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.

Redflag wrote:any gov't can do SFA without being in POWER...

I'm with Boatlady on this, Labour, or anybody else for that matter, need to present a meaningful alternative to the Tories. Until that happens the Tories win even when they lose, hence Thatcher regarding Blair as her greatest achievement. There is no point aiming for power to simply be less bad than the other guys, its just a stalling tactic on the inevitable return to the Victorian model. Take on the debate, or slowly and irreparably cede the argument.

Lee

Doubtless those who have resigned will be labelled as 'rats' by those who have bought into the latest fashion for Corbynmania , but they have probably detected that the ship is listing somewhat heavily.

Still, they will provide useful scapegoats when matters don't go quite as planned and the Corbynieri are seeking somebody to blame.

Still, if being in power is not a priority for the Labour faithful -and it appears that a cleansing from those dreadful Blair days of government is all that matters just now - why not indulge in a bit of McCarthyite witch-hunting of those awful subversives to while away those long years of opposition...?

Phil Hornby wrote:
Still, if being in power is not a priority for the Labour faithful -and it appears that a cleansing from those dreadful Blair days of government is all that matters just now - why not indulge in a bit of McCarthyite witch-hunting of those awful subversives to while away those long years of opposition...?    

I disagree with most of that.  There's no point in power for the sake of power, this isn't about introspection, it's about creating an agenda to do something different with it, in 2020.  If you want to see something that actually is McCarthyesque, try this from the Dear Leader's twitter this morning:

Let's hope the Labour Party - in whatever form -never stoops quite so low as the Tories...

Phil Hornby wrote:-
The country needs to be able to have a clear choice at the next election: will it want a clearly socialist government or another dose of a Tory brand of cruelty for the disadvantaged? Or is it maybe something somewhere between the two that is the true preference of the typical Joe Public?

FPTP as a voting system was fine when we had a largely two-party system and most people voted along class lines. (Even so, it now seems incredible that Labour could have lost the 1951 election with 48.8% of the votes cast.) In the 1950s, over 90% of the electorate voted either Labour or Tory, but nowadays only about 66-67% do. As a result, FPTP is more like a lottery than ever and is completely unfit for purpose. As much as we might hate UKIP, it’s not good for democracy when 3.88 million votes results in only one MP, while 1.54 million votes gave the SNP 56 seats.

If we ever get a more proportional voting system, I think we would see some realignment of political parties. There would probably be four main groupings:-

- A socialist party (and maybe a green party).
- A social democratic/liberal party.
- A centre-right party, similar to the Tories under Macmillan and Heath or the European Christian Democrats.
- A right-wing party of Tory Europhobes and anti-immigrant people (UKIP).

Then Joe Public would have a clear choice. Inevitably, at least two of those parties would have to form a coalition. You might expect the socialists and social democrats to do that, but in Germany it seems that the social democrats are quite at home with Merkel’s Christian Democrats, although that may have something to do with the numbers.

Until we have a new voting system, the social democrats in the Labour Party must decide whether they will accept the overwhelming verdict of the members, or repeat history, create another 1980s split and help the Tories. I'm sure Shirley Williams would be happy to advise on how it's done, and no doubt Tim Farron would appreciate some help in resurrecting his dead party, so that one day it can again dupe enough voters into believing it’s a left-of-centre outfit.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03436/corbyn3_3436340b.jpg

An unlikely hero! Who could have imagined three months ago that this chap would win the Labour leadership by a landslide? Maybe people are just fed up with spin, airbrushed pics and robotic politicians who are perceived as "all the same"?

Perhaps it's time for some of us to think outside the box and accept that imitating the Tories with a 'New Labour' mantra might have worked twenty years ago but falls on deaf ears now. Is it a case of out with the new and in with the old?

Phil Hornby wrote:Let's hope the Labour Party - in whatever form -never stoops quite so low as the Tories...  

That would be a MASSIVE job PH for the Labour party to stoop so low as the bloody Tories.

Owen Jones produced a good tweet in response to that:-

"The sort of rhetoric you'd expect from a tinpot dictatorship. How utterly, embarrassingly pathetic."

Cameron has the neck to talk about "a threat to our national security". How many soldiers and policemen have been laid off since 2010? What use are aircraft carriers without any aircraft?

