UK Labour Leadership election

ancapailldorcha

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

One just has to look at the electoral success of 'Militant/Socialist Party' or the 'Socialist Labour Party'..... No, wait, poppycock.

Miliband's policies were barely centre-left so referring to his Labour party as militant socialists doesn't make a lot of sense given that you had the Greens campaigning for high wealth taxes, state ownership of the railway network and free third level education for all.

BoJack Horseman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Miliband's policies were barely centre-left so referring to his Labour party as militant socialists doesn't make a lot of sense

If I was referring to Ed, you'd have a point... but I'm not.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_(England_and_Wales)

jank

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Miliband's policies were barely centre-left so referring to his Labour party as militant socialists doesn't make a lot of sense given that you had the Greens campaigning for high wealth taxes, state ownership of the railway network and free third level education for all.

Milliband also went down the road of American Style identity politics e.g. critising Islam could be a crime.
Labour needs to be aspirational, that is the centre and that is where middle England lies at present. Scotland is much further to the left than England so one cannot look at the SNP and say that there is a centre left win there somewhere in the UK. The SNP are first and foremost a nationalist party, who's identity is that they are not English and who blame Westminster for their own ills.

ancapailldorcha

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

If I was referring to Ed, you'd have a point... but I'm not.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_(England_and_Wales)

I thought you were.

jank wrote: »

Milliband also went down the road of American Style identity politics e.g. critising Islam could be a crime.
Labour needs to be aspirational, that is the centre and that is where middle England lies at present. Scotland is much further to the left than England so one cannot look at the SNP and say that there is a centre left win there somewhere in the UK. The SNP are first and foremost a nationalist party, who's identity is that they are not English and who blame Westminster for their own ills.

If there is one word I am sick to death of, it's aspiration. Labour increased their vote this time round so it's not the case that they didn't resonate with a significant proportion of the electorate. While I don't accept this "**** to the left" narrative at all, Labour do need to find an identity and soon.

A Dub in Glasgo

jank wrote: »

The SNP are first and foremost a nationalist party, who's identity is that they are not English and who blame Westminster for their own ills.

If there is one thing that shows how folk have misinterpreted or misjudged (willingly or not) the Scottish electorate over the last 8 years it is all contained in the above sentence

BoJack Horseman

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

If there is one thing that shows how folk have misinterpreted or misjudged (willingly or not) the Scottish electorate over the last 8 years it is all contained in the above sentence

the SNP are indeed nationalist (the clue is in the name)
And yes, they do love a whinge at Westminster, whatever the merit.
http://m.scotsman.com/news/opinion/letters/snp-must-stop-blaming-westminster-1-3687704
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-snp-exploiting-poverty-in-order-to-blame-westminster-and-push-independence-gordon-brown-claims-10199834.html
You should know, you live there!

Its hard for labour to win this back when half the Scottish electorate don't want to be in the UK at all.

Any hope for labour victory has to be in England

rainbow kirby

I would be of the opinion that to be a real alternative, a real opposition, a lurch to the left and back to its roots is exactly what the Labour party needs. Tory lite is not going to win them the next election or even win some of the marginal seats back.

On a local level Jeremy Corbyn is very popular - he's the MP for my constituency (Islington North - quite a diverse area), has been for a long time and he got 60%+ of the vote in May.

ancapailldorcha

rainbow kirby wrote: »

I would be of the opinion that to be a real alternative, a real opposition, a lurch to the left and back to its roots is exactly what the Labour party needs. Tory lite is not going to win them the next election or even win some of the marginal seats back.

On a local level Jeremy Corbyn is very popular - he's the MP for my constituency (Islington North - quite a diverse area), has been for a long time and he got 60%+ of the vote in May.

+1.

If he doesn't win then I'm not going to understand what the modern Labour party is for.

BoJack Horseman

rainbow kirby wrote: »

I would be of the opinion that to be a real alternative, a real opposition, a lurch to the left and back to its roots is exactly what the Labour party needs.

Thing is, there are at least 9 alternative parties that are socialist in the UK.

The alternatives are there.

However, they were endorsed with just 54,000 votes out of a 30.7 million total.

Where is this far-left groundswell going to come from?

A Dub in Glasgo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

the SNP are indeed nationalist (the clue is in the name)

Try reading the name some time, the Scottish National Party

And yes, they do love a whinge at Westminster, whatever the merit.
http://m.scotsman.com/news/opinion/letters/snp-must-stop-blaming-westminster-1-3687704
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-snp-exploiting-poverty-in-order-to-blame-westminster-and-push-independence-gordon-brown-claims-10199834.html
You should know, you live there!

A couple of letters to the editor and a discredited ex Chancellor & PM is now the voice of Scotland?

