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.

I will upset some on this forum with what I am about to say, if Labour members vote for Jermy Corbyn it will be like voting for another Michael Foot and we all know what happened there a Tory gov't and more privatization of our public services.

I would have liked Alan Johnson to throw his hat in the ring he would have been the right Labour man for the job, the right wing press and the Tory party are starting up there insult and smear machine for whoever wins the Labour leadership so I would ask you all to think before you vote, the Tory party would love us to vote for Jermy Corbyn because that would allow them to win the 2020 G.E.

I still do not know who I will be voting for yet, I am going to a hustings in Glasgow on Friday 10th July I am hoping that things become clearer for me. Last week on twitter there was a leaked letter from the Tory association etting out names for the future Labour leader Andy Burnham will be called "The Butcher" sdo if Corbyn wins I hope he is ready with his own cutting remarks for the Tory party.

ghost whistler wrote:

Ivan wrote:The Labour Party was set up to contest parliamentary and other elections. Its function has never been to arrange or support extra-parliamentary protests and strikes. Its trade union links will mean that some of its members will take part in those actions, but the party’s commitment is to achieving change by democratic means. You might argue that mass demonstrations are democratic – an expression of the will of some people – but never the will of anywhere near enough of the 65 million of us in the UK to really make a difference.

What is important is that it is doing absolutely nothing for the people of this country. What does it matter if it was set up to support strikes or not, the important thing is that it does so now since that is the only weapon against the tories.

If the Unions called the General Strike tomorrow (and how likely is that?), how many would come out?    Strong theoretical positions are fine, but it is more useful to build up the position so that we win, and is there any organisation but the Labour Party in which we can be seen to fight?   If there isn't, we had better fight there, and anything else is an indulgence.

Radical socialists have a right to criticise the pragmatic view taken by successive Labour Party leaders, of course, but the objective must be to gain power in a General Election.
Perpetual opposition butters no parsnips, as might have been acknowledged posthumously by such as Marx, Engels, Trotsky and even perhaps Michael Foot.

Redflag. I wasn’t aware that anyone on Cutting Edge had suggested Jeremy Corbyn might be the best candidate for Labour leader. However, to suggest that he would be an electoral liability needs closer examination. He's been the MP for Islington North since 1983 and increased his majority from 12,401 in 2010 to 21,194 this year.

Alan Johnson would not be a suitable candidate for Labour leader, and it was a crazy decision by Ed Miliband to make him shadow chancellor when, like George Osborne (who failed his GCSE maths), he knows next to nothing about economics. Alan is a nice man, but hardly the brightest star in the sky. Like Liz Kendall, he's probably too right-wing for many party members - and he will be 70 by the time of the next election.

There is no way that ghost whistler is a Tory and he has never said that the Tories are good. I’m sure he’s just as keen as the rest of us to see Britain become a fairer and more equal country, but he doesn’t have any faith that the political process will bring that about.

Ivan wrote:Great news. The executive of the Unite union has endorsed Jeremy Corbyn as its preferred leader of the Labour Party, although trade unions now wield less influence under Labour's one person, one vote system. It means that when one of the other three candidates – most probably Andy Burnham - becomes party leader, the Tories and their skunks in the media won’t be able to vilify that person as “the union candidate”, as Ed Miliband was portrayed throughout the last parliament.

Jeremy had no chance of ever winning.

Spotted on Facebook......  


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJUcL3_WwAAVEWX.png

Five more years in the wilderness. But Labour has been there before, so it can't last forever. Can it? Perhaps the Housing Wars of 2025 will bring a change.

Ivan wrote:Redflag. I wasn’t aware that anyone on Cutting Edge had suggested Jeremy Corbyn might be the best candidate for Labour leader. However, to suggest that he would be an electoral liability needs closer examination. He's been the MP for Islington North since 1983 and increased his majority from 12,401 in 2010 to 21,194 this year.

Alan Johnson would not be a suitable candidate for Labour leader, and it was a crazy decision by Ed Miliband to make him shadow chancellor when, like George Osborne (who failed his GCSE maths), he knows next to nothing about economics. Alan is a nice man, but hardly the brightest star in the sky. Like Liz Kendall, he's probably too right-wing for many party members - and he will be 70 by the time of the next election.

I did not mean that anyone on cutting edge had suggested Jermy Corbyn as the next leader of the Labour party although the Unite Union is backing him, all I meant is he is not capable of standing up to the insulting smearing Tory party like Ed Miliband he was too much of a gentleman to return like for like with the Tories.     As for Alan Johnston when Ed Miliband gave him the shadow chancellors job he was the first to put his hands up and admit he knew nothing about economics, I think the reason Ed Miliband gave him the job was he was trying to stop what happened from the Tory benches the ridiculing of Ed Balls.