Pathetic indeed, but it's only a ramping-up of the Tory demonising of Miliband during the run-up to May's general election. Which is what frightened the public into voting as they did.

So a theme likely to be running for quite a long time.

Can we also add
'He will wear seriously dodgy outfits in public'?

oftenwrong wrote:Pathetic indeed, but it's only a ramping-up of the Tory demonising of Miliband during the run-up to May's general election.  Which is what frightened the public into voting as they did.

So a theme likely to be running for quite a long time.

Your spot on OW, the Tories will do the same to JC as they did to Ed Miliband which I think was a great loss to UK politics d too the Labour party. I hope JC realises that sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

Sky News have started....They door stepped Corbyn and followed him down the street but he refused not only to answer any one of the 'questions' they posed to him but the fact that they were there.........Good on you JC........

The tories will tell the same old lies, on and on and on, about anyone who challenges their divine right to rob and rule, but if we restore democracy, we shall wipe the floor with the scumbags.

Your spot on Penderyn, I would like to do more than wipe the floor with the Tories & to start off hang them by there B***OCKS

Redflag wrote:Your spot on Penderyn, I would like to do more than wipe the floor with the Tories  & to start off hang them by there B***OCKS

If they have any!

Ok, it's Tuesday - who thinks that JC has got off to a good start...?

- All those who think it's hypocrisy to sing 'God Save The Queen' if you're a republican.
- All those who think that Labour should unequivocally oppose cuts to tax credits for the working poor.
- All those who think that the Labour Party should support the trade union movement which in no small part created it, has financed it, and represents nearly 7 million workers.
- All those who think the rich should pay much more tax and that a vast council house building programme is necessary.
- All those who are pleased that 30,000 people have become full members of the Labour Party since Saturday.

Of course there's a downside - England's cricketers have lost every game they've played since Jeremy Corbyn became Labour's leader!

Personally, I think he's managed better than I expected, in that I hadn't really expected the barrage of media nastiness to be quite so spiteful - he appears to have coped with dignity and an enviable calmness and has proceeded from day one to carry out his promises.

Some are saying that his shadow cabinet is unbalanced because all the top jobs have gone to men - but this is the outset of his role as leader of the opposition and he needs to have people around him he has known and come to trust over the years, especially with Tom Watson there in the cabinet, who I personally regard as a self-publicist who would not be above disloyalty if it suited his own agenda.
And we have to remember that the most prominent female members (Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall) explicitly ruled themselves out of the shadow cabinet at the outset, having done their very best to prevent his election, while Harriet Harman appeared openly hostile to the idea of his election. The Labour women haven't been to date very supportive, it seems to me.

The membership boost created by his election tells us that in some quarters at least Corbyn's election is regarded very positively.
What we need now is for Labour party members, supporters and MP's to get solidly behind him and give the man a chance, because it's clear the media won't.

An example of what I don't mean by 'getting solidly behind him'
I think politicians need to grow up and resist for a while at least providing this type of ammunition to the Press - this to my mind is a non-story but they must have all known that the press are alert for any sign of disharmony in the party

Senior Labour figures have lined up to criticise their new leader, Jeremy Corbyn, for not singing the national anthem during Tuesday's Battle of Britain memorial service.
Labour's new shadow work and pensions secretary Owen Smith told BBC Newsnight on Tuesday evening that Corbyn should have sung the anthem.
This morning shadow equalities minister Kate Green told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that Corbyn will have "offended and hurt people" by not singing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/16/corbyn-has-offended-and-hurt-people-with-anthem-silence-says-shadow-minister_n_8143856.html

Most socialists consider that education and health are top jobs, and both of those posts in the shadow cabinet have gone to women. It wasn’t Corbyn’s fault that party members chose men for the roles of leader and deputy but still, for the first time, ever the shadow cabinet has a majority of women; so why all the froth?

Now we have another example of the warped values of the media. Corbyn doesn’t sing that awful and divisive excuse for a national anthem, which lauds religion and monarchy, and there’s hell to pay. As an atheist and a republican, he would be called a hypocrite if he did sing it. However, when Iain Duncan Smith shows a real lack of respect to ex-servicemen, the Tory press and the BBC don’t make so much fuss:-

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/killed-benefits-cuts-starving-soldier-3923771

Much of the above serves to confirm the reality of just how many of us are naturally conservative with a small "c".