WheatenBriar

rainbow kirby wrote: »

I would be of the opinion that to be a real alternative, a real opposition, a lurch to the left and back to its roots is exactly what the Labour party needs. Tory lite is not going to win them the next election or even win some of the marginal seats back.

On a local level Jeremy Corbyn is very popular - he's the MP for my constituency (Islington North - quite a diverse area), has been for a long time and he got 60%+ of the vote in May.

Aye but that doesn't mean hes popular, it just means its a safe labour seat
Fptp does not encourage competition

Euphoria Intensifies

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Thing is, there are at least 9 alternative parties that are socialist in the UK.

The alternatives are there.

However, they were endorsed with just 54,000 votes out of a 30.7 million total.

Where is this far-left groundswell going to come from?

Nobody other than people truly entrenched in blind socialism would ever consider voting for any of those parties. It's pretty much a wasted vote under FPTP.

I don't think there is a far-left groundswell to be captured. However, I imagine there is a lot of people who are probably more centre-left (i.e. people who want to keep the NHS, lower/abolish tuition fees, raise taxes etc etc) who would be willing to vote for a truly centre-left Labour party, not this Tory-lite mishmash of a party that exists today. I would not be surprised if people voted Tory simply because a Labour government under Ed Milliband seemed like a clusterf*ck waiting to happen. They were pretty much saying the same things policy-wise when it came down to it.

Labour is in a transitional phase, and I think this election will have a massive say in the future of the party. Jeremy Corbyn is the leader the party needs in order to get a proper sense of identity back. I don't think we will ever see him as PM (his age does count against him somewhat), but I think he could steer the ship for a while.

BoJack Horseman

Euphoria Intensifies wrote: »

there is a lot of people who are probably more centre-left

Obviously.
34 million people voted centre-left in May!

But Corbyn, by his own admission is very far from centre-left.

The question remains, where is this far-left electoral groundswell going to come from?

Euphoria Intensifies wrote: »

Jeremy Corbyn is the leader the party needs in order to get a proper sense of identity back.

I agree, but its an identity we know that Britain has rejected for decades..... and an identity already replicated by many other tiny parties.

blinding

Its amazing "A lot of Labour people do not want Tory candidates to become Labour leader"

I mean "Who would have thunk that ?"

Eugene Norman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I thought you were.



If there is one word I am sick to death of, it's aspiration. Labour increased their vote this time round so it's not the case that they didn't resonate with a significant proportion of the electorate. While I don't accept this "**** to the left" narrative at all, Labour do need to find an identity and soon.

The analysis of the ejection was disingenuous hysteria. Firstly labour lost votes to the SNP. And UKIP. It therefore needs to abandon identity politics and fast. The conservatives gained from the lib dems in the countryside and didn't lose as much to UKIP because of the promised vote on Europe (which will devastate the party).

The Tories are as tribal as ff was. Basically they get votes from country bumpkins and not the cities. If they were the party of aspiration then London would be majority conservative. It isn't. Nor is any sizeable city in the UK.

Corbyn scares the right because he is old school, hence the hysteria. If they were convinced he would destroy labour and get no votes they wouldn't write so many articles saying he would destroy labour and get no votes, they would just watch.

What's scary for them is he isn't reflexively pro-EU, isn't an identity politics muppet, and could bring UKIP working class voters back.

This leaves the conservatives with a huge dilemma on their referendum. That's going to split the party anyway, and their unwarranted reputation for economic competence depends on the London property market not ever collapsing.

Frankly I think they would have preferred to not be in power at this election. Or be there with the lib dems to apportion blame.

joseph brand

Maybe you have already seen this:

British Labour Party leader candidates make case in Dublin [Citywest].

Five British Labour Party politicians sat on a stage in Dublin’s Citywest on Tuesday, seeking votes from 1,000 delegates of a major British trade union. Outside, Irish Labour Party leader Joan Burton greeted old friends.

Labour looks set to have either a proper labour leader (Corbyn) or a Tory-lite leader. Decisions, decisions.

However, the Liverpool- born Burnham did not do quite so well when he was asked by the hustings chair, the Mirror’s political editor Kevin Maguire, how much a litre of petrol costs.
“Is it £1.60? I never know because I fill the tank,” said Burnham, who minutes before had told union delegates that Labour lost because they were seen by too many as “the Westminster elite”. (The correct answer is about £1.16.)

Ouch!

Nice to see Michael D Higgins get a mention.

Beforehand, most of the delegates wanted only to talk about the address given on Monday by President Michael D Higgins – one that prompted three standing ovations.

The “voice” of the unions is needed as the world rebuilds from “the great failure of speculative capital and a dominant model of economics that has caused so much damage to the lives of workers and their families”, Mr Higgins had told them.

Prompting loud applause, delegate Kevin Flanagan told the conference: “We were deeply inspired by the President of Ireland, who unequivocally stood up for the rights of workers and the right of trade unionists.”

