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.

After the last election, it was clear to me, and also it seems to many others, that Labour really needed to establish a clear distinction of its policies and its offer to electors as against what the Tories offer - clear blue (or red) water, if you will.

With Corbyn at the helm we will be able to do just that - his promise is to oppose the excesses of the most right wing government I have ever seen and to propose a different view of the problems facing us and their potential solutions.

It may well be that the majority will look at his offer and think 'no thanks - not for us' but at least he is challenging the Tory hegemony, which is something we have not seen for several years.

It's entirely possible that some abstainers will be inspired by this fresh approach to vote again - we may see some surprises in by-elections and local elections in the coming years.

At the end of the day, if Britain wants a right wing government that is what we shall have - but at least now a real alternative is on offer, and I do believe the current government are rattled - which to me is a positive sign. Anything that upsets Cameron and his gang is OK by me.

Sickchip if ENGLAND wants a right wing gov't SCOTLAND does not, and if the rest of the UK want to keep us intact as a country. Because Scotland will quit the UK and that includes me I voted to stay in 2014 but I am not prepared to stay if England keeps voting for right wing gov'ts, I will be sorry to leave the UK but needs must in this case.

" ...Scotland will quit the UK ..."

During a ( tremendously enjoyable) week's trip to Scotland last week I sought any views I could on the subject of Scottish independence from folk as far apart as Sutherland, the Central Highlands and Edinburgh. Nobody to whom I spoke ( from hoteliers to NHS staff to Joe McPublic)on the matter favoured independence - far from it, in fact. They were highly critical of the SNP who they believe will bankrupt Scotland.

But neither was there any obvious enthusiasm, in that very small and unscientific sample, for the Labour Party. Yet I feel these good people sense that a break from the rest of the UK will occur in time -and maybe not too distant a time.

I have to add -as an aside - that I admire the Scots, and love their wonderful country, to which I shall return as often as I can - with or without requiring a passport...

Phil Hornby wrote:Call me an old cynic, but it all looks like a complete balls-up just now.

I doubt there will be another Labour Government for another 20 years or more - the best they can hope for is to come to their senses, reverse the current madness and strike up a coalition with other social democratic groups.

Well, in a one-party state it is difficult for the Opposition to get heard, as in Byelo-Russia but if we can be heard, the millions the careerists drove out will come back and keep us in power forever. Worth waiting for.

Phil Hornby wrote:" ...Scotland will quit the UK ..."

During a ( tremendously enjoyable) week's trip to Scotland last week I sought any views I could on the subject of Scottish independence from folk as far apart as Sutherland, the Central Highlands and Edinburgh. Nobody to whom I spoke ( from hoteliers to NHS staff to Joe McPublic)on the matter favoured independence - far from it, in fact. They were highly critical of the SNP who they believe will bankrupt Scotland.

PH I live in Glasgow and when the SHYTE hits the fan in April when the tax credits come into being you will hear a roar from Scots, which is just what the SNP are waiting for since it is Scotlands General Election for our Parliament in May 2016 I cam assure you that there will be another referendum cry from the SNP party.    

More than likely the people you spoke too while on holiday in Scotland would have been from the private sector, knowing if Scots vote yes to Independence private companies will move to England which would have costs attached, I know that Scotland cannot afford to be Independant but faced with a Tory gov't forever they will take that leap into the dark rather than face more Tory gov'ts

After listening to the CHANCER of EXCHEQUER charter debate in the HOC I now have my Labour party back no more can others call my party the Red Tories, I did notice the lack of Lib-Dems also the SNP party I will rely on Ivan and others to give us the numbers I have my own ideas who voted for the charter and the Tories.

Tomorrow's newspapers will be full of it but would advise fellow boarders not to read the right wing rags or the right wing TV (Sky & BBC) I will buy ny normal Daily Mirror and excpt there version and I can guarantee I will get the truth. Because of numbers in the HOC Labour was unable to stop the Tories from getting there charter through so fasten your seat belts all Hell is about to be loose but will only come to a head between December & April 2016 when the Tories start squeesing the sick disabled and the low paid.