How many electors does it take to change a political party?
Change? What do you mean by CHANGE?

Ivan wrote:Now we have another example of the warped values of the media. Corbyn doesn’t sing that awful and divisive excuse for a national anthem, which lauds religion and monarchy, and there’s hell to pay. As an atheist and a republican, he would be called a hypocrite if he did sing it. However, when Iain Duncan Smith shows a real lack of respect to ex-servicemen, the Tory press and the BBC don’t make so much fuss:-

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/killed-benefits-cuts-starving-soldier-3923771

The BBC news tried to pick on Dennis Skinner "The Beast of Bolsover" they got that one wrong because Dennis accused them of acting like the Murdoch press which has a great deal of truth in it Ivanwell done Dennis .

You can read and reply to more posts about the media treatment of Jeremy Corbyn on this thread:-

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t1098-media-bias-against-jeremy-corbyn#69471

Ivan wrote:- All those who think it's hypocrisy to sing 'God Save The Queen' if you're a republican.
- All those who think that Labour should unequivocally oppose cuts to tax credits for the working poor.
- All those who think that the Labour Party should support the trade union movement which in no small part created it, has financed it, and represents nearly 7 million workers.
- All those who think the rich should pay much more tax and that a vast council house building programme is necessary.
- All those who are pleased that 30,000 people have become full members of the Labour Party since Saturday.

Of course there's a downside - England's cricketers have lost every game they've played since Jeremy Corbyn became Labour's leader!

I am one of those that does not sing god save the Queen or Flower of Scotland it cuases too much trouble, which we have seen in the right wing newspapers in the last few days.

Mr Corbyn stands for much the same things most active Labour Party members used to (though he is a little to the right of most of them). In an age which would describe MacMillan as 'hard left', he dares to behave naturally and say what he thinks. No wonder a stinking-rich foreigner is prepared to bribe the careerists to oppose democracy to stop him. How DARE he!

I suppose you are talking about Labour donors offering money to Labour MPs to split from the Labour party and start up a new party , I hope they know that Labour party members & voters would never FORGIVE them if they cause a slit in the Labour party.

I do not know why Labour MPs will not give JC policies a chance to see how the general public react to them, if by 18 months things are not going Labours way then it would be time to put there thinking caps on.

One thing the new administration has to sort-out PDQ is how to recover from the rout of Labour from Scotland. Evidently the policy of shouted instructions from London down the telephone wasn't quite what they wanted there.

So what is plan "B"?

As far as JC is concerned OW he intends to spend one day a month in Scotland something none of the other Labour leaders did, and maybe that was part of the reason Scotland did not vote Labour in May 2015 giving the Tories there 12 seat majority.

I shall be in Edinburgh for a day next Tuesday - and further north in Caledonia for a week in October, so I may have the opportunity to ask a few locals about the issues.

It may mean having to frequent a few hostelries , however, but I'll make that sacrifice...

Even if Labour had picked up every single seat in Scotland the Tories would have emerged with a majority for the simple reason that England voted Tory. That the SNP tsunami delivered a Tory majority does not bear the most basic mathematical scrutiny.

As for the reasons for Labours decline in Scotland, they are far more numerous and complex and will require much more than what is simply a good first step.

TriMonk3y wrote:Even if Labour had picked up every single seat in Scotland the Tories would have emerged with a majority for the simple reason that England voted Tory.  That the SNP tsunami delivered a Tory majority does not bear the most basic mathematical scrutiny.

As for the reasons for Labours decline in Scotland, they are far more numerous and complex and will require much more than what is simply a good first step.

No - a minority of English voters went for the tories (forget the figure, but less than a third, I think). Most people are totally pissed off with the careerists and need bringing back.

Even so, thats a product of a defunct electoral system rather than geography. Election was won and lost in England, because it holds by far the biggest number of seats. The mathematics simply do not support the proposition that the loss of Labour's Scottish seats gave the Tories a majority. It did not. A discussion for another thread though... There is eggball to be watched tonight.

