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.

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.

The least Labour needs to do is to OPPOSE effectively and seek to remove from the public's collective cnsciousness the perception that they can't run the cash till on a whelk stall.

But , eventually, they need a leader in whom the voters will believe, since anything less may well render even the best and most attractive progressive policies irrelevant...

Corbyn certainly seems a popular choice here in northern England - perhaps we don't live in the real world up here......and we're all in wonderland, unlike the real world that is London? Guardian journalists, and other media persons, are so cosy with the establishment and the present order of things, they're probably worried about that smug little boat being rocked.....which is why they're doing their utmost to derail the Corbyn campaign.

I think Corbyn would do better than any of the other contenders at the next election. He's certainly the most likely to win the working class vote back and get the conscientious middle classes who decided to vote Green back. I also think he has more chance of winning seats back in Scotland and Wales than the other three contenders. Perhaps that's what neo-liberal tories like Tony Blair are worried about?

They keep on saying this about Corbyn living in a fantasy world - what I'm inclined to think is, the real fantasy is thinking you can go on indefinitely with the morally and intellectually bankrupt ideas of the Tories and indeed most of the centre right without there being some sort of backlash.

We already have people in England dying of starvation and destitution, we already have hundreds if not thousands of refugees dying in our seas and on our beaches - and yet the government want to say there is not money - we can't afford to look after everyone.

Personally, I think it's time for a new politics and a new economics - if the old theories are telling us we can no longer be human - lets have some new ones

Well said, boatlady.

I totally agree.

I have a slight confusion surrounding the expectations of those potential Labour voters who want policies which steer significantly left and well away from those terrible Blair and Miliband-tainted practices up to May 2010.

If they didn't vote Labour then - out of contempt for the supposed 'Tory-lite' beliefs of the leadership - what did they think would happen...?

Thank you PH but doubt you will get an answer to the last few words of your post, everybody knew what cuts the Tories would bring in if re-elected 12 Billion to Welfare & I am sure after 2010-2015 cuts they would have known the sick disabled vulnerable and the low paid would take another hit from the SCUMBAG Tories.

I am certain that Ed Miliband and the Labour party would have done things so different in regards to the cuts they would have taken from the bankers and hedge fund managers, whereas the Tories will be taking less from them and no doubt give them another tax cut from 45p to 40p before the end of this Parliament.

My honest thoughts on the Corbyn campaign - and overcoming formidable obstacles

From an article by Owen Jones:-

The thing about history is that it doesn’t unfold in ways you can control. “Hey, history, tell you what, could we run this three years from now instead when we’re more ready?” A grassroots movement and political phenomenon has emerged now. It could well be that, without Jeremy’s candidature, it would never have emerged. It has to be engaged with as constructively as possible. It is like riding a tiger - a tiger that, yes, may well throw you off. Anyone who predicted this huge grassroots movement would emerge in such a short space of time is bluffing.

The Corbyn surge is part of a general trend of political discontent bubbling across the Western world, manifesting itself in progressive ways but also reactionary ways too: Podemos, Syriza, Bernie Sanders, the SNP, UKIP, the National Front, the True Finns, and so on. My fear is that, without this progressive Corbyn surge, that discontent could end up being funnelled to UKIP.

Jones then goes on to list his thoughts about the problems that will face Corbyn if he wins, and he offers suggestions as to what can be done about some of them.

https://medium.com/@OwenJones84/my-honest-thoughts-on-the-corbyn-campaign-and-overcoming-formidable-obstacles-de81d4449884

I agree with your post IVAN but will the same people that are voting for Jermy Corbyn will they vote for him in the 2020 general election ??

I know the polls do get it wrong no more so than in May 2015, but according to the polls JC is -10 to become PM in May 2020 so where were the people that voted for Corbyn when that poll was taking place??

The 2020 election: The electorate will listen to all the misinformation, propaganda, and lies made available to them via the media and base their vote on that misinformation.

Redflag. As you say, the pollsters couldn’t get it right in May - not even a couple of days before the election - so I really don’t give a tinker’s cuss about what they’re predicting for 2020. I can’t start to imagine what conditions will be like by then, with those 40% cuts in spending, when Duncan Smith has buried a few thousand more benefit claimants, and when possibly 2 million or more of us are relying on food banks. One of the best tweets I ever read compared the Tories to carbon monoxide poisoning, saying that most people won’t realise what’s happening to them until it’s too late. If they haven’t woken up by 2020, the UK as we knew it will be dead.