I watched the late night news last night to find out that 21 Labour MPs had abtained in the vote for Ozzy's Charter, I have never been so ashamed to be a Labour member as I was last night. I know because of numbers Labour could not have stopped the Tories Charter to EXPLOIT the low paid sick & disabled, but this was a vote that will effect the 21 abstainers constituents do they not care what the Tories do ??

I would have understood there abstension if the vote had been on Trident or bombing Syria, but this was about peoples livlihoods I just hope the 21 get a good mouthfull from there constituents.

Personally, I think all Labour MPs should have abstained on Osborne’s fiscal charter. It's nothing more than a political gimmick and should have been treated with the contempt it deserves. In fact, I think they should have boycotted the debate as well. Osborne is supposed to be running the nation’s finances, yet he wastes his time playing silly games like this.

Sadly, the Tories have a majority and will carry out their evil policies, regardless of whether or not this ‘fiscal charter’ becomes law. Ignoring it won’t make one jot of difference to the suffering which they will continue to inflict on the poor and the sick. If and when a Labour government is elected again, it can immediately repeal this stupid measure. No parliament can bind its successors, however much the Tories would like that to happen.

The people who abstained will inevitably betray us when the time is right. How shocking if wicked 'hard leftists' suggest these people join the tories now, rather than when it might hurt us.

Ivan wrote:Personally, I think all Labour MPs should have abstained on Osborne’s fiscal charter. It's nothing more than a political gimmick and should have been treated with the contempt it deserves. In fact, I think they should have boycotted the debate as well. Osborne is supposed to be running the nation’s finances, yet he wastes his time playing silly games like this.

Sadly, the Tories have a majority and will carry out their evil policies, regardless of whether or not this ‘fiscal charter’ becomes law. Ignoring it won’t make one jot of difference to the suffering which they will continue to inflict on the poor and the sick. If and when a Labour government is elected again, it can immediately repeal this stupid measure. No parliament can bind its successors, however much the Tories would like that to happen.

I understand your point Ivan that whatever law the Tories want to put through they have the numbers in the HOC, but there is a lot of people out there that do not know how the HOC works, the Labour party should also point out to the general public EXACTLY what the Tories are up too even if is just playing a game of SILLY BUGGARS.

Personally, I think all Labour MPs should have abstained on Osborne’s fiscal charter.

Thinking about that --- surely it's better PR at this stage for the opposition to be publicly coming out as actively opposing these measures?

I see the point about a dignified abstention maybe avoiding the appearance of failure, but I guess one of the things people want Corbyn to do is to lead a very public argument against Tory policy in these areas and to make the beggars work for their wins?

The Tories have an overall majority of 12, which is effectively 16 because the four Sinn Féin MPs never attend. The sad fact is that unless some Tories rebel and the MPs of all the other parties vote against the government, Cameron and his cronies will pass whatever legislation they like.

I understand that Osborne was trying to set a trap for Labour. I’m also sure that the Tory press would delight in printing stories about “Labour turning its collective back on fiscal continence”. I wouldn’t suggest boycotting a parliamentary debate and vote as a tactic to be used other than in very exceptional circumstances. However, in 2010 Osborne said: “Fiscal responsibility acts are instruments of the fiscally irresponsible to con the public”. If he now wants to play silly games, I don’t think Labour should accommodate him.

When it was eventually decided that the party policy was to vote against Osborne’s ‘fiscal charter’, 21 Labour MPs (including the usual suspects, such as Liz Kendall and Tristram Hunt) decided to abstain. It might have been better for party unity if the vote had been dismissed as the 'schoolboy stunt' which it was and everyone had abstained.

It might also have been better for party unity if Jeremy Corbyn hadn’t just become a vice president of CND, especially as nuclear disarmament is an issue which clearly divides Labour. I think he’s made a mistake there; as leader of the Labour Party, I suggest that he shouldn’t have executive roles in other organisations.

I did wonder about the CND thing - surely the exacting task of leading the Parliamentary opposition keeps him busy enough

Haven't we had enough of Politicians who trim their sails to every breath of a change in the wind-direction of public opinion?

The Corbyn doctrine of sticking to his guns comes as a breath of fresh air in Parliament, but may take some getting used to.

Like Oliver Cromwell, we are expected to take him "warts and all!"  

The question is whether voters are up to that task.

