You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The term “left of centre” was changed to “far left” by outofbreath for fun affect. A shift to the left brought many people to Labour who were not “far left” at all… the challenge is to keep them, but wrestle control from people like Milne, Murray and McClusky so as to broaden the appeal of the party, and increase trust in it.
I don’t think it’s a wind up. There are plenty of loud labour left who are banging on about increased number of votes to say he was successful.
I think it's been set up by Tory Central office and there may be enough deluded Jezza fans saying "we woz robbed" to make up the numbers
with the appealing sales pitch of being called tory scum
I was called tory scum on here for suggesting that Labours Brexit policy was a bit wishy washy. Don't think for a moment those days are gone.
Interesting piece by Roy Hattersley in today’s Observer, who’s clearly as despairing as most about the direction of labour and Len, Jeremy and Seamas anointing the next unelectable leader, continue the pointless Corbynite project and drive the party into irrelevance in some left-wing la-la land
We fought Militant in the 1980’s. The far left’s hold is now much worse
Nah, this is the best article in today’s Observer…
Unless RLB is sensational on the TV / hustings she won't win. Labour members will have the last election at the front of their minds and if she is the momentum/ leadership endorsed candidate it will damage her.
Was going to post that article by Roy Hattersly binners, Kelvin - it kind of undermines your point that it’s just people such as outofbreath who are labelling Corbyn far left.
And the Stewart Lee piece just reinforces why we should put Blair and Mandleson back in charge lol.
The observer today is in full-on bring back Blair mode. They really must be shitting themselves that they’re not going to walk straight back in. The Labour Party would be much better off if the two extremes of Blair and McCluskey disappeared and left Nandy, Starmer et al to rebuild a new grassroots led, regionally based party with solid labour policies.
a new grassroots led, regionally based party with solid labour policies.
Nice soundbite
What does that actually mean?
it kind of undermines your point that it’s just people such as outofbreath who are labelling Corbyn far left
I never made that point. And I don’t agree with it.
What does that actually mean?
More power to the members (and non-members), constituency parties routed in communities organising local events and where possible providing parallel support services where the government doesn't, and a set of policies with regional devolution at their core. Whether Blair, Brown, Corbyn, McCluskey or the whole of the PLP, top-down organisation hasn't worked. It's time to turn it upside down and go the final step to turning it into something much more than a political party seeking power for power's sake.
Surely… we can have lots of local community support groups, campaigning for change locally… and also have a viable alternative to the Conservatives as a party of UK government? If Labour is not aiming to be in government, at the UK level, it needs to say so, and either quietly or noisily shuffle off out of the way.
What does that actually mean?
Another decade of ideologically pure opposition.
and also have a viable alternative to the Conservatives as a party of UK government?
They’re not mutually exclusive. The overriding message of not just the last election, but the last half dozen (including the last Blair ones when they were losing millions of voters) is that labour have done nothing for normal people and don’t listen to them. The answer to that isn’t to focus power with a small number of London based MPs or union leaders.
More power to the members (and non-members)..blah blah blah... turning it into something much more than a political party seeking power for power’s sake.
You didn't mention the Unions and their grip on the party. Are you saying the old ways should be chucked out?
(I'm not saying that would be a backwards step; the Union members themselves could have a say directly, rather than the fat cats at the head of them assuming they know best)
Interesting piece by Roy Hattersley in today’s Observer
Blimey, so the solution is an all out war between the PLP and the membership? It's weird that you rant about the likes of McCluskey, yet then support something like this. They're exactly the same and represent the destructive authoritarian tendency in both the PLP and the big unions which the voters despise. It's time to move on from everything that came before and try something new. The solution is not to be found in the PLP.
Are you saying the old ways should be chucked out?
Yes, absolutely.
They’re exactly the same
No, they aren’t. MPs are elected to parliament by their constituents, union leaders are elected by the members of their union. Should elected MPs have more say over who leads their grouping in parliament, and how, or a union boss? Quite frankly, MPs should have been listened to by their leader when they voted to say they had no confidence in him to lead them, because they were right. He should have stepped aside then.
PLP should have got behind him from the beginning rather than undermining him at every turn.
Also Owen Smith instead of a big name was a spineless move.
Corbyn made mistakes also, hiring communists ffs.
