most doorsteps was we need to get rid of the Torie, and yet some people where stupid enough to vote for more cuts to public services NHS and Welfare services I will never understand the voting public.

When Osborne brings in cuts after the 8th July 2015, the same people will be looking to Labour to stop the cuts from hurting them and I hope Labour MPs tell them we "We Told You So"

Exactly,but it will be to late by then will it not Redflag.

I do not think so Sturt the public are a about to learn a Hard lesson, if that is possible but can be sure some people will be moaning that Labour will not help them of course there not ause with only 232 seatsin the HOC even with the help of the other parties dscounting the DUP party because they are just another brown noses of the Tories.

W.T. McGonagall might have written :


Labour's in a poor condition,
And hell-bent on yet more perdition;
Supporters seem to be a-wishin'
For perpetual Opposition...




But, then, he'd probably have voted SNP anyway...   

Exactly what I said Redflag, too late until the next election.

True enough, Phil, and there have been contributors to this very forum who apparently think that it doesn't matter whether Labour are in Power as it is more important for them to remain honest Socialists.
(TriMonk3y on Sun May 10, 2015 10:12 am).

It's the Michael Foot syndrome, unfortunately.

We'll have to eat cake until the Second Coming of Blair.

Phil Hornby wrote:Labour's in a poor condition,
And hell-bent on yet more perdition;
Supporters seem to be a-wishin'
For perpetual Opposition...

And who's eager to give power
to a second tory shower?
It is better to oppose
than think Murdoch's arse a rose
which you breathe in with a bright
smile and contented kiss goodnight!