Ivan wrote:I understand that Osborne was trying to set a trap for Labour. I’m also sure that the Tory press would delight in printing stories about “Labour turning its collective back on fiscal continence”. I wouldn’t suggest boycotting a parliamentary debate and vote as a tactic to be used other than in very exceptional circumstances. However, in 2010 Osborne said: “Fiscal responsibility acts are instruments of the fiscally irresponsible to con the public”. If he now wants to play silly games, I don’t think Labour should accommodate him.

When it was eventually decided that the party policy was to vote against Osborne’s ‘fiscal charter’, 21 Labour MPs (including the usual suspects, such as Liz Kendall and Tristram Hunt) decided to abstain. It might have been better for party unity if the vote had been dismissed as the 'schoolboy stunt' which it was and everyone had abstained.

IVAN if the labour MPs had abstained on the trap set for the labour party with Osbornes Charter garrbage it would have left the labour party open to the usual chant of Red Tories, plus what  you have said.   I agree that all labour MPs should have united behind JC to show a to show a united front to the public and  the tory party.

I'd be happier if the MPs moved only to obey Conference decisions.

In those far-off days when I was Branch secretary of a trade union, it was customary for Annual Conference to be the ultimate rule-maker, but since then most Unions and Political Parties have abandoned that in favour of "consensus", which is more malleable.

Now that they are televised, you will have noticed that all the main party conferences are highly choreographed - one might almost say scripted.

oftenwrong wrote:-
Haven't we had enough of Politicians who trim their sails to every breath of a change in the wind-direction of public opinion?......Like Oliver Cromwell, we are expected to take him "warts and all!"

 
I not only respect but also agree with Corbyn’s stance on nuclear weapons. When we’re told that we can’t afford adequate welfare benefits and a decent living wage for all, the Tories (and a fair number of Labour MPs) are prepared to waste £100 billion on a replacement for Trident. Out of the 28 EU countries, only Britain and France feel the need to have weapons which you’d be insane to use and which offer no solution to contemporary problems such as Islamic State.

I see no reason why Corbyn can’t be a member of CND, but I don’t think he should be part of its management team. When leading a democratic party, you have to attempt to take everyone with you, and to accept a senior position in CND, especially when nuclear disarmament is clearly a divisive issue for Labour, seems provocative and will do nothing to heal the wounds.

Any comparison with Oliver Cromwell is unfortunate. That was a man who man who fought a civil war on behalf of Parliament but then closed it down. He also fought and removed the monarchy, only to want his own son to succeed him when he died! And for all his ‘warts’, I’m certain that Corbyn won’t ever go on a murderous rampage in Ireland - especially as he’s a peace-loving man and a member of CND.

oftenwrong wrote:In those far-off days when I was Branch secretary of a trade union, it was customary for Annual Conference to be the ultimate rule-maker, but since then most Unions and Political Parties have abandoned that in favour of "consensus", which is more malleable.

Now that they are televised, you will have noticed that all the main party conferences are highly choreographed - one might almost say scripted.

Exactly. Fuhrers and careerists hate democracy. That is why real people chose Mr Corbyn .

I have spent this afternoon listening to the tax credit debate and it has opened my eyes wider than I ever thought possible, some of our new MPs have done the Labour party proud.

During the afternoon I have I have come to the conclusion there is only two options open to the people that will suffer from these tax credits CUTS 1) REVELUTION or 2) GENERAL STRIKE both of these conclusions will need to include the MAJORITY of the UK.

witchfinder (on another thread) wrote:-
there is no use pretending that the party is now more divided than at any time since the 1980s

Possibly, and it’s right-wingers such as Simon Danczuk who are playing into the hands of the Tories, because they won’t accept the overwhelming mandate which Labour Party members and supporters have given to Jeremy Corbyn. Despite the fact that it’s only just over a month since Corbyn was elected, Danczuk is publicly talking about challenging him for the leadership if the council election results next May aren’t good:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-faces-leadership-challenge-from-simon-danczuk-if-labour-perform-badly-in-mays-a6707721.html

Mr Danczuk, unfortunately, has problems of his own to deal with.

Mr Danczuk would be better off concentrating on his constituents than infiltrating himself into a futile leadership challenge.

