[Politics] Next leader of the Labour party

[Green Cross Code Man]

Did you really say "strong and stable" !!

I can't believe I said that!

 

[Gwylan]

What’s there to think about?

Well, there's the cost of joining, that's minimal. But I know I'll also be hassled regularly by phone or text asking for money or my time. On the other hand, I rather like having a say in who's going to be leader of the opposition.

In order for the kind of revolution that the hard left wants, we need to be made considerably poorer than we were then.

This is just nonsense. As I, and other people have pointed out, Labour's policies were not far left but in line with other social democratic countries. They were considerably more moderate than those of Sweden, Denmark, Finland. for example. And roughly aligned with Netherlands and Germany. These countries are not "considerably poorer" than we are - they all have a higher GDP per capita than we do.

As a case in point, take the four-day week. One of the Labour policies was to move towards a four-day week. It was a policy that was much derided as being "looney left". Yet, this week, the Finnish PM announced a similar policy and she is held up as a progressive and innovative thinker.

And she is only following a pattern set by Sweden, which introduced a six-hour day a couple of years ago - and has generally been seen as a success with productivity boosted and people much happier at work. Finland hopes for the same (and remember, Finland is already the happiest country in the world according to the Happiness Index). The idea that these are "considerably poorer" countries is a joke.

But some of the Brexit mess can be traced back to those days when it was a policy of Labour to encourage mass immigration, and they relied on those immigrants in the future as they believed would likely vote Labour in further elections.

This is only partly true, EU citizens can't vote in general elections (they can vote in EU ones but those aren't taken seriously). Blair encouraged EU citizens to move here because industry wanted them - there was a shortage of workers. You're right that such an influx did push people towards Brexit but you misunderstand the reasoning.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Well, there's the cost of joining, that's minimal. But I know I'll also be hassled regularly by phone or text asking for money or my time. On the other hand, I rather like having a say in who's going to be leader of the opposition.



This is just nonsense. As I, and other people have pointed out, Labour's policies were not far left but in line with other social democratic countries. They were considerably more moderate than those of Sweden, Denmark, Finland. for example. And roughly aligned with Netherlands and Germany. These countries are not "considerably poorer" than we are - they all have a higher GDP per capita than we do.

As a case in point, take the four-day week. One of the Labour policies was to move towards a four-day week. It was a policy that was much derided as being "looney left". Yet, this week, the Finnish PM announced a similar policy and she is held up as a progressive and innovative thinker.

And she is only following a pattern set by Sweden, which introduced a six-hour day a couple of years ago - and has generally been seen as a success with productivity boosted and people much happier at work. Finland hopes for the same (and remember, Finland is already the happiest country in the world according to the Happiness Index). The idea that these are "considerably poorer" countries is a joke.



This is only partly true, EU citizens can't vote in general elections (they can vote in EU ones but those aren't taken seriously). Blair encouraged EU citizens to move here because industry wanted them - there was a shortage of workers. You're right that such an influx did push people towards Brexit but you misunderstand the reasoning.

Well hard left means one thing in one country and one in another. All about perspective. Scandinavian countries have traditionally been more left wing than Britain so any lurch leftwards here may seem more dramatic. I support a 4 day week btw. I believe people would become more productive and it would probably help family life as well.

Happy to be corrected on the voting issue under Labour, but nevertheless, their policy affected the outcome of the referendum a great deal.

 

[BLOCK F]

Did it (NSC used to have...)? Well, we have fake socialist wind-up merchant, enrest, and arriviste historian from overseas and tenuous Albion links, JRG. Everyone else vaguely left seems to have consistently been head in hands Blairite, or Blairite except in loathing of Blair for the Illegal War (which was neither illegal or, to be fair, a war) centre left.

Mind you, I don't recall a single cogent advocate of conservatism on NSC, ever, either.

Plenty of nobbers, though. Fortunately in a minority.

