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.

Labour has no interest in being socialist.

ghostwhistler

The Conservatives also have no interest in being socialist.

So by 2020, after this 'direct action' you're proposing we take, we will see a socialist party elected to parliament, a living wage introduced, welfare reforms reversed, etc etc. I didn't realise it would all be so easy - I imagined we'd need to take one step at a time.......get the Tories out, and Labour in, and go from there......; but that was before you laid out your realistic plan of action.

"Labour has no interest in being Socialist"

Oh, I think it does.
 

It's just that it has more interest in being elected at some stage.

But why worry - you are now wedded to the Socialist Party and doubtless hope that a large number of the British public are like-minded and will vote it into a position of political influence.

How long do you hope to live?   

Phil Hornby wrote:"Labour has no interest in being Socialist"

Oh, I think it does.
 

It's just that it has more interest in being elected at some stage.

But why worry - you are now wedded to the Socialist Party and doubtless hope that a large number of the British public are like-minded and will vote it into a position of political influence.

How long do you hope to live?   

I'm not wedded to anything. I simply have no illusions about the Labour party unlike everyone else on here. They aren't a socialist party. They aren't going to elect Jeremy Corbyn and they aren't going to change into a decent party prior to 2020, adn even if they did it will be too late by then.

All I see on here is a bunch of people with their heads bravely in the sand

sickchip wrote:ghostwhistler

The Conservatives also have no interest in being socialist.

So by 2020, after this 'direct action' you're proposing we take, we will see a socialist party elected to parliament, a living wage introduced, welfare reforms reversed, etc etc. I didn't realise it would all be so easy - I imagined we'd need to take one step at a time.......get the Tories out, and Labour in, and go from there......; but that was before you laid out your realistic plan of action.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I never said the SP will get elected in 2020.

ghostwhistler

I strongly suspect. because of your ludicrous statements, you are a Tory taking the P on this site.

Making Corbyn leader would set the Labour Party back from even their current position. That may be frustrating from a socialist's point of view, but there is no escaping reality.

As others have suggested, it is essential to compromise some beliefs to establish a position from which to move ahead with progressive policies later.

It may be great to be a red-blooded socialist, but it may be better to be in power...

I have no idea what you are talking about

I'm not surprised. Go back several posts and try and follow the thread of conversation.....

Do you want a Tory government? If not - can you suggest how to replace them without the Labour party. If you can't offer a realistic answer to that, then I suggest you get a little more realistic, pragmatic, and practical in your approach to politics.......because you will never find your ideal.

So what do you propose, ghostwhistler? Please offer realistic proposals only.

You appear unable to answer the above with anything that is remotely feasible.

Phil Hornby wrote:Making Corbyn leader would set the Labour Party back from even their current position. That may be frustrating from a socialist's point of view, but there is no escaping reality.

As others have suggested, it is essential to compromise some beliefs to establish a position from which to move ahead with progressive policies later.

It may be great to be a red-blooded socialist, but it may be better to be in power...

except that being in power labour will be just as crap as they are right now.

If you believe this is all an act on the part of labour to appeal to voters and that once in they will morph into a party that will enact proper policies, etc, then I think you are living in a fantasy.

sickchip wrote:I have no idea what you are talking about

I'm not surprised. Go back several posts and try and follow the thread of conversation.....

Do you want a Tory government? If not - can you suggest how to replace them without the Labour party. If you can't offer a realistic answer to that, then I suggest you get a little more realistic, pragmatic, and practical in your approach to politics.......because you will never find your ideal.

So what do you propose, ghostwhistler? Please offer realistic proposals only.

You appear unable to answer the above with anything that is remotely feasible.

I told you what will work: direct action, general strike, etc.

I don't propose that's easy or popular.

Your solution seems to be believe that the labour party are something they aren't and that they will rescue us all in 5 years.

too late.

sickchip wrote:ghostwhistler

I strongly suspect. because of your ludicrous statements, you are a Tory taking the P on this site.

