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.

boatlady wrote:
if your not a right wing gov't the EU will bring that gov't down and force people to vote for right wing parties.
.

I'm beginning to think you may have a point, Red - can it be the battle has already been fought and lost?

Boatlady I am all in favour of the people of the UK taking direct action to bring this Tory gov't down before it does any more damage to our public sector, with a twist of course so that we can spoil the happiness of Davt boy and his SCUMBAGS. What I would suggest is a general strike or Civil Disobedience without the marches or the protest on the streets of the UK, then Davy boy would be unable to call out his storm troopers (police & army) that would really sicken davy boys happiness .

I am certain that people could stay at home and catch up with there DIY or something simular, but hang there banners & flags from windows of there homes or placards in there gardens that way it would fiol Davy boys plans to return the UK to Dickenzian time

A "Plan B" seems to be emerging from the campaign for leadership of the Labour Party.  This is how The Independent sees it today:

"The New Statesman reported that two private polls carried out by his rivals suggest Mr Corbyn could top the ballot in the first round of voting. The magazine said one survey put him in a lead of more than 15 points, while another put him on course to win after building up a “commanding position”.

It led the bookmaker Ladbrokes to cut its odds on his chance of victory to 5/1, having put him on 100/1 when he joined the race.

The report delivers a fresh blow to supporters of Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall, who had originally viewed Mr Corbyn as a maverick candidate who would be roundly rejected."

In the unlikely event of my opinion being sought it seems obvious that an interim "caretaker" for a couple of years in the shape of Jeremy Corbyn could set a fair course towards the next election with a manifesto based on sound Socialist principles, but with the flexibility to accommodate election of a younger but well-prepared Labour Leader in good time for the main event.

Could even be a winning formula.

Despite the tory press's bellowings, it is worth noting that the SNP didn't succeed so well by trying to look like a wet tory party. The class-warriors will get worse and worse until we fight, and Corbyn seems a lot nearer to ordinary people than the tory-imitators.

What I would suggest is a general strike or Civil Disobedience without the marches or the protest on the streets of the UK

Your idea may have merit - there will, however, be an element that will want to be out there causing a stir in the name of socialism - so all us quiet types getting on with out gardening will end up looking like the apathetic majority, while Cameron will still have the excuse to call out the storm troopers - could just be lose-lose

I do think Corbyn could lead a properly fiery opposition - maybe he couldn't hack it as PM - I don't know - but if Labour don't establish a clear and unambiguous position of opposing the Tories (which none of the other candidates seems to want to do) there won't be a Labour.

If a general strike isn't called soon then it will be too late.

The proposals to curtail the unions are the crucible. If the opposition, including labour and the unions, dont act here and now, it really will be too late because there won't be a labour party in any shape by 2020.

boatlady wrote: What I would suggest is a general strike or Civil Disobedience without the marches or the protest on the streets of the UK

Your idea may have merit - there will, however, be an element that will want to be out there causing a stir in the name of socialism - so all us quiet types getting on with out gardening will end up looking like the apathetic majority, while Cameron will still have the excuse to call out the storm troopers - could just be lose-lose

You have a good point there Boatlady, sorry but it brings to mind the old proverb "Whers There is a Will Theres is a Way"

There will now be a short pause while the other contenders for Party Leader examine who will rid them of this turbulent Socialist.

boatlady wrote: What I would suggest is a general strike or Civil Disobedience without the marches or the protest on the streets of the UK

Your idea may have merit - there will, however, be an element that will want to be out there causing a stir in the name of socialism - so all us quiet types getting on with out gardening will end up looking like the apathetic majority, while Cameron will still have the excuse to call out the storm troopers - could just be lose-lose

You are an apathetic majority. If you think sitting on yoru hands and waiting five years while the tories laugh at you is the answer then you're off your head.

You need to take a proper look at what boatlady is saying GW, she was replying to my post I do not think anybody on this forum wants to sit on there hands and allow the Tories to do what they want. But if you have any answers to this problem I am sure that all on this forum are willing to listen providing they are sensible answers.