The problem is that those unreconstructed communists are still very much in place and will spend the next few months strengthening that position and ensuring that the party continues down the catastrophic Cobynite route to political irrelevance.
Labour needs to become relevant to the lives of voters, not disappear off to some ideological backwater
But the MPs should have ‘backed’ a leader that was refusing to meet with them, or return their communications, and was busy installing people they wanted no where near power in the party, and rewriting party rules to keep those people in power come what may. Yes, they should have ‘backed’ someone setting the party down a path of permanent opposition, shouldn’t they.
MPs are a lot more likely to be in tune with what voters want than union bosses or party members. It's their bread and butter.
Another decade of ideologically pure opposition.
+1
Is that what happened though Kelvin? I remember people saying they wouldn't serve under him before he was even elected (Kendall, Cooper). This despite a massive endorsement from the Labour membership.
I am referring to the vote of no confidence. The MPs were right. He was the wrong leader for them. And for the UK. Whether Corbyn stayed on because of misplaced self belief that he could become PM, or he simply wanted to complete the job of reshaping the Labour Party, we’ll never know. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and accept that he honestly thought that moving the political position and organisation of the Labour Party to where he believed it should be would also make it more electable (others, including so many of his more vocal supporters, seem to think otherwise)… but if that was the case, he was wrong.
The term “left of centre” was changed to “far left” by outofbreath for fun affect.
It wasn't and I didn't, cite my words if you can.
Was going to post that article by Roy Hattersly binners, Kelvin – it kind of undermines your point that it’s just people such as outofbreath who are labelling Corbyn far left.
I never label Corbyn as far left. I spotted that rabbit hole years ago and religiously use the term "Corbyn's wing of the party" to avoid it.
Agree the Hattersley article spelled out the situation quite well. I really don't share his optimism though. The battle for the Labour party was fought with the resignations, the no confidence motion and the Owen Smith challenge. After that Momentum had won game set and match. That was the whole point. RBL is going to lead the party next. I'm sure there are other tactics the PLP can use but ultimately I can't see how they they could work.
The MPs who nominated Corbyn to broaden the debate certainly succeeded!
After the first BBC documentary on Corbyn it's been no surprise but:
No, they aren’t. MPs are elected to parliament by their constituents, union leaders are elected by the members of their union.
Thanks for the politics lesson. 😀 do you do this patronising stuff deliberately or by accident?
Anyway, whilst you were worrying about my political education my real point went over your head. The problem that labour has always had is an authoritarian streak exercised by big egos from different factions who are too ready to fight battles with each other instead of the tories. No one gives a shit what Hattersley, McCluskey or any of the rest of dinosaurs think. They should all shut up and let the new generation get on with it.
he simply wanted to complete the job of reshaping the Labour Party, we’ll never know.
It was reshaping the party, that was the whole point. The PLP knew they had to get rid of him before the rules were changed and gave it their best desperate shot. There wasn't any secret about what was going on at the time.
I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and accept that he honestly thought that moving the political position and organisation of the Labour Party to where he believed it should be would also make it more electable (others, including so many of his more vocal supporters, seem to think otherwise)… but if that was the case, he was wrong.
This. Who knows what he really thinks but whatever is happening he deffo hasn't endured this nightmare for his own benefit, his motives aren't really in question.
Even from reading this thread, which let’s face it, is a micro-microcosm of the real world, it seems to me that the ‘Labour Party’ means different things to different people.
Which is never going to end well as far as a unified voice and approach and manifesto are concerned is it? Even less so in a First Past The Post electoral system that we currently endure to garner enough votes for the party to form a coherent opposition, let alone, government.
Some are saying the Labour movement needs to return to its roots, which to me suggests a left wing socialist ideology. Others are wanting a ‘New Labour’ centre right stance as was in the late 90’s/00’s.
Very black and white and ne’er the twain meet. Or at least, that’s what I’m interpreting from the comments here and the tiny bit of reading I’ve done elsewhere on the topic.
It is my opinion that the hardline union led left approach is way outta touch with contemporary Britain where personal/individual house and property ownership is an expectation, not an aspiration. Indeed, it could be argued that this alone is now regarded as a requirement. Whatever way it is viewed, it kinda flies in the face of the basic tenets of socialism doesn’t it?