As for Giddy-up he did not just fail his GCSE mathis his Uni degree was in Mordern History (2/1) where as Ed Balls has a Uni degree in economics, I have whittled down my choice for Labour leader to either Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper I can already hear the Tory smear machine getting into gear, Yvette is bright enough to know it will be her husband the Tories will use to smear her with its about time the Labour party started to get there CAUSTIC tongues ready to give the Tories a taste of there own medicine.

Penderyn wrote:If the Unions called the General Strike tomorrow (and how likely is that?), how many would come out?    Strong theoretical positions are fine, but it is more useful to build up the position so that we win, and is there any organisation but the Labour Party in which we can be seen to fight?   If there isn't, we had better fight there, and anything else is an indulgence.

So do nothing, yes?

Vote in a leader that's a slightly lesser shade of blue than the tories?

Labour scum also supported the government closing the ILF.

What more evidence do you need ffs?

http://dpac.uk.net/2015/02/kate-greens-response-to-saveilf-were-still-not-taking-no-for-an-answer/

Ivan wrote:Redflag. I wasn’t aware that anyone on Cutting Edge had suggested Jeremy Corbyn might be the best candidate for Labour leader....

There is no way that ghost whistler is a Tory and he has never said that the Tories are good. I’m sure he’s just as keen as the rest of us to see Britain become a fairer and more equal country, but he doesn’t have any faith that the political process will bring that about.

I am lost in admiration of anyone who has the mental agility to encompass the morality of a person who, whilst claiming to be a supporter of a movement, at the same time continually expresses total disgust at the way in which that movement conducts itself - thus providing ammunition for its natural opponents.
I can't do that.

ghost whistler wrote:So do nothing, yes?

Vote in a leader that's a slightly lesser shade of blue than the tories?

Get in the Labour Party and give very loud voice for Class Action, and if necessary a split.

oftenwrong wrote:

Ivan wrote:Redflag. I wasn’t aware that anyone on Cutting Edge had suggested Jeremy Corbyn might be the best candidate for Labour leader....

There is no way that ghost whistler is a Tory and he has never said that the Tories are good. I’m sure he’s just as keen as the rest of us to see Britain become a fairer and more equal country, but he doesn’t have any faith that the political process will bring that about.

I am lost in admiration of anyone who has the mental agility to encompass the morality of a person who, whilst claiming to be a supporter of a movement, at the same time continually expresses total disgust at the way in which that movement conducts itself - thus providing ammunition for its natural opponents.
I can't do that.

You still don't see how Labour has long abandoned that movement. I support socialism, labour supports capitalism.

And yet you completely ignore the point of the post: that Labour does NOT support the disabled. Presumably you don't either?

Penderyn wrote:Get in the Labour Party and give very loud voice for Class Action, and if necessary a split.

Why? Labour are a dead horse. You might as well ask me to join the Tory party.

Drop by Pease Pottage Conservative Club any time which suits and I'll arrange for a membership application form to be available...bring your cheque book...

Phil Hornby wrote:Drop by Pease Pottage Conservative Club any time which suits and I'll arrange for a membership application form to be available...bring your cheque book...

Are you seriously that stupid?

We must try not to let our justified concern overwhelm our sense of humour.....  

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/f14-pease-pottage-conservative-club-news

" Are you seriously that stupid?"

Of course not, ghostie.

I am far more stupid than that...

Art often lies in concealing the artistry.

ghost whistler wrote:Why? Labour are a dead horse. You might as well ask me to join the Tory party.

Where else?

Penderyn wrote:

ghost whistler wrote:Why? Labour are a dead horse. You might as well ask me to join the Tory party.

Where else?

How many tories oppose closing the ILF?

Edited to remove obscenities.
Ivan

I do hate to see people being obsequious in their desperation to make new friends...

Seriously, could Jeremy Corbyn win?

The endorsement of Unite, tumbling odds with the bookmakers, and now second place among local parties, all raise the same question - could Jeremy Corbyn really win?

The success of Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain and the SNP north of the border might have convinced Labour activists that victory lies to the left, not the centre. The defeat of the Scottish Labour Party, with a centrist candidate in the shape of Jim Murphy, might have changed the party’s perception of what “a winner” looks like.  

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/seriously-could-jeremy-corbyn-win

It could be fun for a while, a long way out from an actual election - but as a potential Prime Minister...?

Labour - Party of the unwaged?