I haven't bothered to look, but I suspect that if the Telegraph or Daily Mail ran this story, Higgins would be labelled a Trotskyite. "Damn you Rupert Murdoch!"

jank

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

If there is one thing that shows how folk have misinterpreted or misjudged (willingly or not) the Scottish electorate over the last 8 years it is all contained in the above sentence

The SNP are not a nationalist movement, who is seeking independence from the Union?

jank

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I thought you were.



If there is one word I am sick to death of, it's aspiration. Labour increased their vote this time round so it's not the case that they didn't resonate with a significant proportion of the electorate. While I don't accept this "**** to the left" narrative at all, Labour do need to find an identity and soon.

Tony Blair was so successful because he owned the centre and he gave Labour an aspiration. All Labour seem to be capable of doing now creating class war fare and old school 1970's left wing populism which the majority reject and will reject into the future. The more Labour shift to the left, the more time they will be out of power.

TwoGallants

jank wrote: »

Tony Blair was so successful because he owned the centre and he gave Labour an aspiration. All Labour seem to be capable of doing now creating class war fare and old school 1970's left wing populism which the majority reject and will reject into the future. The more Labour shift to the left, the more time they will be out of power.

Labour would have won in the 90s without Blair, the Tories were spent. The paradigm has shifted greatly since that era as well, inequality is a much more urgent issue, people don't feel prosperous if they have a 'well paid' job... In the 90s we lived through an unprecedented economic boom that lifted all boats, that era is long dead. Anything can happen during a stagnation.

ancapailldorcha

jank wrote: »

Tony Blair was so successful because he owned the centre and he gave Labour an aspiration. All Labour seem to be capable of doing now creating class war fare and old school 1970's left wing populism which the majority reject and will reject into the future. The more Labour shift to the left, the more time they will be out of power.

What would be the point of a centre-left voter such as myself voting for a Tory-lite party though. Moving to the centre-right as Blair did would just alienate traditional Labour voters and strengthen the hands of the Greens and the Liberal Democrats.

LuckyLloyd

TwoGallants wrote: »

Labour would have won in the 90s without Blair, the Tories were spent. The paradigm has shifted greatly since that era as well, inequality is a much more urgent issue, people don't feel prosperous if they have a 'well paid' job... In the 90s we lived through an unprecedented economic boom that lifted all boats, that era is long dead. Anything can happen during a stagnation.

Yeah, I think there is an incorrect urge in Political analysis to try and identify actions or policies as the cause of grand shifts in power.

Change versus more of the same
It's the economy stupid
(and don't forget about healthcare)

By 1997 all Labour had to do to achieve a sweeping victory was satisfy the first criteria, portray themselves as different. Major's government had endured a torrid term in office really and as a party they had long exhausted the well of talent and energy. Being honest, the shock was the 1992 election. That was the natural break point. But despite that surprise, Conservatives were running on fumes in terms of public interest.

I think, irrespective of everything else, the Conservatives are favourites in ~2020 and Labour will be favourites in ~2025. And in that context I think Labour may as well stick to core principles that aim to address inequality in society and offer a fairer distribution of wealth. The idea that the British nation are fundamentally center right and that is the ground that elections will be won on for ever more is shortsighted imo.

BoJack Horseman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What would be the point of a centre-left voter such as myself voting for a Tory-lite party though.

from the left, everything looks to be right wing, though it isnt.
Its like calling the Irish Labour party "right wing", its innacurrate.

Moving to the centre-right as Blair did would just alienate traditional Labour voters and strengthen the hands of the Greens and the Liberal Democrats.

Again.... moving to the centre won......
Blair wasnt right wing, he just wasn't as left wing as the die-hards wanted.
As Alan Johnson says in todays Guardian about the Blair years.....
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/04/labour-yvette-cooper-jeremy-corbyn-alan-johnson

Before new party members become enmeshed in the “culture of betrayal”, it’s worth taking a second to examine the charge that Labour in government did nothing for working people.
Leave aside the transformation in health and education (plus additional jobs and extra pay for nurses and teachers), the 3,000 Sure Start centres, the Disability Discrimination Act, the Human Rights Act, civil partnerships, rescuing 1.2 million children from absolute poverty and 1.8 million from relative poverty, pension credit (which made the single biggest contribution to the fact that for the first time in recorded history being old is no longer associated with being poor), the Pension Protection Fund, the resuscitation of apprenticeships and the world’s first legally enforceable carbon reduction targets. Is it accurate to suggest that trade unionists fared badly in the Blair years?