I’ve said previously on this thread that people in this country now have too much invested in debt to want to back a movement that would eschew private ownership, which is rather ironic but that’s what we have chosen - personal house ownership over supporting social housing, personal share ownership in public services over public/state ownership. Socialism is a great idea for those who have not, less so for those who believe they now belong to the ‘haves’.
In our rampant quest for personal gain and profit, we have divided and conquered ourselves.
We now have created a society that cares little for community, for social welfare, for ensuring equality and fairness, they have been replaced with personal greed, fear of lack, fear of losing personal ‘assets’, which are in fact liabilities to the debtors, assets only to the financiers.
The trick will be to form an approach that blends both private and public ownership. Capitalism with a social conscience if you will. The next and most difficult trick will be to give this a name, a label, a colour, a personality, that carries with it none of the associated historical baggage of the Labour, Liberal and LibDem movements as have been.
It would also be my hope that we gain this social conscience without the involvement of smoke and mirrors or double digit interest rates and inflation.
As it stands, Labour are in very real danger of splitting themselves apart even more than they have already achieved, which makes the political landscape of this country very monotone.
^^^^ Slackalice absolutely nails this.
There's got to be a sensible middle ground somewhere that supports those in need but also rewards and encourages growth, aspiration and creating concentric circles of wealth sharing/caring.
As we've seen, the current polarisation is toxic to it's core and nobody wins. Time for a pragmatic, sensible approach that shakes off the current and former baggage. I reckon it probably needs a new party tbh.
The trick will be to form an approach that blends both private and public ownership. Capitalism with a social conscience if you will.
Or just socialism. Private and public can exist in a socialist system, the socialist aspect is the better governance of the private sector to ensure it is providing what society needs and not just what the owners and shareholders want.
For example, you don't need a state owned internet provider but you can better govern the providers that are there. To have a contract with the state you must provide broadband to all homes in teh UK when they require it, to have a contract you cannot charge more than £nn per moth etc,.
I do totally agree with this
We now have created a society that cares little for community, for social welfare, for ensuring equality and fairness, they have been replaced with personal greed, fear of lack, fear of losing personal ‘assets’, which are in fact liabilities to the debtors, assets only to the financiers.
It started in the 80's, (I was there man) and it is going to be pretty much impossible to turn it back now meaning the majority of people will no longer vote for a party that is willing to spend 'their' money on providing housing and services 'they' don't need.
So how do you make people care about others again on a mass scale?
So how do you make people care about others again on a mass scale?
Put some sort of constraint on media ownership and output. We don't need censorship but we need a stronger rebuttal system. Maybe the front page of any newspaper and leading item on any news should be apologies and corrections for mis-reporting (OK, lieing).
The trick will be to form an approach that blends both private and public ownership. Capitalism with a social conscience if you will.
That was a lot of words to basically say what we need is pretty much what current labour policies are, which is state regulated free market capitalism. The points about returning to the grassroots are not really to do with economic policy, but around who holds the power. At the moment, the power in the labour party is held by union bosses and MPs, it reflects the disenfranchisement within the country where the power is held by politicians and CEOs. The labour party is already 'capitalism with a conscience' party, what needs to change is the dynamics of how power is exercised and distributed, and the labour party can lead the way with a massive programme of devolution and localism.
So how do you make people care about others again on a mass scale?
If history is anything to go by, a couple of world wars should do it.
If history is anything to go by, a couple of world wars should do it.
That will never happen. The next world war will be a cyber based war and some of the strategies as part of that will be making societies problems even worse so there is more in fighting.
No, they aren’t. MPs are elected to parliament by their constituents, union leaders are elected by the members of their union.
I wish they were, I didn't get asked for input into the branch nomination, nor did I get a ballot paper despite them having my address
Might explain part of the 4.2% turnout
Interesting voting analysis.
It’s just nonsense though, isn’t it.
Personally, I’m bored of people desperately looking for the Corbyn success story.
Still.
If the turnout increases, but more people turn up to vote to keep you out of power, than to help you get in, you have still lost. The election was lost. Dramatically. Trying to paint it as some kind of success, because more people turned out to vote Labour than they did when Brown got kicked out, is desperate stuff.
It also does the usual thing of pointing out that Tories had a high turn over of leaders… it’s what they do… no success, no long term for the leader.
Personally, I’m bored of people desperately looking for the Corbyn success story.