Frankie Boyle says that Liz Kendall wants to “change Labour to be whatever people who hate it want it to be”. I don’t think that would inspire anyone to vote for us; if they want Toryism, they can have the real thing. If you’ve watched any of the debates, it’s easy to see why Jeremy Corbyn is probably heading for a deserved landslide win. He answers questions calmly and clearly, and he’s like a breath of fresh air after years of robotic politicians peddling soundbites and platitudes. However, trying to predict an election result in five years' time is foolish. Circumstances can change very quickly in politics; Harold Macmillan once explained what he feared most - “events, dear boy”.

IVAN thank you for your post it had given me a bit of hope for 2020, but I fear those stupid enough to believe the Tory LIES as they did in May 2015 even all those cuts between 2010-2015. Knowling voting Tory (even some Labour voters) what the cuts would be between 2015-2020 12 Billion on Welfare 40% cuts in public services and the state of OUR NHS under the Tories.

I have watched most of the debates & attended one here in Glasgow, but as Yvette Cooper has said its stupid to promise what you cannot deliver the Deficit & Debt needs to be paid and as you know the debt has risen under this Tory gov't to £1.5 Trillion.

I suppose we will just have to wait until the 12th September to get the results, and if Corbyn wins we will just have to see how JC handles Cameron at PMQs, that will give us an idea of hard JC mettle really is, because I hope he is not a gentleman like Ed Miliband was and gives as good as he gets in regard to insults & smears that the Tories will have ready for JC.

the Deficit & Debt needs to be paid

In 1694, the English government (before the Act of Union with Scotland) couldn’t pay for the cost of the Nine Years’ War and borrowed from some businessmen. That was the start of the Bank of England, and this country has been in debt ever since. In any one year, the government either has a deficit or a surplus, depending on whether it spends more than it receives or vice versa. There has only been a surplus in about 50 of the last 320 years.

The debt should be considered, not in cash terms, but as a percentage of our gross domestic product (GDP). Just as someone on a salary of £200k a year could dismiss a debt of £10k as trivial, while a person on JSA would be in dire straits with that burden, the amount of debt which is sustainable depends on the size of an economy. As a percentage of our GDP, our debt was much bigger after both world wars. In that climate, Attlee borrowed from the USA to build houses, create new towns, set up the NHS and nationalise some of our infrastructure. Jeremy Corbyn summed it up in the Sky debate: “Invest to grow. You can't cut your way to prosperity, you grow your way to prosperity”.

Phil Hornby wrote:I have a slight confusion surrounding the expectations of those potential Labour voters who want policies which steer significantly left and well away from those terrible Blair and Miliband-tainted practices up to May 2010.

If they didn't vote Labour then - out of contempt for the supposed 'Tory-lite' beliefs of the leadership - what did they think would happen...?

They thought that more radical parties - the Greens for instance - would do better than they in fact did, given a vote that would have given an Opposition Labour Party a very comfortable majority.

I disagree with your post Penderyn in regards to Ed Miliband if you take a look at the Manifesto he did taske the UK to the left example the Repeal of the 2012 NHS Bill and the Repeal of the Welfare bill like the bedroom tax for example and then to tax the rich & wealthy more because it was the bankers and hedge fund managers that caused this bloody mess.

I wasn't arguing for Mr Milleband, who was neither one thing nor the other, but for a renewal of the pre-Blair Labour Party, which I think would win hands down against all these ludicrous posturing slimes.

a renewal of the pre-Blair Labour Party ---- would win hands down against all these ludicrous posturing slimes.

oh yes

After very long and serious consideration, I placed my vote and it was for Jeremy Corbyn.

I've met him and he is a decent man of principle who knows what he thinks and will stick to that. Yes, he is very left-leaning but that in itself is nothing to be ashamed of. We are the Labour party, after all.

I think he'll win and I also think that he can deal with the inevitable onslaught from the boringly predictable right-wing media.

As I watched the Sky debate, I was keen to discover who would use their brains, stay calm and not fall into the usual traps. Burnham, for me, seriously under-delivered. Kendall was Kendall and the less I say about that, the better. Cooper started off as a shouty shrew and by the end, in my opinion, let herself down as she descended into a ranting, desperate harpy.