Do you want to hear the four leadership candidates on the issues? There are five opportunities to hear them debating each other:-

Sunday 19th July, 11am on Sunday Politics Show, BBC One.
Wednesday 22nd July, 7pm, LBC radio.
Monday 17th August, 7pm, Channel 4 News.
Tuesday 25th August, 8.30am, BBC Radio 5Live.
Thursday 3rd September, 7pm, Sky News.

A fable concerns a group of mice who debate plans to nullify the threat of a marauding cat. One of them proposes placing a bell around its neck, so that they are warned of its approach. The plan is applauded by the others, until one mouse asks who will volunteer to place the bell on the cat. All of them make excuses.

A familiar expression is returning to Tories' comments on Labour's record in office.

"Thirteen wasted years"

Apparently relating to the various spiteful acts of the Thatcher administration relating to Trade Unions, Welfare cuts, Privatisation and the like which were allowed to remain on the Statute book even after Blair's landslide election in 1997.

I wonder how many labor supporters well help Osborne get his way in the share vote today.

Ivan wrote:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKQ-xoVWoAAKuCA.png

I have ways thought that Andy Burnham was the man to be the leader of the Labour party, I managed to talk to him at the hustings I attended here in Glasgow and got to say he impressed me. I did ask him how CAUSTIC his tongue was in regard to the Tories. I think what he seen Ed Miliband go through from 2010-2015 will stand him in good stead he is the only one of the 4 people standing that had a good word for Ed Miliband.

If Andy does not win I would like to see Yvette Cooper win, my reason is Davy bhates women he thinks all women should be SUBSERVIENT towrds men, I think Yvette will know the right way to rub Davy boy up the wrong way so he loses it a lot more often plus she will get plenty of ideas from her husband Ed Balls.

Before any one starts to say copying Davy boy will do no one any good and it should be about politics yes it should but the Labour party must be able to return some of Davy boys own medicine and give him a taste of the name calling insults and smears he handed out to Ed Miliband. If Andy or Yvette do not know enough insults I would hope they would get in touch with me as I have pplenty of insults and names to fire at the entire Tory party.

Is that the same Andy Burnham who has just stated he will be abstaining on the government's Welfare bill currently being debated.

FFS WAKE THE eff UP!

I wouldn't wipe my arse with that letter or anything Labour write down. He's in the Guardian right now saying he'snot going to oppose it because...red tory.

Reasoned amendments be damned. This is ridiculous. OPPOSE the bill in its entirety, ffs.

IDS must be loving this. He's had the labour party in his pocket for five bloody years. He's screwed up his own universal credit idea even though Labour has stuck their collective tongue right up his arse over it. He's had their support instituting slave bloody labour. They support sanctions (they were happy to have them when they were in power - when they were happy to take people's right to defend themselves over them as well) and punitive welfare schemes.

But they have 'reasoned amendments'.

"I have in my hand a piece of paper"

ghost whistler. When John Major was PM, he was caught off air referring to “the bastards” in the Tory Party who were often rebelling against his leadership. One of them was Iain Duncan Smith, who went on to become leader of the Tories from 2001 until 2003. During those two years, he wasn’t exactly well placed to complain about those who rebelled against his leadership…..  

Andy Burnham is opposed to welfare cuts such as the two-child policy. I would have preferred it if he had voted against the welfare bill, but of course it will pass because the Tories have a majority of 12 (effectively 17, since the Sinn Fein MPs never turn up). I also think he could have voted against it because there was no collective discussion of how MPs should vote before Harriet Harman decided on tactics, so why should there be collective responsibility?

Voting records show that Jeremy Corbyn has voted against Labour on 533 occasions since 1997. How on earth, with his track record, could he expect Labour MPs to adhere to collective responsibility if he became leader? On the other hand, Andy Burnham has explained his tactics in the letter which I posted previously, and he will have the moral authority to demand unity from other Labour MPs if he becomes leader. It’s called politics.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33490959

I note that you’d like to see a general strike called soon, and I fully understand your frustration. That, of course, would be a matter for the TUC, not the Labour Party. Labour was formed to fight parliamentary and other elections, and it can hardly decide to advocate extraparliamentary action on the grounds that it didn’t like the outcome of an election. I’m afraid that it’s committed to using democratic means, even if under our wretched FPTP system the 'means' aren’t at all democratic.