The only tories on this site are the labour supporters who agree with labour's position on forced work.

something i've mentioned many times that noone has said was unacceptable.

You need to get a life, you fuckwit.

" I think you are living in a fantasy" 
 

Possibly.

 But in a happier frame of mind than you are, it appears...  

I told you what will work: direct action, general strike, etc.

- and I asked you to be realistic.

ghost whistler wrote:I told you what will work: direct action, general strike, etc.

I don't propose that's easy or popular.

Wouldn't a general strike by definition have to be popular?

sickchip wrote:I told you what will work: direct action, general strike, etc.

- and I asked you to be realistic.

there is nothing unrealistic about those things, it is simply a question of whether people want to continue wasting their vote on labour and wake up to what is happening.

A bunch of people in wheelchairs protests outside parliament today. A lot more bravery on display from the most vulnerable than we can expect from a coward like you.

ghostwhistler

What's with the insults?

sickchip wrote:ghostwhistler

What's with the insults?

You're the tory; you and all the apologists for the labour party and it's appalling capitulation to the tories. Clearly you agree that the people wrongly forced into slavery by IDS shouldn't get their benefits reinstated, and you have the nerve to call me a tory? Piss off, Jeremy Hunt.

I do have a degree of sympathy for, and understanding of, your views, ghostwhistler.

But not the insults, which are childish and ill-directed.

Why not direct your obvious anger into coherent arguments about how things could usefully develop under your favoured way forward. We all want to see the Tories put to the sword , but probably have different paths, strategies and timetables...

sickchip wrote:ghostwhistler

What's with the insults?

Sickchip GW thiwe are all RED Tories on this forum, because most of us on this forum do not agree with GW.

Whatever anyone chooses to think about the Labour Party as currently constituted, the governing party is by no means of one mind:

[i]"People have been saying it for years: the Conservative Party is “split down the middle on Europe”. If they are right, David Cameron is in for a rough ride over the next two years. In the lead up to the Government’s referendum on EU membership such a split would mean his majority of 15 in the House of Commons evaporating when he tried to get his new deal with the EU through Parliament. But the reality isn’t quite like that. The “split down the middle” argument was generally one proposed by those who hoped their claim was true. This was either because they were in one of the opposition parties and were keen to portray the Conservative Party as divided, or because they were anti-EU Tories keen to big up their support in the House of Commons."[/i]

http://www.britishinfluence.org/the_new_tory_party

ghost whistler wrote:

sickchip wrote:ghostwhistler

I strongly suspect. because of your ludicrous statements, you are a Tory taking the P on this site.

The only tories on this site are the labour supporters who agree with labour's position on forced work.

something i've mentioned many times that noone has said was unacceptable.

You need to get a life, you fuckwit.

The difference between Labour and the Tories forced work GW is, with the Tories you are forced to work for your JSA, with the Labour parties forced work they WILL get the MINIMUM WAGE. You need to clean out your ear holes of wax so you can hear properly and not make up your own policies for the Labour party PS twould have ben paid for by taxing the greedy bankers

Gw just to give you notice - abuse of forum members is not to be tolerated - if you can't put forward your views without insulting people (for example by calling them cowards) your posts will be deleted -please try to play nicely

ghost whistler wrote:

boatlady wrote:Who will you be supporting over the next five years and in the next General election, GW?

Are you seriously asking me who i will vote for in 2020? ....

The only answer right now is mass civil disobedience/unrest and a general strike....

Today's news is of IS blowing-up a mosque in Kuwait and slaughtering tourists in Tunisia. Many would describe that as "unrest" without advocating such a course as a means of getting better government.

boatlady wrote:Gw just to give you notice - abuse of forum members is not to be tolerated - if you can't put forward your views without insulting people (for example by calling them cowards) your posts will be deleted -please try to play nicely

Thank you boatlady he/she also needs to check the facts about the Labour parties policies, maybe Ivan can put Labours Manifesto on the forum so all can see what left policies look like.

boatlady - if you can't put forward your views without insulting people (for example by calling them cowards)

I think stronger language than 'coward' was used by gw.