Oh, a few names come to mind who gave a pretty firm impression of being hard line Corbynistas and as Green Cross man says, they have gone rather quiet.
On your point re conservatism, I think the majority of the NSC population are what I would call moderates, rather like the general poulation. Being Brighton though, there is a fair chance of a more Greeny tinge to be found on here compared to most footy fans forums! The moderates are what they say they are, and can incline to the left or right, but are really not at total odds with each other. They are conservative with the small 'c' and probably not entirely uncomfortable with what a lot of what 'the other side' stand for. Of course there are diffences of opinion and emphasis,as there are within parties, but on the whole, they don't want extremism. This ain't a country that goes along with hard left or hard right and that is why you perhaps feel that you cannot recall cogent advocacy for conservatism (again with a small c). Most bods feel there isn't a need to justify what the majority would consider moderation. As a safety valve, if one party is deemed to have lost its way, run out of ideas or is veering too far away from that moderate line acceptable to most, then they can be voted out and the emphasis on policies can be adjusted the other way. On the whole, it hasn't served the country too badly over many years.
Moderate Conservatives like me, were not unhappy during the Blair years and much good was done by the Labour Government under his tenure. The trouble comes when the lunatics take over the asylum and totally unacceptable people like Corbyn and McDonnell are seen to be within touching distance of power.On so many counts, they were unsuited to power, just as many Labour Grandees believed, let alone the electorate. Personally, I was seriously worried about the havoc they may have reaped on the British economy.
As for nobbers, they exist in all walks of life, and as we know, some of them even support the same football team as we do!

 

[essbee1]

Perhaps I am a moderate? I do not feel a particular party allegiance though. I voted Tory as a long time Brexiteer but am not massively happy with everything in the Tory party. Who knows, they may turn out better than I imagined?

I think that to be electable, Labour needs to be real. Militant stopped the Labour party from becoming elected in the 70's. We were, as a society, far poorer then than now. In order for the kind of revolution that the hard left wants, we need to be made considerably poorer than we were then. The problem is too many of us are doing okay or rather well. The balance tips and then it favours a more left leaning stance, but a candidate like Corbyn would need the country at its knees in order for him to be electable. The problem with the hard left is idealism, once one gives into an idealistic mentality, one loses sight of objectivity and that does not help the party keep a direction which is able to adapt and be in tune with the electorate.

The largely discredited Blair and Brown were moderate politicians. Although I guess many socialists believed them to be right wing in economic policy. I liked the more caring social policies for schools and families for instance, they really helped me when my kids were very small. But some of the Brexit mess can be traced back to those days when it was a policy of Labour to encourage mass immigration, and they relied on those immigrants in the future as they believed would likely vote Labour in further elections. This policy allowed right wingers to whip up disquiet and also encouraged poor and despicable campaigning in the Referendum by some favouring leave. Of course Merkel also didn't help.

Labour has a choice as it did in the 70's and 80's when Kinnock eventually expelled militant from the party. If Labour doesn't get it right, however well or badly Brexit goes, they will be unelected for far more than the current 4 elections. That is very bad for democracy and very bad for our country.

Points taken Green Cross Code Man.

There must be something rotten to the core in the Labour Party when a) some of my family who are from South Wales mining communities (I am not btw) did not
vote Labour for the first time in their lives in Dec. and, b) many of the people I know who espouse this Momentum stuff are, how can I say it tactfully "very comfortable off
financially, thank you". They can afford to talk sh*te. The Labour party needs to dramatically change beyond recognition or as you say - they will see another 4 elections
unelected. I'm not even sure that there is a place for a Labour Party as we know it today, sadly.

 

[BLOCK F]

Well, there's the cost of joining, that's minimal. But I know I'll also be hassled regularly by phone or text asking for money or my time. On the other hand, I rather like having a say in who's going to be leader of the opposition.



This is just nonsense. As I, and other people have pointed out, Labour's policies were not far left but in line with other social democratic countries. They were considerably more moderate than those of Sweden, Denmark, Finland. for example. And roughly aligned with Netherlands and Germany. These countries are not "considerably poorer" than we are - they all have a higher GDP per capita than we do.

As a case in point, take the four-day week. One of the Labour policies was to move towards a four-day week. It was a policy that was much derided as being "looney left". Yet, this week, the Finnish PM announced a similar policy and she is held up as a progressive and innovative thinker.

And she is only following a pattern set by Sweden, which introduced a six-hour day a couple of years ago - and has generally been seen as a success with productivity boosted and people much happier at work. Finland hopes for the same (and remember, Finland is already the happiest country in the world according to the Happiness Index). The idea that these are "considerably poorer" countries is a joke.