I don't think anyone's doing that, there are plenty though looking to blame Corbyn because it fits with their agenda. The reality is that neither are right. The real question is how can a party which has many more votes than in the past win so fewer seats? The probable answer is a combination of gerrymandering through constituency boundary manipulation, and the targeting of specific voter groups with unregulated advertising through social media. Add in Johnson's transparent attempt to disenfranchise millions at the bottom with his photo-ID law and you have a democratic system which is no better than Russia's.
The answer is democratic reform. After all this I reckon we'll finally see labour embracing PR, along with massive regional devolution, open primaries for candidate selection and local people's assemblies with powers to influence and approve policy. If they do it will also open up the way for more collaboration with other parties, especially the lib-dems (assuming they can get down off their high horses), hopefully meaning they won't help the tories by dividing the vote.
The answer is democratic reform.
That is not an answer I can every see a Tory party with a massive majority ever putting forward...
That is not an answer I can every see a Tory party with a massive majority ever putting forward…
I don't think anyone is thinking the tories will give us it. Which is why it should be the primary issue for labour and the other parties for the next 4/5 years leading up to the next election where the voters will have an opportunity to vote for it.
If the turnout increases, but more people turn up to vote to keep you out of power, than to help you get in, you have still lost. The election was lost. Dramatically. Trying to paint it as some kind of success, because more people turned out to vote Labour than they did when Brown got kicked out, is desperate stuff.
^This. Corbyn had to beat Johnsons conservatives not Gordon Brown.
Also the UK's population as of 2019 is 10 million more than when Blair won his landslide in 1997!
embracing PR
Careful what you wish for. PR is a route to extremists getting a voice in parliament. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I don’t think anyone is thinking the tories will give us it. Which is why it should be the primary issue for labour and the other parties for the next 4/5 years leading up to the next election where the voters will have an opportunity to vote for it.
Your expecting the average voter to care about it or even understand it. What will the oppositions slogan be "Get democratic reform done"?
I don’t think anyone is thinking the tories will give us it. Which is why it should be the primary issue for labour and the other parties for the next 4/5 years leading up to the next election where the voters will have an opportunity to vote for it.
But they won't for it, it's not a key point for anyone but a tiny majority of people.
As start point for Labour will be to drop all mention of the word "socialism". It's a dirty word to large swathes of the voting populous and they will not get into power with that word front of centre of what they're doing. By all means adopt socialist policy but don't brand it as such.
kelvin
Subscriber
Personally, I’m bored of people desperately looking for the Corbyn success story.
I keep saying it but you've got to really understand a failure to take meaningful lessons from it. And that has to include things like this. Specifically, getting it front and centre that in a broken voting system you have to act like it is broken. Understanding that it doesn't matter if Corbyn's 32.1% is barely a less good proportion than Blair's last majority government and is still a worse electoral result than Miliband's 30% or Brown's 29% or that Cameron had a minority with 36.1% and a "majority" with 36.9 % while in the same election Miliband had a disaster with 30%- or that Corbyn's 40% in 2017 couldn't realistically form a government while May only needed to buy a single party's 300000 votes to do so...
Voter share should be important, in fact it should be the most important thing, but it isn't. And just burying stats to pretending they don't matter because it's inconvenient that Corbyn outperformed Blair once and Brown and Miliband twice, is how to keep doing the same thing. For one simple example, it shows how cretinous it was for Labour not to campaign for AV (and that some strong voices against it are still in and around the current leadership change). For others, it has to inform campaigning and should inform overall policy positioning.
(it's probably worth remembering that even Blair never once polled as well as Johnston in this election. 43.2, 40.7, 35.2. In fact neither did Thatcher or Major. And that's another really important thing to remember- Labour's defeat is exaggerated by the scale of the win. You have to go back to 1970 and 1974 to find a voter share that big for the winner, and ironically in 1970 2nd place Wilson outpolled every other winner since, til now. This has been our normal for a while but it doesn't follow that it'll remain that way)
Your expecting the average voter to care about it or even understand it.
But they won’t for it, it’s not a key point for anyone but a tiny majority of people.
Well then we should stop complaining and get used to living in a Russia/China style one party system. The fact is that the tories are still in a minority. If the other parties can't coalesce around the single most important issue then there is no hope. I don't accept that people won't vote for it, they will, but it will take a level of leadership and collaboration between parties, and a level of trust in the voting public which no one has yet managed to show. We have 5 years to turn the next election into a referendum on the democratic system, that surely has to be possible.