The only one who kept his powder dry, kept his temper and remembered that Labour must stay united was Corbyn and that's what the audience responded to.

I absolutely believe that he has the experience & the fortitude to disarm an often petulant David Cameron at PMQs. He's seen this all before and this might just be his time.

Confident and unequivocal predictions which will generate their own result in the fullness of time.

I can't think why the Labour Party of those pre-Blair days didn't win any elections...or can I...?

Phil Hornby wrote:I can't think why the Labour Party of those pre-Blair days didn't win any elections...or can I...?

Yes. obviously.   Your memory is failing.   Shirley Williams.

So, a split in the Labour Party caused a lengthy period of electoral failure?

What makes anyone think that the same won't happen with this latest self-inflicted division between the left and right of Labour?

Those Tories surely can't believe their luck...

Phil. The Labour Party has always been a coalition of socialists and social democrats, and from time to time the tension comes to the surface. When Hugh Gaitskell introduced prescription charges in 1951, Aneurin Bevan, Harold Wilson and John Freeman resigned from the government. Gaitskell, a right-winger, became Labour leader, and in the 1959 election the Tories increased their majority from 60 to 100. After he died, Wilson, much further to the left, went on to win four of the next five elections.

So I’m afraid your oft-repeated theory that because Blair won from the right, Labour can only ever be successful if it virtually mimics the Tories (in other words, accepts that Thatcherism has won), doesn’t hold water. The mood and perceptions of the public can change, and there may be something in the old maxim that “governments lose elections rather than oppositions win them”.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNuRtc4WwAACacW.jpg

Yes, there was a split in the Labour Party in 1981, because those on the right weren’t getting their own way all the time. We now have right-wing MPs such as Simon Danczuk warning that Jeremy Corbyn “will be ousted on day one” if he becomes leader. We shall see. There may be another split - if those on the right wish to demonstrate that they're bad losers and don’t accept democratic outcomes – but personally I don’t think it will happen.

A selection process of any kind is always going to show where the divisions lay, and there is much to be said for a public debate prior to election.

For instance, when are Gideon's supporters going to begin quietly undermining Cameron's handling of current affairs? If that hasn't already begun.

Lets just hope the new Labour leadership will fight the Tories with the same gusto they are currently using on each other?

As it goes, I haven't noticed that Corbyn is doing a lot of fighting - just saying what he believes and letting everyone else fight him

The truth of JC leadership will all come down to how he preforms at PMQs, I for one will help to bring him down if the Labour party slips in the polls. The UK can not afford another 5 years of this Tory gov't never mind another in 2020 boatlady, you may think that is nasty of me, but if the Labour party does not do something soon I fear there will be NO Labour party left because that is something the Tories want to happen and woulf please them immensly.

"..your oft-repeated theory ..".

I am nowhere near clever enough to have theories!

I am sure mimicking Blair would not be the answer, however - my point is that denigrating those who once brought success is not a wholesome activity , but presents the Labour Party as an organisation which places no value on its past heroes.

On ow's point, I am sure we are in for a feast of dirty fighting in Tory ranks as Cameron's hands slip from the tiller. Bring it on, and seek to promote as much division amongst the rancid ranks as possible, but face the reality of what the electorate will expect from an opposition party.

Many people think it is Corbyn. I doubt it is - not because he is not an honest principled candidate for leadership, but because voters will be all-too-easily persuaded that he is 'unsafe' for a variety of reasons. However, if being out of government is preferable to compromising a few principles in the pursuit of power and influence, then so be it for the Labour faithful .

But what would a political agnostic such as me know - notwithstanding that I am the very sort of person whose support needs to be gained..?

Phil Hornby wrote:So, a split in the Labour Party caused a lengthy period of electoral  failure?

What makes anyone think that the same won't happen with this latest self-inflicted division between the left and right of Labour?

Those Tories surely can't believe their luck...

Deliberate treachery by important figures in conjunction with an all-out offensive by their paymaster's media, and in a time when we'd made the Country prosperous, so that they could get away with their lies. A little different now, with only the old voting?

I am clearly out of touch with the way the modern political machinery works and should retire to the back benches immediately...!

Phil Hornby wrote:-
.....presents the Labour Party as an organisation which places no value on its past heroes.

