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.

The Labour party lost the election not because they are left of centre, but because they are not radically enough left of centre. - pretty much what I thought

" The trouble with Blairites is that, like the Tories, they are disconnected from the working classes ..."

A fair enough point, but what the 'non-Blairites' are disconnected from is power - without which little can be done.

I am all for a move to the left if that is what people want, but I am also quite attracted to Labour having a bit of political influence.

Phil,

A fair enough point, but what the 'non-Blairites' are disconnected from is power

...as I pointed out:

Since Labour betrayed / alienated their core working class voters through becoming more Tory / neo liberal / Blairite they have lost Scotland and working class England and Wales.

People who vote Tory will see little point in voting for a Labour version of Tory - and people who want an alternative to Tory will see little point in voting for a Labour version of Tory.

I am not one to fly in the face of fashion. But how many of those who now think Blair is the devil incarnate were the ones rejoicing back in 1997 - and for some time thereafter?

Happy to see what develops...

By 1997, it was beginning to dawn on even the slowest-witted of folk that the Tories were, as always, corrupt, sleazy and incompetent liars. Major had promised in 1992 to “cut taxes year on year” and then proceeded to increase taxes more than any previous government in peacetime. Tony Blair offered us hope of something better, and he had some very clear promises, not least on introducing a minimum wage (and I shall always give him credit for brokering peace in Northern Ireland).

I think that’s the clue to success – to offer hope with easily identifiable policies. It also worked for Thatcher, with her council house bribes and her promise to cut taxes (even though she merely re-arranged them) and to do a spot of union-bashing. Few modern British politicians have aroused both adoration and hatred on the scale that she managed, and yet she was very successful.

With hindsight, I don’t think Ed Miliband had a clear enough message, especially on the economy; for example, was he or wasn’t he anti-austerity? Whatever we may think of their ideas, the SNP, and to a lesser extent UKIP, successfully tapped into nationalism in order to offer people hope of something different. Now Jeremy Corbyn has taken most of us by surprise, probably because he’s the only one of the four Labour leadership contenders not to offer more of the same.

Perhaps the worst thing for a politician is to be neither loved nor hated; the need is to stir up some passion, not apathy. If 60% of those who vote detest Corbyn, he will still win if the other 40% support him. Whether he can unite Labour and lead it to victory in 2020 is anyone’s guess. However, I can’t see the chameleon Burnham, the cautious and robotic Cooper, or the attractive but lightweight Blairite Kendall motivating either the 34% who didn’t vote or those who opted for the Greens, UKIP or the SNP in May.

Maybe it doesn’t matter if your views are left, right or centre – you stand a better chance of winning if your policies are easily understandable and if the voters can be convinced that you believe in them.

Maybe it doesn’t matter if your views are left, right or centre – you stand a better chance of winning if your policies are easily understandable and if the voters can be convinced that you believe in them.

Yes, Miliband's last minute spike in the opinion polls came once he made a few clear statements about things he believed in and established a clear difference between himself and the incumbent government - his mistake was that those statements came too late and promised too little - I suspect he let his advisors dictate a bit too much.

Corbyn seems to have integrity and a clear message, and I think that's where his popularity comes from - as you say, so long as the message is clear and fairly simple it will get votes

You do know the fun the Tories will have at the expence of JC boatlady, if you thought that there attack on Ed Miliband was bad this will be worse. At this moment the Tory smear mongers will be hard at work looking into his past to find truth and make up the rest ready to fire at him as soon as the HOc is back in session.

Redflag. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say to us. Do you want us to take the views of ‘The Daily Mail’ and Rupert Murdoch into account when choosing a leader? If we’re going to do that, we might just as well give up and let the Tories decide who runs the party, and maybe select all our parliamentary candidates as well.