PR is a route to extremists getting a voice in parliament.
Like FPTP has prevented it? We have Boris as PM, JRM in cabinet, and Tommy Robinson and Britain First joining the governing party. How much more extreme do you want to get?
And just burying stats because it’s inconvenient that Corbyn outperformed Blair once and Brown and Miliband twice,
Corbyn 'outperformed' Blair in the same way that Man United 'outperformed' Watford on Sunday afternoon.
Only one question matters, and its a binary question
Did you get the most MP's elected, in order to enable you to form a governement
A - Yes
B - No
Eveything else is just noise. Do you think Dom and Dommer are busy studying statistics?
binners
Subscriber
Corbyn ‘outperformed’ Blair in the same way that Man United ‘outperformed’ Watford on Sunday afternoon?
Only one question matters, and its a binary question
Yes, that's my exact point. But it's not just noise, any more than everything else that isn't the final vote is noise. This is yet another thing that the Tories have spent plenty of time on in the past- identifying the small number of key votes and seats, understanding the core voters they can ignore and the core voters they can't, etc. And it's not like voter share is ever irrelevant to the final question- it's not directly connected but it's still relevant, you can't win one without the other.
Ignoring people because they didn't get as many MPs as votes is part of how brexit happened, and it's a huge part of how Labour lost Scotland. These are the sort of mistakes you'd have them make again)
But like i say, simple black and white answers are a temptation to too many people. And certainly easier to shout about on the internet while ignoring what other people are saying. If Labour had believed in less simple answers over the last 30 years they wouldn't have ended up here.
They can learn lessons of this one election in isolation if they want, and that'll be really useful should they ever have to fight the exact same election again.
(and your football analogy fails but only because it's a bad one... If a team plays great and loses, you don't react the same as if they played badly and lost. And likewise, if a team plays badly and wins, you can't assume you'll keep winning. That's not about Corbyn, since he played badly and lost, but it is about other people in other elections- and you don't just look at your own team or at today's result)
PR is a route to extremists getting a voice in parliament.
Sadly we are at the stage where it is better to acknowledge their existence, and deal with the fallout from that, than try to convince ourselves that the Tommy Robinsons of this world have no following.
As for Labour's chances of recovery, I think its only route to power is as part of a broad social democratic coalition. The party has to decide whether it wants to stay together to form part of that, or fracture into a couple of separate entities.
Do you think Dom and Dommer are busy studying statistics?
Of course they bloody are! Cummings takes a brutally scientific approach and statistics are at the very centre of it. They'll be poring over the detail of the election (and those that came before) to understand/confirm why they won. They certainly won't be making any analogies with football either.
Of course they bloody are! Cummings takes a brutally scientific approach and statistics are at the very centre of it.
Not what I meant
I doubt he's looking at the statistics in some half-arsed, backward-gazing way to try and justify a catastophic result and try and make out it wasn't actually that bad, as seems to be be in vogue on the allotment and in the common room at the moment
He'll be looking at the stats ready for use at the next election to getter a bigger majority next time
Here's an interesting stat for you... Dominic Cummings Salary as Boris's right hand man /director of strategy is the same (circa: £100,000 PA) as Millionaire Marxist Seamus Milne's for the same position at Labour HQ
I don't know if that involves any bonus schemes, based on successful results, or whether any of that is performance-related...
that Corbyn outperformed Blair once
No, he didn’t. More people turned out to vote Labour, but, especially in the seats that risked changing hands, people turned out in the numbers needed to stop Labour. In no meaningful sense did Corbyn ‘perform better’, even in his best election, than Blair, even in his worse election.
I never voted for Labour at a General Election under Blair, but did, both times, under Corbyn. He did bring new voters to the party, but he* was also the barrier to more (enough) voters doing likewise. Look at all the elections since he became leader. After the devastating May 2019 results, if not before, he should have walked, and made way for someone new, it was arrogant, conceited and selfish not to.
*every time I mention Corbyn turning off voters, you can take it as read that I still consider Milne, the Murrays and Len as the real problem, not just the figurehead
We have 5 years to turn the next election into a referendum on the democratic system
[devils advocate] you lost badly, and now want to change the rules of the game [\devil's advocate]
Labour will not campaign for voting reform, why? Its an admission that without it, you can't win. If you'd have asked anyone even weeks before the election if they thought Blairs old seat would turn blue, you'd have been laughed at, Labour have to pull off the same trick that the tories just achieved. Its that simple. Anything else is admitting that your days are numbered.