Steady on, have you ever seen a bad word written about Clem Attlee on this forum? Or even Harold Wilson, who presided over the abolition of capital punishment, the legalisation of homosexuality and abortion, and the end of theatre censorship - not to mention the small matter of keeping our troops out of Vietnam? If only your hero Blair had also had the balls to say no to an American president!

I have no political heroes - and precious few of any sort. But I do admire Blair for having had a formula to rid Britain of the Tories - who faced with an ineffective Leader of the Opposition could quite easily have retained power in 1997 rather than suffer a Labour landslide and two further defeats.

But Corbyn is obviously the new favourite - for now - so let's see what huge and impressive inroads he makes into that Tory dominance. After all the hype, I shall be expecting great things...!

What you expect and what you get will of course be in part defined by what you vote for

Phil Hornby wrote:"..your oft-repeated theory ..".

I am nowhere near clever enough to have theories!

I am sure mimicking Blair would not be the answer, however - my point is that denigrating those who once brought success is not a wholesome activity , but presents the Labour Party as an organisation which places no value on its past heroes.

On ow's point, I am sure we are in for a feast of dirty fighting in Tory ranks as Cameron's hands slip from the tiller. Bring it on, and seek to promote as much division amongst the rancid ranks as possible, but face the reality of what the electorate will expect from an opposition party.

Many people think it is Corbyn. I doubt it is - not because he is not an honest principled candidate for leadership, but because voters will be all-too-easily persuaded that he is 'unsafe' for a variety of reasons. However, if being out of government is preferable to compromising a few principles in the pursuit of power and influence, then so be it for the Labour faithful .

But what would a political agnostic such as me know - notwithstanding that I am the very sort of person whose support needs to be gained..?

There it is, "Politics in a nutshell"! .. compromising a few principles in the pursuit of power and influence, ....

Gore Vidal wrote, "America has ceased to be a Republic and has become a corporate-funded oligarchy, committed to keeping the poor down.  There is only one political party, the Property party which has two right wings, Republican and Democrat.  The power of America's rulers allows them to treat other people as things."

What the USA does today, Britain will follow tomorrow.  Coca Cola, fast-food chains, bigger cars and widening inequality are all imports, and if you want to know where the Tories get their ideas for union-bashing just refer to the Taft-Hartley Bill of 1947.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Management_Relations_Act_of_1947

Phil Hornby wrote:I have no political heroes - and precious few of any sort. But I do admire Blair for having had a formula to rid Britain of the Tories - who faced with an ineffective Leader of the Opposition could quite easily have retained power in 1997 rather than suffer a Labour landslide and two further defeats.

But Corbyn is obviously the new favourite - for now - so let's see what huge and impressive inroads he makes into that Tory dominance. After all the hype, I shall be expecting great things...!  

Blair rid Britain of the tories by destroying the Labour Movement and replacing it with tories. Big deal!

Do you ever get a feeling that's it's just not your day...?

Mr Corbyn, as a man, will make no more difference than any other fuhrer, for that role favours fantasists prepared to work for big business and say whatever keeps them in power, uselessly.   The question is whether the election of Mr Corbyn can begin a movement back to democracy, and win the support of the millions whose interests were and are antithetical to those of the Williamses, Kinnocks, Bliars and other careerist-entrists.   If we can drive the followers of those scum back into their own party we can win back the millions they said had no-one else to support, and stay in power forever.

Media bias against Corbyn continues re: heavily slanted against Corbyn BBC Panorama tonight.

My problem with JC sickchip is will the thousands that are voting for him to be leader of the Labour party will those thousands vote for him to be PM ??

Redflag wrote:My problem with JC sickchip is will the thousands that are voting for him to be leader of the Labour party will those thousands vote for him to be PM ??

Can't be did. MPs are what we elect, and it we elect the faithful heirs of Gaitskell they will, naturally, attempt to destroy democracy by treachery.

Redflag,

Do you think Burnham, Cooper, or the other one are more electable than Corbyn? My opinion is all three would do worse than Corbyn in 2020.

I'm sick of people saying Corbyn is unelectable.........it's not as if the other leadership contenders are electable or have any appeal.

What do you all feel will be the perception of voters regarding Corbyn's age in 2020 for a PM looking at a five-year term, during which he may have to hand over to another leader - unless he would seek a second election victory to take him towards 2030...?