The Great British electorate chose "benefits cuts to scroungers" only a few weeks ago.

No need for another suicide note, is there?

I do have a sneaking little fancy for Jeremy Corbin - maybe he wouldn't make a Prime Minister, and there might have to be a change before the next General election, but he does seem the only candidate that will not let the Tories choose the terms of engagement on every occasion. I feel, if he were Labour leader, there would begin to be a real argument in the Commons, which Labour would at times be seen to be winning.

The argument might be about 'the economy, stupid' but there's more than one view on the economy, and if the Labour leader is always going to accept the Tories' basic premise that austerity for poor people is the answer to the harm done to the economy by the irresponsibility and selfishness of the banks and big business, then Labour will always lose the argument.

Miliband got a bit of a surge in the polls, not because he agreed about austerity, but because he pointed out the unfairness of current policies and refused to accept the basic premise - he lost his nerve and he lost the election.

As I keep saying, politics and economics are not really my 'thing' but I can't help but notice that all the candidates but one seem to be agreeing that the only really important thing is to get the deficit down; all seem to be concerned not to upset 'wealth creators' and none seems to have clearly laid out the principle that people who work for their living ought to be able to live on what they earn.

I'm not sure this is the time to choose a 'sensible' leader - maybe we do need a proper old fashioned lefty for a while.

I can see the attractions of the argument for a candidate who is a bit more of a lefty scrapper, but, unfortunately, all the other likely 'respectable' successors will become tainted by association ( eg by being a shadow minister through Corbyn's brief reign) and they will forever be labelled as fellow-travellers by the obedient Tory Press thereafter.

But, much worse then you, boatlady, I know very little about quite a lot...

PH I am in the position as you have not got a clue to vote for Leader of the Labour party, although I do know who to vote for Deputy leader but that maybe fixed tonight as I am going to a hustings here in Glasgow I just hope they all give a good account of themselves Fingers crossed.

I think here in GY there's a leaning towards Andy Burnham -, but in the Portuguese community people do seem to fancy Jeremy

ghost whistler wrote:How many tories oppose closing the ILF?

In the Labour Party you can get to be news, and the only other answer is violence on demos.    If people never hear the argument for socialism they will vote mug - it's as simple as that - and even worse act mug.

Phil Hornby wrote:-
I return to my theme of whether there needs to be some recognition of what Tony Blair did to defeat the disease of Toryism. He was far from perfect but he WON three times.

When I heard the awful news on 12 May 1994 that John Smith had died suddenly, I guessed immediately that Tony Blair would get his job. Unlike all of the current Labour leadership contenders, Blair had (and probably still has) charisma. Like Pierre Trudeau and Bill Clinton – and several individuals I know personally – he will be forgiven by many people for any outrageous deeds he did because, so many of us (me excluded), can’t help liking him.

When Blair became Labour leader, the party had lost four general elections in a row, with the Tories winning on the fourth occasion in the middle of a recession which they had created. The party was ready to accept anyone who might be a winner. I happen to believe that the Tories lost, rather than Labour won, the 1997 election, after five years of sleaze, incompetence and broken promises. There’s no way to prove (or disprove) my belief that Arthur Scargill could have led Labour to victory in 1997, albeit with a much smaller majority.

A Labour Party desperate to win an election gave Blair ‘carte blanche’ to abolish Clause 4, and why not, since nobody appeared to have any intention of implementing it? Blair, and his chancellor Gordon Brown, introduced many good measures, from the minimum wage to a minimum income for pensioners and massively increased spending on health and education. However, Blair lost the plot when he teamed up with a right-wing cerebrally-challenged American president to involve us in an unnecessary war. He did indeed win three elections – partly because the Tories were scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find a credible leader of their own – but to win that third election, Blair took Brown everywhere with him on the campaign trail. In fact, it provoked Michael Howard into using the slogan “vote Blair, get Brown”.

Again there’s no way to prove (or disprove) my belief that Labour would have won in 2010 had the global credit crunch not occurred – and had the Tories and the right-wing press not had the opportunity to blame a banking crisis on alleged Labour incompetence and excessive spending on public services. So did Blair do anything “to defeat the disease of Toryism”? Emphatically no. He certainly kept the Tory Party out of office for thirteen years, but even Thatcher boasted that her greatest achievement had been to change the Labour Party.

So all we have to do is wait for the execrable Tories to render themselves unelectable again and the voters to once more revolt against the customary sleaze and internecine squabbles.

What's the timescale, fifteen years?

Redflag wrote:-
PH I am in the position as you have not got a clue to vote for Leader of the Labour party

I don't think PH is a party member, so he doesn't have a vote in this election.