Like FPTP has prevented it? We have Boris as PM, JRM in cabinet, and Tommy Robinson and Britain First joining the governing party. How much more extreme do you want to get?
Boris isn't that right wing, even Ken Clarke doesn't think he is, JRM is becoming a busted flush as they can't put him in front of a camera. As for the Steven Yaxley Lennon and Britain First joining, the BAME conservative chairman has clearly stated they won't be let in/ will be thrown out. They can see the issues Labour has had with entryism, they will be making a lot of effort to not duplicate them.
It's a distraction though, all the hyperbolic statements do is polarise the argument, this has been shown to be a failed tactic for labour. Shout at people who voted for you and call them "Tory scum" has demonstrably led to them voting Tory.
Labour need to reappraise and get some discipline into their arguments otherwise they are just going to continue diminishing which is crap for everyone.
and now want to change the rules of the game
And I'm sure you don't need to me to tell you the rules of the game have been changed by each tory administration to stack the odds in their favour.
True. And they’ll do so again within 5 years. Boundary changes and voter id are already on the cards… they’ll be more dreamt up once the 2019 voting patterns have been properly analysed.
I’d love Labour to get behind electoral reform, convincingly, but it would take a whole different bunch of attitudes to come to the fore in the party for that to happen.
kelvin
Subscriber
No, he didn’t. More people turned out to vote Labour, but, especially in the seats that risked changing hands, people turned out in the numbers needed to stop Labour. In no meaningful sense did Corbyn ‘perform better’, even in his best election, than Blair, even in his worse election.
OK, so votes aren't meaningful then? Give over. Seats are what win elections but votes are what win seats. They're also what gives a party momentum and confidence, and they're what you build from when you don't have the seats. Like I say you're repeating the exact mistake that led to Labour losing Scotland- discounting the SNP vote share because FPTP was denying them seats, right up until it didn't. And it's exactly what led to brexit supporters both being underestimated by the main parties, and feeling disenfranchised and ignored.
Framing it as a success for Corbyn is a mistake. Framing his performance realistically against other leaders' performances is essential, and really understanding both what worked and what didn't work, for all of those successes and failures of the past, is just fundamental when you are deciding what to do next. They completely- and willfully- failed to do this after Miliband, in fact parts of the party chose to weave their own false narrative around that.
And like I've said often, myths are a problem and this is another, Blair had landslides, he had seats but he never really had the volume of support which those 3 elections can suggest-that was also because of the brokenness of FPTP, as was Cameron's majority, it gives a false impression which is now the only one most people remember. Myths are fine when you can use them but they're not fine when they end up using you. But as's been shown since then, Cameron learned the real lessons of Blair, while Labour preferred the myth.
And I know it's easy for people to try and discount this by calling it moaning- but that's ridiciulous, it implies that only the winners can judge the fairness of a system. Understanding how broken our system is isn't just useful to change it, it's also how you play it. And once again, this is a lesson that the Tories have always understood. I suspect it's partly because Labour don't feel comfortable talking about it when it causes them to lose, but also when they win.
I don't want to be saying "I told you so" in a couple of years time if Starmer becomes leader and everything he says gets drowned out with REMAINER! HE WANTED TO UNDO BREXIT! HE WAS ONE OF CORBYN'S HARD LEFT CRONIES! IT'S HIS FAULT WE HAD SUCH A MUDDLED BREXIT STRATEGY! Especially since all but one of those is absolutely true.
Boundary changes
Been around for ages, are you saying that the civil servants drafting it up are corrupt? If we don't have change we end up with rotten boroughs
and voter id are already on the cards…
Try turning up at a labour CLP meeting to vote without any
System in NI works?
Postal voting is where the system is easy to manipulate, but even there voter education is arguably the best response
Framing his performance realistically against other leaders’ performances is essential
Corbyn outperformed Blair once
Which is it?
the civil servants drafting it up are corrupt?
No, their remit was to equalise the population size of constituencies. They did that without corruption. And will do again, if asked again. Their remit was not to address other downsides of our voting system (expect for some special cases in Scotland), and all studies of the last lot of boundary change proposals suggested that it would result in the Conservatives requiring an even smaller share of the national vote than Labour to ensure a majority of seats.