TriMonk3y wrote:Even so, thats a product of a defunct electoral system rather than geography. Election was won and lost in England, because it holds by far the biggest number of seats.  The mathematics simply do not support the proposition that the loss of Labour's Scottish seats gave the Tories a majority. It did not. A discussion for another thread though... There is eggball to be watched tonight.

But if people are so pissed off they haven't anyone to vote for, the answer is to get rid of the careerists, in my own view, and return to democracy.

Penderyn wrote:
But if people are so pissed off they haven't anyone to vote for, the answer is to get rid of the careerists, in my own view, and return to democracy.

Indeed.

Big issue for Labour is that its members in their choice of leader have opted to head left, while the vast majority of the parliamentary party (those careerists) who are also directly selected by the CLP members - are not. Ultimately this feeds into candidate selection next time around - it will be interesting to see how that plays out.

In Scotland this is not the case, having chosen a centre-right(ish) leader in Kezia. The big missed open goal there was opting for Murphy over Findlay last time around.

This ties into questions around the fairness of the electoral system, Labour's stance on it, and an acceptance that a fairer electoral system will result in the need for parties to work together more and remove some of the tribal nature of things.

Again, it will be interesting to see how it pans out.

Why is there a pervasive view in the media that Labour can't win the 2020 election? The theme being adopted by some in the press is 'Corbyn is a nice bloke but not a realistic candidate for Prime Minister'. That in itself is propaganda designed to imbed itself into the national mindset.....the kind of mass psychology that is used so often in recent times in this country - if you repeat something often enough people will start to believe it must be true.

I think Corbyn's support is being underestimated by the media, and that the media don't comprehend the situation, or the groundswell of support for Corbyn. The media in this country are always keen to maintain the status quo, are there to maintain the establishment and the order of things, and don't like anything that might rock that boat.......even the Observer and Guardian - our 'supposed' left leaning media, are small c conservatives at heart; and they have proved that in recent weeks.

For what it's worth I think Corbyn CAN win the 2020 election. The press are as out of touch with reality and as disconnected from the majority of the population as most of our current careerist MP's have been for years.


.......when we witness the press ridiculously accusing Corbyn of being sexist because he has 16 women and 15 men in the shadow cabinet, then we should realise the vitriol and spite the press hold for Corbyn: but also realise such ridiculous accusations simply betray the pathetic prejudices of the press.

We say we want politicians who are open and honest. And then, when we get one, we angrily pelt him with slime until he cringes to the mob, starts hiding his real views, and hires a spin doctor just like all the others.

Peter Hitches in MoS today: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/09/peter-hitchens-you-wanted-honest-leaders-so-stop-whining-now-that-youve-got-one.html

Sickchip
I agree with you that Corbyn definitely could win the next election - it's all still to play for, in my opinion.
He's as likely a candidate for PM as any and if he gets the support he deserves from his own party may well confound his critics

Phil Hornby wrote:I shall be in Edinburgh for a day next Tuesday - and further north in Caledonia for a week in October, so I may have the opportunity to ask a few locals about the issues.

It may mean having to frequent a few hostelries , however, but I'll make that sacrifice...  

Simce I live in Scotland may be able to offer you some help there PH, you could ask about how they think the Scottish NHS Education & what they think of Jermy Corbyn. Could do me a favour while your in Scotland would please explain to the Scots about how the numbers in the HOC works & that 56 SNP MPs can not do much against the Tories but very carefull with this one I will be looking forward to hearing how you get on thank you.

boatlady wrote:Sickchip
I agree with you that Corbyn definitely could win the next election - it's all still to play for, in my opinion.
He's as likely a candidate for PM as any and if he gets the support he deserves from his own party may well confound his critics

I agree boatlady I just wish all Labour MPs would give JC a chance to show what he can do, then after 18 months things are no different as regards to Labour being in a position to win the general election in 2020 they will need to sit down with him and talk things over as too the best way to proceed.

I did not vote for Jermy Corbyn but I am willing to give him a good crack of the whip, the Labour party has lost two election allowing the Tories to punish the low paid sick & disabled people of the UK, but do believe that when they bring in working tax credits the SHIT will hit the FAN.