Hardie’s vision of a national minimum wage wasn’t enacted by MacDonald or Attlee, Wilson or Callaghan; it was introduced by the Blair government along with the right to paid holidays (later extended by law to be in addition to bank holidays). Every single worker was given the right to be represented at a disciplinary or grievance hearing by a trade union official, regardless of whether the union was recognised and irrespective of whether the individual was a member. During the “virus” years, a woman’s right to paid maternity leave rose from 16 weeks to nine months. Paternity leave was introduced for the first time.

The ban on trade union representation at GCHQ was lifted along with the pernicious “check-off” legislation, which forced unions to re-recruit their members every three years. The Public Disclosures Act gave protection to whistleblowers, new rights were enacted to protect part-time and temporary workers, agency workers and those subjected to control by gangmasters. Legislation on union recognition insisted that if 50% plus one of the workforce was recruited, the union was automatically recognised. Prior to 1997 it had always been the case that an employer could sack striking workers en masse on day one of a dispute. The Blair government changed the law to prevent that happening. Far from being a period when trade unions were betrayed, it was the most benign period in their history and, if I may gently point out to Ward, the importance of winning elections can be summed up in four words – the trade union bill.

As I've said.... you take the centre, you win.
You sit on the fringes relishing in righteousness & glorious defeat, you lose.

Blair was the most successful PM in modern UK history because he woke up to this reality.

Madam

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

from the left, everything looks to be right wing, though it isnt.
Its like calling the Irish Labour party "right wing", its innacurrate.


Again.... moving to the centre won......
Blair wasnt right wing, he just wasn't as left wing as the die-hards wanted.
As Alan Johnson says in todays Guardian about the Blair years.....
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/04/labour-yvette-cooper-jeremy-corbyn-alan-johnson


As I've said.... you take the centre, you win.
You sit on the fringes relishing in righteousness & glorious defeat, you lose.

Blair was the most successful PM in modern UK history because he woke up to this reality.

Yet the SNP are seen as far left and if English people(especially in the North) would by all accounts vote for them - where does that square with your analogy?

BoJack Horseman

Madam wrote: »

Yet the SNP are seen as far left

Seen by who?
not by themselves and not by many else I imagine.

The SNP is populist & nationalist determined for an independent scotland.

The are a big tent, they have their conservative members, religious members, but all keen on the goal of independence.

They espouse the same FDI & corporate tax & efficiency message enacted by Ireland, with similar principles on competitiveness & labour flexibility....
Poison for your rank & file Marxist.

The SNP aren't far-left, they dont pretend to be, and hold no affiliation or connection with any marxist/communist party in the UK

Leonard Hofstadter

Does anyone think Corbyn (assuming he gets elected as Labour leader) will do anything for the Labour party in Scotland?

The party is fubared up there at the moment, only one MP, the same as the Tories and Lib Dems.

Officially, the reason the Labour party did so badly in Scotland is because they weren't perceived to be left wing enough.

You certainly couldn't accuse Corbyn of not being left wing, if anything he's even more left wing than the lunatics in the SNP are.

I don't think Corbyn will do anything for Labour in Scotland. They won't be winning 40+ seats for a long time to come up there. They might win a few more seats but they'd do that anyway because they couldn't possibly do as badly as they did the last time. The SNP will continue to rule the roost up there because they're very good at stirring the pot and convincing Scots that they're hard done by (when nothing could be further from the truth, £1600+ extra is spent per person on Scotland than in England and they've lower unemployment than the UK average - the north of England is who's hard done by as they get lower funding than most other UK regions and now the Tories have cancelled some big rail infrastructure projects) and increasingly because they're seen as anti-establishment and anti-politics as usual.

Corbyn may be an 'anti-establishment' figure in England and Wales, but he's still English and that's a negative up there, especially with the SNP stirring the pot and blaming England for all the supposed woes of Scotland.

BoJack Horseman

I think there would be a bump for Labour, but the SNP seem solid & are looking forward to dominating the Holyrood elections next year.

Scottish Labour has a new leader in Kezia Dugdale, I imagine she will have more impact than the leader in London.

Plus, red-Ed was to the left of the SNP.
The SNP are more moderate in taxation.

A Dub in Glasgo

Kezia Dugdale will do nothing for Labour in Scotland, she has history of making things up during interviews

Corbyn, if elected leader, will have more of an impact than Dugdale

BoJack Horseman

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Kezia Dugdale will do nothing for Labour in Scotland, she has history of making things up during interviews

Corbyn, if elected leader, will have more of an impact than Dugdale

Is the local voice not the more heard?
I mean, via BBC Scotland & STV & radio stations?

A Dub in Glasgo

It is - in the case of Dugdale that is a liability for Labour

A Dub in Glasgo

captainspeed wrote: »

(when nothing could be further from the truth, £1600+ extra is spent per person on Scotland than in England and they've lower unemployment than the UK average

.

How much does Scotland put into the pot?

The figures I saw for unemployment rates were 5.5% Scotland v 5.6% UK