Not sure what point you are making about voter ID. NI has different arrangements for reasons we are lucky not to have on the mainland. How people vote in their parties doesn’t seem relevant either.
Not sure what point you are making about voter ID. NI has different arrangements for reasons we are lucky not to have on the mainland. How people vote in their parties doesn’t seem relevant either.
NI has a voter ID scheme that no-one has claimed is a threat to democracy,
Claiming that requiring voter ID would be a threat to democracy is a bit cheeky if you require voter ID for your CLP votes
There were once good reasons to introduce ID checks for NI voting (which many over there are arguing could be lifted now). The same is not true for the mainland… there is a very real suspicion that putting extra steps in to the voting process for some (those who don’t drive or travel abroad) is being proposed for party political reasons.
there is a very real suspicion that putting extra steps in to the voting process for some (those who don’t drive or travel abroad) is being proposed for party political reasons.
There may be some who think it is a big opportunity to gain advantage. I can't see it, it's hard enough to get people to the polling station. and if political parties need it for internal votes then the arguments against are essentially broken. The trials were inconclusive and there will be some people turned away as we adapt in any changes.
Most people don't understand that all you need is to say a name and address, on the the electoral roll at the right polling station to vote.
Something to read for the cynics. Merry xmas. 🙂
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/24/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-aoc-first-year-congress
Why for the cynics. She has been great from day one but so what, she is not in the UK Labour party is she. Can you see anyone who is even 25% of what she is?
but so what
Disappointed. I was something like this from OOB or someone like that. The point is that something else beyond the cynical business as usual defeatism is possible. If someone like AOC can make a difference in the US, then it can happen here too.
Pretty spot on analysis of Corbynism by Andrew Rawnsley
Labour has no hope of rebuilding unless it breaks the cold grip of the hard left
Corbynism unleashed a factional zealotry that preferred to hunt down internal heretics who deviated from the true faith and brand them as “Tories” rather than try to win converts amongst the electorate. Corbynism preferred to be a glorified protest movement complacently luxuriating in a narcissistic conceit of its own moral superiority rather than do the hard and honest thinking required to secure office. Corbynism produced a fantasy programme that voters found literally incredible.
Pretty spot on analysis of Corbynism by Andrew Rawnsley
Rawnsley is as much one of the establishment dinosaurs as Hattersley, McCluskey, Hutton, Blair and the rest of them. They talk about late 20th century politics whilst everyone who is under 40 (and many of us under 50) have already moved on to worrying about climate change, sustainable growth economics and new models of democracy. If they think Corbyn/McDonnel were unacceptably radical then they're going to get a shock when the teenagers of today start making their mark.
Disappointed. I was something like this from OOB or someone like that. The point is that something else beyond the cynical business as usual defeatism is possible. If someone like AOC can make a difference in the US, then it can happen here too.
I didn't say it couldn't happen here, what I am saying is that she is exceptional. I have never seen anyone who I would call exceptional in the current Labour party. Yes there could be a new MP as good as she is but that is a bit of a stretch isn't it.
If they think Corbyn/McDonnel were unacceptably radical then they’re going to get a shock when the teenagers of today start making their mark.
So will I. From what I have seen so far the teenagers of today are not even trying. What did the 18-30 group do in the last election?
From what I have seen so far the teenagers of today are not even trying.
Well then you're not looking. The Greta Thunberg effect is real. My 15 year old daughter is much more politically aware than I was at that age, and she's way more radical than I am now. Same goes for most of her mates. They practice what they preach too (mostly, but no one's perfect), they're all vegan, anti-consumerist, and do not like it when they're dragged on a plane by their parents to go on holiday. If they hold on to all that, and I really think they will, then politics in the not too distant future is going to look very different to what it is today.
If they think Corbyn/McDonnel were unacceptably radical then they’re going to get a shock when the teenagers of today start making their mark.
Isn't the problem / fallacy here that as people age they tend to become less radical / more conservative, so simply expecting radicalised teenagers to become equally radical as adults in, say, their 30s and 40s isn't necessarily valid. I'm not saying they're wrong, just that the history of youthful idealism suggests that it doesn't always translate going forward.
ps: I hope this isn't the case or the world is screwed 🙁
Isn’t the problem / fallacy here that as people age they tend to become less radical / more conservative
Some of us went the other way 😉
Seriously though, I wouldn't describe it as people becoming less radical, but more cynical the longer they see no positive change. You have to be, because otherwise you'd go a bit crazy (which I've seen a number of times in activist circles). What I'm seeing among the young though is not just youthful idealism, but huge anger at the failure of the older generation to solve problems that we can all see. It's the anger, and the realisation that the older generation do not necessarily know best that will change things, not the airy-fairy idealism.