His arrogance really knows no bounds. He believes himself to be a New Labour's lone crusader with his mission being to return the party to where it really wants to be because the members just don't know what's going on. Well they do as it appears and he can only look to the mandate given to Mr Corbyn.

He needs to settle down and look into the place where his heart should be and then he needs to simply shut up or leave.

I agree with every word you have said Claudine, its not just Simon Danzuck there are others in the same mind as SD, and it time they got on with the job that there constituents sent the to the HOC for and that is to get rid of the Tories and give the UK a Labour gov't in 2020.

I can see all the arguments for the desirability of a united front.

But where was the criticism of Comrade Corbyn when he was not following the party line in days gone by?

Do I smell hypocrisy in the air as I am reminded of the saying 'you reap what you sow'? Or are things different now, somehow...?

I realise that my views will not go down very well, however, I am utterly convinced that allowing policy to be formulated by the grass roots membership, or by a series of motions at conference will take us back to the 1980s, a time when many grass roots members were happy with the direction of the party, but the electorate were not, and we were kept from power for 18 long years.

Let us imagine what would be amongst the first tranche of policy motions sponsored by the grass roots members and unions - an extra week off work, close down Faslane Naval Base and re-employ the workers in tree planting in the highlands, abolish the monarchy, renationalise the shipyards, put up corporation tax, a Caribbean chalet for every union leader and free chocolate for everyone.

The Parliamentary Labour Party of the 1970s and 1980s often despaired at some of the composite's and motions put before conference, they knew it would mean electoral disaster, and they were proved correct time and time again.

Remember the damage the fighting over unilateral disarmament did, or the squabbling over law breaking and illegal budgets, and how Liverpool almost went bankrupt - red Robbo and Derek Hatton, yet such people are now coming back into the party.

The Labour Party members have the leader they want, no one can argue about that, but this is not what the floating voter want, the hundreds of thousands of voters in The Midlands and in the South east who sometimes vote Labour and sometimes vote Tory, they will not vote Labour with Jeremy Corbyn at the helm.

I do not agree with natinalising industry and production, I am not opposed to Trident, I am suspicious of Mr Corbyn and his supporters revisionist views on Ukraine and Russia, contemplating exiting NATO is stark raving bonkers, I am a monarchist, I have grave doubts and reservations at Mr Corbyn's economic policy, in fact there is so much I disagree with.

Should I exit the party and consider voting Lib Dem instead

I feel much sympathy with your views, witchfinder, and I am sure all too many voters will feel the same.

But it seems that the current fashion is to favour an all-out attack on 'The Blairites' ( those terrible folk who, despite their faults, gave us three Labour Governments) and to call for a party unity which Corbyn never supported himself when he sniped at the leadership from the back benches.

All in all it is a shocking mess of Labour's own making and it is that which will ensure a continued Tory Government in 2020 and not those who are simply calling for the madness to stop.

It's not good politics to be washing dirty laundry in public - it may well be that we will all disagree with Corbyn on some points - writing an article in the Daily Mail about our disagreements is maybe a step too far.

For any Labour party member, the basic objective should surely be the same - getting the Tories out of government.

We had a meeting of our local branch on Friday where it was revealed that widely varying views are held on any topic you might mention , but, being grown-ups, we will work towards a broad consensus on policy and approach voters with those policies - we won't all go out on the doorsteps with our own personal version of what we think should happen.

It's not about protecting any one person - it's about having a coherent message, without which we are not a political party but a collection of crazed egomaniacs. I'm in favour of seeing where consensus politics gets us - and so are very many of the electorate it seems - the electorate, you know, those people who ELECT the government and who should perhaps be listened to.

witchfinder. “Should I stay or should I go?” is a question that people have asked themselves for centuries. Erasmus and Luther were both unhappy with the state of the universal (Catholic) church in the 16th century. Erasmus stayed in it and tried to change it by ridiculing its deficiencies; Luther, aided and abetted by German nationalism, went elsewhere. It has to be a matter for your conscience as to whether you stay in the Labour Party or leave it, but I hope you stay.