...for example: You need to get a life, you fuckwit.
- and, Piss off, Jeremy Hunt....and we know what Jeremy Hunt is rhyme and slang for.

- not that I'm complaining......though I doubt other posters would be allowed to use such language.

If it helps, I seriously doubt such ad hominem help any argument, quite the opposite I suspect. I read the exchange and though GW may have felt frustrated at being described "AGAIN" as a Tory, I don't think the remarks were at all justified, if they ever are. If an argument is compelling and well evidenced it would hardly require personal insults.

As part of a mis-spent youth, I attended a short course on "Negotiating" organised by the Union I belonged to at the time. We learned how to side-track discussion away from the real topic if it happened to be something we didn't want to talk about at that time.

I think GW might have had that experience too, as he's repeatedly brought debate on the question of "What now for Labour?" to a standstill, for reasons presumably known to himself.

Would someone like to re-start, or have we lost the will to live?

" We learned how to side-track discussion away from the real topic if it happened to be something we didn't want to talk about at that time."

I think we must have met when you were putting your skills into practice. Don't think I didn't notice what you were up to...

Re: What now for Labour?
Simple, they must pick themselves up, dust themselves off and start all over again. Only they really need to start something as sitting and waiting for something to happen just doesn't work as we all found out in last months election

I agree bobby we all need to think hard about who we elect as Leader & deputy, then maybe the Labour party can go forward and start now for the 2020 general election because there is so much work to be done.

It's likely that the Labour leadership will have five years in which to plan the campaign for election, now that we have a fixed-term Parliament.

Which also means that the Tory party has five years in which to tear itself apart with internal strife, as it did during the John Major era.

Newspaper tittle-tattle indicates that Gideon's July budget will have welfare cuts AND a reduced top rate of tax. Surely not even this triumphal Tory incarnation could be so unsubtle.

"...welfare cuts AND a reduced top rate of tax."

While this will doubtless bring forth justifiable anger and disbelief initially, I fear that Joe and Josephine Public have very short memories - which the likes of the Daily Mail and The Sun will be able to erode quite successfully by the critical moment in 2020...

oftenwrong said:"It's likely that the Labour leadership will have five years in which to plan the campaign for election, now that we have a fixed-term Parliament."

Dead right Terry, my point was that Labour need to attack and bring the foul, evil deeds perpetrated by this pack of strunzi to the public eye. Its absolutely no good in waiting the 5 years to get stuck in to the Tories.
Theirs no point in giving them enough rope to hang themselves, before the election they had more than enough rope and it was provided by the labour party, look where that got us?

ghost whistler wrote:I told you what will work: direct action, general strike, etc.

I don't propose that's easy or popular.

Your solution seems to be believe that the labour party are something they aren't and that they will rescue us all in 5 years.

too late.

is not up to the Labour party or the Unions in regard to general strikes GW, that is on the shoulders of the TUC & the STUC so stop blaming the Labour party I have been shouting for a general strike since 2011.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Read Labour's manifesto


Entire manifesto in PDF form

why would anyone give a dam whats in their manifesto?

Well I do, for a start.

ghost whistler said: "why would anyone give a dam whats in their manifesto?"
Well I do for one. This is based on the fact that when Tony Blair won his first election in 1997, 80% of Labours manifesto was implemented within their first Parliament, the remaining 20% was dealt with by either changes made by the 80% or deemed unnecessary due to changed circumstances.
Perhaps you might inform us as to what your statement is based on?.
Labour aren't what they were and never will be, as the world has changed so has the Labour party, gone are the days when we had a Party of our own whose only interest was the working class. It seems the only people who can enjoy such a luxury are the wealthiest in the country( The Conservatives), whereas what we need is a Government who will look after the interests of all, the wage earners and the wage payers. The only party's that come anywhere near that are Labour and possibly the Greens. We will not have a Green Government which leaves Labour as the only real hope of fairness to most.

Claudine wrote:Well I do, for a start.

why?

I don't know why we bother. You give the twat your reason, then it askes "why"?