Whoever becomes Labour leader will get it in the neck from the Tories and their media cronies. Tony Blair did; they were pathetic enough to portray him as 'Bambi' with red eyes for some reason. If Burnham wins, they will spread lies about his involvement (none as it turns out) in the overblown Mid Staffs saga. If Cooper wins, she will be portrayed as her husband’s poodle. If it’s Kendall, they will make her life unbearable with alleged ‘scandals’ about her private life; she’s already been accused of having an affair with an MP.

When multimillionaire Cameron was claiming the maximum amount for a mortgage and for wisteria to be removed from his chimney, and other Tories were claiming for duck houses, heated tennis courts and chicken sheds, Jeremy Corbyn claimed a total of £9 for printer ink. The man just oozes integrity, so let the Tory papers do their worst. As to PMQs, Jeremy has made it clear that he doesn’t do personal abuse, so let him ask penetrating questions politely, let Cameron show himself up as usual, and let the public decide who is the statesman.

Interestingly, although I’m not sure it’s good for Jeremy’s street cred, Rupert Murdoch has said that he seems to be ”the only candidate who believes anything, right or wrong”. And that might explain his runaway success in this campaign – he displays integrity and has principles. Like him or loathe him, at least the voters will know what he represents.

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/rupert-murdoch-just-kind-of-endorsed-jeremy-corbyn--Zyinj43TNx

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Mahatma Gandhi

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mahatmagan103630.html#OUWeAxZ3dMZuAA9f.99

An appropriate thought, boatlady, and Mr Corbyn is evidently making a lot of people think.

What a pleasant surprise it would be to find ourselves with a Labour Party which is not frightened of having principles.

oftenwrong wrote:What a pleasant surprise it would be to find ourselves with a Labour Party which is not frightened of having principles.

Yes - a lot of us miss those.   They used to feel good - and, mostly, win in the long run, since our opponents have none.

The phrase being bandied about today is 'weeding out those who do not support Labour,s core values and aims'.......Looking at the candidates many voters would be hard pressed to say what those values and aims are........These days.....

astradt1 wrote:Looking at the candidates many voters would be hard pressed to say what those values and aims are........These days.....

Except in one case, no problem.    All Blairites are wedded to careerism.

Ivan wrote:Redflag. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say to us. Do you want us to take the views of ‘The Daily Mail’ and Rupert Murdoch into account when choosing a leader? If we’re going to do that, we might just as well give up and let the Tories decide who runs the party, and maybe select all our parliamentary candidates as well. Whoever becomes Labour leader will get it in the neck from the Tories and their media cronies.

IVAN  all I am saying WHOEVER wins the leadership of the Labour party will have to be ready for the onslaught of Tory insults & smears, and be able to return in kind to Davy boy and his shower of A**E Holes. Just look at what they did to Ed Miliband in the 5 years he was leader, only thing that makes me anagry is neither Ed or the Labour MPs did not retaliate in kind to the Tory insults & smears and maybe that helped to convince the public that he would be a weak PM, because in my mind Ed should of won the 2015 general election plus the little bit of work that I did during the run up to the general election.

At a party conference in March 2014, Ed Miliband’s plan for electing future leaders was adopted by 86% to 14%. The aim was to involve as many Labour members and supporters as possible in the democratic process and, as a result, at least half a million people are being allowed to vote in the current elections.

Back in the 1990s, there was a wave of so-called ‘carpetbagging’ in building societies. People rushed to open accounts at any societies which were thought likely to demutualise, a process which meant instant cash for all existing members. That must have annoyed many people, especially in those societies which gave the same payment to all members, regardless of how long they had had accounts or how much money they had deposited. No doubt most of the vultures left the societies once they had received their pickings from the carcasses. However, they had to have joined before any announcement of demutualisation was made in order to qualify for a wedge.

My personal view is that only those people who, at the moment Ed Miliband resigned, were either full members, registered supporters, or members of affiliated unions and hadn’t opted out of the political levy, should have been eligible for a vote in this election. I can understand the desire to have the widest possible electorate, but I can also sympathise with the frustration of many long-standing party members who see their influence diluted by Johnny-come-latelies, entryists and Labour opponents making mischief.