In the UK, 6.5 million of us are in trade unions. Do you think everyone would come out if a general strike should be called? No chance. An additional 24.5 million people are employed but aren’t in unions; I’d be surprised if many of them responded to a call for action by the TUC. The only previous general strike, in 1926, was a washout and was called off after nine days, and I doubt if one now would be any more successful. It would probably just provide Cameron and May with excuses for even more repressive policies.

The sad fact is that vast numbers of people have been brainwashed into believing that benefit fraud causes a major loss of income to the Treasury, when we know that tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance are much much bigger problems. They don’t like the idea, however false it is, that taxes from their "hard-earned" income go to pay for the "lifestyle choices" of the lazy and feckless. We somehow have to find a way of educating people into seeing the reality of the cancerous Tory lies that have spread through the public body. I’m sorry if that all sounds defeatist, but I can’t see direct action having wide enough support at this point in time to have any meaningful effect.

"Voting records show that Jeremy Corbyn has voted against Labour on 533 occasions since 1997. How on earth, with his track record, could he expect Labour MPs to adhere to collective responsibility if he became leader?"

because the issues in question are more important than the egos of cretins like Burnham. He hsould bloody hand his head in shame and resign immediately, the Jeremy Hunt isn't fit to stand at a busstop let alone as leader of the labour party. A party that was formed to fight for the working class, something it has long since abandoned.

This is a disgrace and if the labour party was worth it's name people like Corbyn wouldn't have to rebel. The leadership shouldn't even be telling people not to vote with their conscience and the party should be united on issues like these. It's a complete disgrace and sadly proves just how far the party as has sunk. This is not going to change. Labour are dead.

So your support will instead go to ....?

Tusc.

You think I should support a party of class traitors just because there's nothing better?

Gideon Osborne clearly shares your disdain for the Labour Party as currently formed, gw. Will you be affording him comfort as a consequence?

oftenwrong wrote:Gideon Osborne clearly shares your disdain for the Labour Party as currently formed, gw. Will you be affording him comfort as a consequence?

Are you really this stupid? I oppose the tories and you think i want to vote for them. Go die of aids.

And now Liz Kendall says she regrets supporting Palestine. So hurray for the fascist dogs of the racist state of Israel then, as they murder children.

But nope, carry on supporting these wankers.

Go die of aids.

ghost whistler. As insults go, that has to be one of the most unpleasant I’ve seen on here in a long time; do you really think it enhanced your response?  

I doubt if oftenwrong was suggesting that you’re a Tory. I took his comment to mean that Osborne might think along the lines of the old Arab proverb: "My enemy's enemy is my friend".

I haven’t yet heard anyone on this forum say they support Liz Kendall, and I suspect she’ll come last in the leadership contest. She’s an unpleasant woman who has insulted all three of her rivals, which should ensure that the supporters of those candidates will be unlikely to give her their second preferences. With the welfare issue increasing the chances of Jeremy Corbyn becoming the next Labour leader, I would have hoped you might have kept your powder dry until the results come out – surely you would find him acceptable?

ghost whistler wrote:And now Liz Kendall says she regrets supporting Palestine. So hurray for the fascist dogs of the racist state of Israel then, as they murder children.

But nope, carry on supporting these wankers.

Ghost Whistler - you approach this issue a bit like a newly- awakened American fundamentalist denouncing those who still believe in nonsense: there is nothing easier than to walk away from people who, for instance, support the Zionist Nazis. The more relevant question is What can you do on your own - to organise the General Strike, for instance? As always, we have to talk to the kind of people who continue to support the labour Party before we can do anything, and just spitting at the careerists who know which side their bread is currently buttered is pointless: we need to show 'em up in public, as socialists have always had to do. There are still millions of decent people massed behind these treacherous clowns, and if we try to fight on our own we'll be massacred, however purist.

ghost whistler wrote:Is that the same Andy Burnham who has just stated he will be abstaining on the government's Welfare bill currently being debated.