We haven’t said very much about the five contenders to be deputy leader:-

5. Ben Bradshaw
A really nice man, but probably much too polite to be effective against the rancid Tories and the contempt which they are already showing for Parliament over EVEL and foxhunting.

4. Tom Watson
Brilliant campaigner on specific issues – but is that what’s required of a deputy leader?

3. Caroline Flint
Not afraid to speak her mind, but possibly too right-wing for some people’s taste. Worked hard supporting the ‘Labour doorstep’ campaign.

2. Stella Creasy
Endorsed by John Prescott as a very good organiser, a quality which he says is essential for a deputy leader. She would complement Andy Burnham if he becomes leader (north/south, male/female).

1. Angela Eagle
My first preference because she isn’t afraid to call a spade a spade – in this case, by calling Cameron the liar that he is. Just the sort of bruiser we need if any impression is to be made on this despicable government.

GY CLP met tonight and (surprisingly) has elected to endorse Jeremy Corbin for leader and Caroline Flint for deputy. It seems there may be a bit of an appetite for some old-fashioned socialism, although I really thought the majority opinion was with Andy Burnham.

They have also elected me women's officer for the constituency (also surprisingly)

Penderyn wrote:In the Labour Party you can get to be news, and the only other answer is violence on demos.    If people never hear the argument for socialism they will vote mug - it's as simple as that - and even worse act mug.

how does this justify the labour party supporting the tories, as they have done, repeatedly.

i assume you support the closure of the ilf, you just don't have the guts to admit it.

boatlady wrote:GY CLP met tonight and (surprisingly) has elected to endorse Jeremy Corbin for leader and Caroline Flint for deputy. It seems there may be a bit of an appetite for some old-fashioned socialism, although I really thought the majority opinion was with Andy Burnham.

I attended a hustings for the new Labour leader and I am still torn between Andy Burnham & Yvette Cooper, I have always known who I would vote for Deputy leader Caroline Flint is the Lady to sort out the Tories nasty tongues because she will give as much as she gets maybe she is another Harriet Harmon in the making.    Have you any ideas how I pick between the two for leader boatlady or how I should come to a decision as I want the best one for the sake of the Labour party.

I am sorry do not agree with your CLP in GY I think Jermy Corbyn is a nice man but not a leader, Corbyn to me seems like another Michael Foot ??

ghost whistler wrote:how does this justify the labour party supporting the tories, as they have done, repeatedly.

i assume you support the closure of the ilf, you just don't have the guts to admit it.

'Justify'?   So many have given up on the LP that the extreme-rightists can get away with murder, as you know.   Notice how having an actually socialist candidate has involved people.

'Justify'?   So many have given up on the LP that the extreme-rightists can get away with murder, as you know.   Notice how having an actually socialist candidate has involved people.[/quote]
Not really, Corbyn hasn't a snowball in hell's chance of winning because the Labour executive wont' have him as leader. He's only on the ticket to make the party look good. The same party that is now backing Osborn'e assault on people with kids:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/child-tax-credits-labour-backs-6051366

The same party that backs TTIP, slave labour benefit cuts private landlords doing what they like and capitalism.

Jesus ***king Christ, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, sooner or later you have to concede the argument that it could just be a ***king duck! And a lame one at that.

Let's hope Harriet Harman has nothing to do with the future of the Labour party - in fact she should be expelled from the party after her woeful, and disgraceful comments on the Andrew Neil show today.......where she wholeheartedly backed Tory welfare cuts.

Basically the gist was 'we'll go with public opinion just to get elected'. Where is the integrity, the backbone, the commitment to principles, etc? This is just pathetic from Labour - bowing to public opinion that is manipulated by the right wing media FFS. This so called 'publics' opinion on welfare, and other issues, is WRONG. If Labour don't see that, and at least make a cogent argument for another way, they will cease to get my vote and the vote of many others.

Basically Harmon may as well have said if the public want to hang people, kick all immigrants out, etc - we'll do it because we have no moral code and will do whatever just to get elected. Disgraceful, gross, and predictably disappointing from the Labour party.

But she won't be kicked out, that's the problem. That's where the Labour party is right now. She's not some maverick saying stuff none of them believe - this is who they are now!

A blanket automatic opposition to anything and everything proposed by this Tory government will not win friends and influence people.

Labour has to begin work now on a socialist manifesto which answers voters' concerns about immigration and "benefits for scroungers".  There are also the important problems to be resolved arising from a changed Scottish environment.  Five years spent trimming the edges of existing policy won't be sufficient.