Daz... seriously mate, you need to see this country for what it is. My 15 year old is totally politically switched on, well up on climate change and environmental issues.
Is she representative of the vast majority of young people? Of course she’s bloody not! That’s just delusional middle class wishful thinking
Look at the voting record of the under 30’s. It’s dire! So if you think a new generation of Greta Thunbergs are going to usher in some socialist revolution then you need your bumps feeling!
Just ask any of the people who actually do go out and vote and who just delivered Boris a whacking great majority to pursue a far right agenda, and in the process hoofed the socialist revolutionaries firmly in the slats.
But I’m sure that sort of ‘we need to be more radical’ cobblers is presently occupying the discussion by the clueless bunch of clowns presently ‘running’ the Labour Party as they set themselves up to lose the next election even more catastrophically
That’s just delusional middle class wishful thinking
+1
A basic appraisal of the litter from fast food outlets is the guide, if there was a "Thunberg" effect it would have declined markedly.
A basic appraisal of the litter from fast food outlets is the guide
And here we go with the cynicism of 'if they cared that much they wouldn't do x or y'. The point is that compared to 20 or 30 years ago, more kids are politicised now than they were then. A lot more. And when they start climbing the ladder into positions of power, the outcomes of that will be very different to what they are now.
But I’m sure that sort of ‘we need to be more radical’ cobblers
What's 'radical' or 'cobblers' about tackling climate change, consuming less, and moving to an economic system which accounts for finite natural resources? This is my point, many kids today, and many adults, don't see that as radical at all, just plain common sense.
Who are the realists here? Those who hark back to the 80s and 90s in the hope of a messiah who can speak to the selfish older generation who will soon be dead, or those who recognise that the threats from climate change and resource depletion requires urgent and unprecedented action?
In relation to the labour leadership, it's not about being more radical for radicalism's sake, it's about finding someone who can harness the anger and idealism of the new generation. In a nutshell, the older generation can go **** themselves. They'll be dead soon, and those following behind will hopefully not make the same horrendous mistakes.
“* off you old *s, you'll all be dead soon anyway” sounds like a perfect strap line for the next election campaign.
A sure-fire winner
Unfortunately, you’re brand of ‘common sense’ is quite popular in the Cobynite labour HQ.
And you’re slagging Andrew Rawnsley off for branding it ‘protest group politics’?
You, and the rest of the Corbynites, should familiarise yourself with the concept of convincing people of the validity of your argument rather than just shouting at them that they’re a bunch of ****s because they don’t share your opinions.
You know that you have have to get into power to change anything, right?
It’s a little known but true fact that being pious, sanctimonious and self-righteous doesn’t in itself save the world
Give him another 10 years on the allotment and even Jezza will maybe even realise that
You know that you have have to get into power to change anything, right?
Similarly you have to actually join a party to vote for the leader. Just saying.
Already have.
My mum and dad have re-joined too, as have quite a few other ex-members I know, all of whom left in disgust at Corbyn and his sixth form, placard-waving fellow travellers
But I believe the beardy messiah, while famously championing democracy and ‘empowering the membership’, is trying to change the rules so that anyone who joined the party (or re-joined) after the date of the general election won’t be able to vote in the upcoming leadership election
Yay communism Socialism!
Taken you all this time?
I voted for him twice whilst you were doing your little tantrums but not actually bothering to get off your arse and effect the change you wanted. You just seem hurt because the Corbyn supporters stole the march and know you did sod all to stop it.
I am glad you have finally joined now, at least it will lend some legitimacy to your arguments.
“* off you old *s, you’ll all be dead soon anyway”
Not what I said. You really need to calm down. The point is that the older generation will not be around for long, and the outdated politics they represent, things like climate change denial, narrow self interest, racism and nationalism will go with them.
You, and the rest of the Corbynites,
Weird cos the only person I see still going on about Corbyn is you. Let go of the obsession, everyone else has moved on already.