Now people who have been known to support other parties in the past are being refused a vote - but isn't the whole point to attract people from elsewhere? It’s been an unedifying spectacle for the party to preside over what looks, rightly or wrongly, like a shambles. I hope that the next time the party elects a leader, a more straightforward procedure will be adopted - and that the process will be reduced from one lasting four months to one lasting no more than two.

I some what agree that there will have been some people who have paid their £3 just so they can vote in the leadership election for their own mischief making but many may have joined due to the fact that there was suddenly a candidate who was not 'tory-lite'.....
Under the previous 'union block vote' system the media  always went into a frenzy, claiming the vote was rigged, when Gordon became PM it was the 'un-elected' jibe that was used, now it's the fact that non-labour voters will have a say causing them to wet their pants......
What should Labour do about it?.........Now that Cameron has enacted the 5 Year Parliament, why not make the various memberships a minimum of 5 years i.e. anyone wanting to sign up must do it for 5 years, keep the yearly membership payment at a lowish level (£5 to £10) but insist on payments for 5 years, anyone wanting to opt out before the end of the 5 years has to pay the remaining years in full in one payment..........

That is a great idea astradt for this £3.00 farce, that would have stoped some of them that are just joining to cause mischeif like the Tory MPs & voters. When thy joined for £3.00 they would have to include there bank details so a standing order could be set up.

astradt1. The union block vote was abolished by John Smith in 1993, but you’ll still find plenty of Tories who like to spread the myth that it still exists. The system for electing a Labour leader, until it was changed last year, involved an electoral college consisting of MPs, individual members and members of affiliated unions. It meant that MPs who were members of unions had three votes altogether, and because there were obviously fewer people in the MPs’ share of the electoral college, their votes carried much more weight. The current scheme, despite its many flaws, was designed to give all Labour members and registered supporters an equal say, regardless of their status.

As the bookie Paddy Power has already paid out on a Jeremy Corbyn win, I think we can take it as read that he will be the next leader. He will have the problem that only 20 of the 232 Labour MPs want him in charge (15 others lent him their support so that he could stand and widen the choice). Ed Miliband had this problem, but to a lesser extent; more MPs chose his brother than him. It will be a test of just how democratic those other 212 MPs are when we see if they accept the verdict of an overwhelming number of members and supporters.

The standard rate for Labour Party membership is currently £46.50 a year, but it's half that price if you are retired, unemployed, work fewer than 16 hours a week, a member of an affiliated trade union or on a low income. I don’t think a fee of only £5 or £10 a year would go down very well with a party that is always strapped for cash, and I suspect that locking someone in for five years might even be illegal. It would also discourage membership. When members feel very strongly about a particular policy, they may wish to resign if their party is pursuing a different agenda (the Iraq war being the most obvious example). I can tell you now that there will be resignations if Jeremy Corbyn wins and resignations if he doesn’t, and there will certainly be resignations if Liz Kendall wins (however remote that possibility is).

When my local branch chose our parliamentary candidate for the last election, only those of us who attended the selection meeting had a vote, and only those who had been a member of the party for at least six months. That offers another way in which Labour could avoid falling prey to entryism. But whatever is decided, this shambles must not happen again.

Ivan I was not suggesting that Labour party membership be just £5 to £10 but the £3 labour supporter fee currently on offer and much derided.........by the media.......
If as you suggested in your last post a minimum 6 months membership be required before being able to vote flies a bit against the 2 month leadership contest in a previous post.........Would you agree that many young have joined due to being inspired by the ideas put forward by Corbyn as opposed to the 'tory-lite' (Blairite) candidates?
You say that a 5 year requirement may be against the law but it would only be for those who decide to become 'Labour Supporters' rather than Labour Members...........If they don't like the 5 year commitment they are unlikely to pay/join.

astradt1. I wholeheartedly agree that Jeremy Corbyn seems to have inspired a lot of people, many of them youngsters, and I think the vast majority of those who have registered as Labour supporters have done so because they genuinely like him. The irony is that the Tories who have registered, or attempted to register, have also done so because they want to vote to him, albeit for a different reason.