One of Labour’s right-wing leaders, Hugh Gaitskell, led the party to a landslide defeat in 1959. However, at the conference in the following year he promised to "fight, and fight, and fight again, to save the party we love", taking a stand against nuclear disarmament, which was dividing the party as much then as it does now. Gaitskell never thought of leaving Labour, or forming a breakaway social democratic party as happened in the 1980s. Tony Benn didn’t like much of what happened during the Blair years, especially the invasion of Iraq, but he stayed in the party.

You say that you’re not against Trident, the replacement for which will cost up to £100 billion. Nobody has yet given me a convincing answer as to why, out of 28 EU countries, only Britain and France need nuclear weapons. And what use are they against modern security threats like ISIS? Wouldn’t it be insane to give the order to use nuclear weapons as a first strike? And if you use them in retaliation, how does that make them a deterrent? If we can’t afford to pay a living wage to all, decent benefits to those who need them, and fund the NHS so that it doesn’t limp from crisis to crisis, how can we afford nuclear weapons?

If you leave Labour, where could you go? You’re obviously not a supporter of either the Tories or UKIP. The Lib Dems destroyed themselves by handing Cameron the keys to Downing Street, which wasn’t necessary when there were 307 Tories and 343 non-Tories in Parliament. As the enablers of the most right-wing government in living memory, they will need decades to regain any credibility. The Green Party is for those who don’t think Labour is left-wing enough, so that clearly wouldn’t be your choice.

The Labour Party has always been a broad church, including socialists, social democrats, trade unions, co-operatives and various other progressive groups. For much of the time, it has been led by those on the right, but on occasions its leader comes from the left. That’s what happens when democratic parties hold elections. This is one time when the party membership, sick of 36 years of largely following the neoliberal agenda of Friedman, Thatcher, Reagan and Pinochet, has swung to the left and overwhelmingly chosen a decent and principled man who offers a hope of something different. If it means a return to pre-1979 days, bring it on; that’s immensely preferable to the 19th century conditions which the Tories are determined to impose on us.

For further reference:-
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t1099-were-the-1970s-as-bad-as-the-tories-claim

witchfinder wrote: ....Remember the damage the fighting over unilateral disarmament did, or the squabbling over law breaking and illegal budgets, and how Liverpool almost went bankrupt - red Robbo and Derek Hatton, yet such people are now coming back into the party....

Derek Hatton, or Gideon Osborne??

© BBC

© Newsthump

witchfinder wrote:The Labour Party members have the leader they want, no one can argue about that, but this is not what the floating voter want, the hundreds of thousands of voters in The Midlands and in the South east who sometimes vote Labour and sometimes vote Tory, they will not vote Labour with Jeremy Corbyn at the helm.

I do not agree with natinalising industry and production, I am not opposed to Trident, I am suspicious of Mr Corbyn and his supporters revisionist views on Ukraine and Russia, contemplating exiting NATO is stark raving bonkers, I am a monarchist, I have grave doubts and reservations at Mr Corbyn's economic policy, in fact there is so much I disagree with.

Should I exit the party and consider voting Lib Dem instead

Just in case anybody is in doubt of how I would like to see the direction of the Labour party to  go, in the last 4-5 years I have voted 4 times in leadership debates 2 in Scotlasnd & 2 in the UK.    Not once havI been lucky enoughto pick the winner either in Scotland or the UK, but all have been what you all seem to call Blairite candidates.

I did not vote for Ed Miliband or Jermy Corbyn as I thought there was too mch HYPE around the Miliband brothers, but I still supported Ed by going around the UK Hallam Sheffield, Carlisle, & Wirral West were I finally met Ed, I was due home on the Wednesday but someone whispered in my ear that Ed would be turning up in WW on the Saturday.    Along with all the expense I stayed on in WW so that I could meet Ed.

I did not vote for JC but I will support him because the Labour membership majority, unlike some Labour MPs who have spit the Dummy because there candidate chose did not win well BOO HOO, the people that matter is there constituents who are SUFFERING BADLY under the Tories.

And to assist the constituents fully the party needs to be elected.

It is all well and good to have a leader with 'principles' and a 'new way of doing politics' ,but all that will count for little if insufficient people turn out to vote for him/her.

I feel that Corbyn is sincere, polite, interesting and likeable - so are my neighbours but, like them, he isn't electable as Prime Minister.

-------

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/viewtopic.forum?t=1106