FFS WAKE THE eff UP!

You seem to forget most of the budget has traps in it for the Labour party GW, if you have any ideas on who should be the next Labour party leader I am sure all on this forum would be interested to hear but looking at your past posts I tend to think you will be backing Jermy Corbyn. Who in his stand is just another Michael Foot and look how far he took the Labour party. So if you have got nothing sensible to say you should EFF OFF

Redflag wrote:You seem to forget most of the budget has traps in it for the Labour party GW, if you have any ideas on who should be the next Labour party leader I am sure all on this forum would be interested to hear but looking at your past posts I tend to think you will be backing Jermy Corbyn.      Who in his stand is just another Michael Foot and look how far he took the Labour party. So if you have got nothing sensible to say you should EFF OFF

stop with this rubbish about traps. This is the most pathetic excuse making I've ever seen. Labour views for the bill, they those who need them. They betrayed their voters and they betrayed  society. This is disgusting. Making excuses for this makes you no better than they

Seems that someone may need a new hero to worship.

ghost whistler wrote:stop with this rubbish about traps. This is the most pathetic excuse making I've ever seen. Labour views for the bill, they those who need them. They betrayed their voters and they betrayed  society. This is disgusting. Making excuses for this makes you no better than they

It is not rubbish just look at what Miliband weny through because of his left wing policies, raising high rate of tax from 45p to 50p getting rid of the awfull bedroom tax a mansion tax on homes over £2 million more money for the NHS plus the MPs would have not got there 10% pay rise because Ed would have dissolved IPSA something that Davy boy said he was against the pay rise yet now he is going to accept it while just giving public sector workers a 1% pay rise.

Just remember how many seats the Labour party lost in May 2015, plus all the insults and smear stories about him and his parents if Ed Miliband was not left enough who the EFF is.

Miliband didn't have left wing policies, that's the great tragedy of it all

Post deleted

Personal abuse of fellow member.........
astradt1

Now children....It's time to play nicely........

It is becoming clear that Labour supporters are turning upon each other,. Just as the Tories had hoped for........

There are Labour supporters, and then there are claimants only to that description, just as there are genuinely working-class people and others who do not wish to acknowledge themselves as such any more.

Labour’s leadership and deputy leadership elections are using the single transferable vote, where voters list the candidates in order of preference. When first preferences have been counted, if no candidate has won more than 50% of the votes, the candidate who is last drops out and the second preferences of those who voted for him or her are distributed amongst the others. This process of elimination and redistribution continues until one candidate has more than 50%.

It was therefore surprising to hear the suggestion that Liz Kendall should drop out and thereby help Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper stop Jeremy Corbyn from winning. If, as is widely expected, Liz Kendall comes last on the count of first preference votes, she will be eliminated at that point. According to politicalbetting.com, two-thirds of her supporters will give Yvette Cooper their second preference.

I suspect that if Jeremy Corbyn is to win, he will have to do so without much help from second preference votes; in other words, he needs to be close to 50% on the first count. If Yvette Cooper comes third, second preferences from Liz Kendall’s supporters could push her into second place on the second count. My guess (and you can probably laugh at me when the results come out in September) is that Jeremy Corbyn will be in the top two (possibly first) when the first preferences are counted, but that whoever joins him there after Liz Kendall is eliminated will probably win on second preferences.

As we heard from John Prescott, it is the Labour Party membership who decide, but with the approach of the "Silly Season" in our national press, the topic is not likely to be dormant during the parliamentary recess.

Here's an amusing article on the Labour leadership election by Mark Steel.....  

The last thing Labour needs is a leader like Jeremy Corbyn who people want to vote for

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-last-thing-labour-needs-is-a-leader-like-jeremy-corbyn-who-people-want-to-vote-for-10411466.html