I think you may have misunderstood my point about a six-month membership being required before anyone is eligible to vote. That was a condition when selecting the parliamentary candidate for Horsham, but I don’t know if it applies in every constituency or was just a local or regional decision. I’m not saying that I advocate it for Labour leadership elections, but it is one possibility for avoiding all the problems which have occurred on this occasion. My preferred option is the ‘building society’ rule; in other words, that you have to already have become a member, registered supporter or member of an affiliated union at the time a vacancy arises.

This contest will have dragged on for four months by the time that voting ends on 10 September. The same thing happened in 2010, and I think it’s unnecessary. The whole process could and should be reduced to no more than two months, in my opinion.

I disagree with you Ivan after the amount of shysters that have paid the £3.00, and according to the Labour party there has been 3,138 refused a vote on the leadership election.

The Oldies are the Goodies ............

Thirty pieces of silver was the price for which Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus, according to an account in the Gospel of Matthew 26:15 in the New Testament.

You are right Bobby - it's all a bit unseemly and very discouraging to those of us who want a socialist government

I do not know how to reply to your post boatlady, reason being the Labour party is fighting themselves instead of the Tories & it makes me sick to think of at will happen he people of the UK while the Labour party tears lumps out of one another.

Do they not realise this is making the Tories cock-sure of getting back into power in 2020, IF there is a UK left in 2020.

Redflag wrote:I do not know how to reply to your post boatlady, reason being the Labour party is fighting themselves instead of the Tories & it makes me sick to think of at will happen he people of the UK while the Labour party tears lumps out of one another.

The vast majority are disfranchised and the tories got a smaller proportion than they are demanding for strikes.    Unite the people against this rotting gang and I think we will be pleasantly surprised - oh, and expel the likes of Mandelson, obviously.

Everybody is talking about Corbyn - and those who don't support him think Labour won't have a chance at the next election if he's leader.

I'd really like to know what they see in any of the other totally uninspiring contenders?

It's not necessarily what they see , sickchip -it's what they perceive voters in general might...

sickchip wrote:Everybody is talking about Corbyn - and those who don't support him think Labour won't have a chance at the next election if he's leader.

I'd really like to know what they see in any of the other totally uninspiring contenders?

All the majority of the UK will see is what the Tories tell the general public that Labour is the party of Borrow Borrow & Spend Spend, if you remember to the run up to the 2015 G.E that was part of the Tory war cry & as we know it worked in 2015. The problem is too many people believe the Tory LIES sickchip even after the cuts the coalition gov't brought in between 2010-2015.

If you have listened to JC and his policies you will see the reason why people will not vote Labour in 2020.

Redflag wrote:If you have listened to JC and his policies you will see the reason why people will not vote Labour in 2020.

If you really believe that, why have a Labour Party at all?    Just elect Murdoch Fuhrer-for-Life.   The trouble is not the lies but the fact that the careerists accept them.     There were huge  torylies lies in every election Labour was ever in.

Redflag,

My point wasn't so much about Corbyn. My intention was to draw attention to the poor quality of the other three contenders - an insipid bunch of New Labour clones pre-programmed to spout clichéd semi Blairist drivel. All three are devoid of backbone, integrity, or appeal and I suspect would do a lot worse at the next election than Corbyn would.

It's little wonder the rank outsider is winning the race - the main contenders lack any appeal. Is this really the best Labour have to offer?

Looking on the bright side, they've got sufficient time in which to try and get a reasonable act together but it's obviously a shame they're starting five years late.

sickchip wrote:Redflag,

My point wasn't so much about Corbyn. My intention was to draw attention to the poor quality of the other three contenders - an insipid bunch of New Labour clones pre-programmed to spout clichéd semi Blairist drivel. All three are devoid of backbone, integrity, or appeal and I suspect would do a lot worse at the next election than Corbyn would.

It's little wonder the rank outsider is winning the race - the main contenders lack any appeal. Is this really the best Labour have to offer?

Sickchip

I see your point but what I would like to know is what stopped people like Dan Jarvis or Keir Starmer from standing & what was the real reason that Chuka pulled out of the race, as for the reason he gave at the time I do not believe him he must of known how much he would have been flung into the limelight of politics he has seen other leaders suffer at the hands of the media.

Redflag wrote:-
According to the Labour party there has been 3,138 refused a vote on the leadership election.

Elisabeth Winkler (@ewinkler) posted on Twitter on Friday: “My partner who has voted Labour all his life – and only Labour – has had his application to support Labour rejected”.

Last week I read a tweet from a man who has voted Labour all his life and contributed to the party through his union political levy for the last 35 years. His application for a vote was rejected.

The comedian Mark Steel not only voted Labour in May but campaigned for the Labour candidate in Brighton Kemptown. His attempt to register as a Labour supporter was turned down; he thinks it was because he said that if he lived in Brighton Pavilion he might be tempted to vote for Caroline Lucas (something that I’ve also said several times!).  

Those three people have something else in common: they all intended to vote for Jeremy Corbyn and publicised the fact. I suspect that some of the staff in Labour HQ have been overzealous in their McCarthy-style witch hunt and have been rejecting – and causing serious offence to – genuine Labour supporters.

The French have a phrase for it, which goes:
plus ça change, plus c’ est la même chose.

The more things change, the more they are the same.

Our beloved Labour Party needs to learn some new tricks. The old ones don't work anymore - if they ever did.

Sickchip

I agree with your post but the Labour leader and Labour MPs need to learn how to throw dirt back at the Tories, they cruified Ed Miliband anf the Labour party with the insults & smear on nothing more that PURE LIES but the Labour party allowed them to get away with it.

Redflag,

they cruified Ed Miliband anf the Labour party with the insults & smear on nothing more that PURE LIES but the Labour party allowed them to get away with it.

I agree. I thought Labours lack of anger, fight, or counter offensive was quite bizarre to be honest. The way they just sat back and took it, you could be forgiven for thinking Labour WANTED to lose the election.......and perhaps that's uncomfortably close to the truth.

sickchip wrote:I thought Labours lack of anger, fight, or counter offensive was quite bizarre to be honest. The way they just sat back and took it, you could be forgiven for thinking Labour WANTED to lose the election.......and perhaps that's uncomfortably close to the truth.

Exactly so.   If you sit around waiting to see what the tories think and then agreeing, the point of winning elections must seem a bit obscure, except to people like Blair who want to make money fast.

Is Jeremy Corbyn electable as Prime Minister? Well, maybe not. Ed Miliband wasn't, nor was Gordon Brown. Tony Blair was but he was also lucky (a valuable thing in politics). But I think John Smith, had he lived, would also have won in 1997 and perhaps presided over a better government.

As for now, if Labour doesn't embrace some of the policies, principles and values espoused by Mr Corbyn, some of the many currently enthused by his campaign might start to wonder what the party is for. Tory-lite doesn't really cut it. And we desperately need effective opposition against the Conservative government which Mr Corbyn may be best placed to provide. I have a long list of why such opposition is necessary. For now, I'll sum up in three words: "Iain Duncan Smith". Even if Mr Corbyn is not Labour leader at the next general election (there is talk of it being Dan Jarvis), he might be able to move the party to a better place.

Finally, if Tony Blair and his friends really don't want Jeremy Corbyn as leader, they might be better off campaigning for him as their negative interventions so far have helped to boost his support.

It's not urgently necessary to select a Leader of the Labour Party with unique Prime Minister potential.  Whoever it turns out to be has the luxury of nearly five years in which to prepare for government.

The urgency is to provide a believeable alternative to Toryism. Which they couldn't manage in time for the last election, so perhaps the forthcoming Annual Conference will provide early warning of any tendency to repeat that performance.