This is only partly true, EU citizens can't vote in general elections (they can vote in EU ones but those aren't taken seriously). Blair encouraged EU citizens to move here because industry wanted them - there was a shortage of workers. You're right that such an influx did push people towards Brexit but you misunderstand the reasoning.

If the policies were so popular, why did Labour get hammered?
I'll start you off. The electorate did not believe the policies were realistic and achievable, even if they liked them..............Free goodies for everybody, what's not to like! Ha-ha. They didn't believe that taxes would only go up for the top 5%.
Northern working class man and woman believe the Labour party no longer represents their views and is 'owned' by Momentum nutters and a middle class elite who are generally comfortably off and can afford to espouse their virtue signalling tendencies at no real cost to themselves.
Now you take over!

 

[Bold Seagull]

Points taken Green Cross Code Man.

There must be something rotten to the core in the Labour Party when a) some of my family who are from South Wales mining communities (I am not btw) did not
vote Labour for the first time in their lives in Dec. and, b) many of the people I know who espouse this Momentum stuff are, how can I say it tactfully "very comfortable off
financially, thank you". They can afford to talk sh*te. The Labour party needs to dramatically change beyond recognition or as you say - they will see another 4 elections
unelected. I'm not even sure that there is a place for a Labour Party as we know it today, sadly.

A lot of people didn't vote Labour for the first time in their lives for a single main reason. You might have heard of it on other threads.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Oh, a few names come to mind who gave a pretty firm impression of being hard line Corbynistas and as Green Cross man says, they have gone rather quiet.
On your point re conservatism, I think the majority of the NSC population are what I would call moderates, rather like the general poulation. Being Brighton though, there is a fair chance of a more Greeny tinge to be found on here compared to most footy fans forums! The moderates are what they say they are, and can incline to the left or right, but are really not at total odds with each other. They are conservative with the small 'c' and probably not entirely uncomfortable with what a lot of what 'the other side' stand for. Of course there are diffences of opinion and emphasis,as there are within parties, but on the whole, they don't want extremism. This ain't a country that goes along with hard left or hard right and that is why you perhaps feel that you cannot recall cogent advocacy for conservatism (again with a small c). Most bods feel there isn't a need to justify what the majority would consider moderation. As a safety valve, if one party is deemed to have lost its way, run out of ideas or is veering too far away from that moderate line acceptable to most, then they can be voted out and the emphasis on policies can be adjusted the other way. On the whole, it hasn't served the country too badly over many years.
Moderate Conservatives like me, were not unhappy during the Blair years and much good was done by the Labour Government under his tenure. The trouble comes when the lunatics take over the asylum and totally unacceptable people like Corbyn and McDonnell are seen to be within touching distance of power.On so many counts, they were unsuited to power, just as many Labour Grandees believed, let alone the electorate. Personally, I was seriously worried about the havoc they may have reaped on the British economy.
As for nobbers, they exist in all walks of life, and as we know, some of them even support the same football team as we do!

Wise words.

Regarding my 'advocate of conservatism' I meant advocate of the swivel-eyed 'my party, right or wrong' and 'there is no such thing as society' variety. I was insufficiently clear

 

[Chicken Run]

Well, there's the cost of joining, that's minimal. But I know I'll also be hassled regularly by phone or text asking for money or my time. On the other hand, I rather like having a say in who's going to be leader of the opposition.

In that case I wholeheartedly recommend waiting till let’s say the Summer of 2024, that might be more worthwhile.

 

[Chicken Run]

A lot of people didn't vote Labour for the first time in their lives for a single main reason. You might have heard of it on other threads.

You’re hoping so, but I’d suggest you probably called the 2015 election wrong, you definitely called the 2016 referendum wrong, I might give you the 2017 election [emoji23] but you definitely didn’t have the Tories down for a landslide in the 2019 election so tbh I’m not sure you actually know what’s going on in the real world outside of your Facebook page and Twitter account [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji106]

Yes I know I’m a thick racist uneducated fool [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

 

[Bold Seagull]

You’re hoping so, but I’d suggest you probably called the 2015 election wrong, you definitely called the 2016 referendum wrong, I might give you the 2017 election [emoji23] but you definitely didn’t have the Tories down for a landslide in the 2019 election so tbh I’m not sure you actually know what’s going on in the real world outside of your Facebook page and Twitter account [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji106]

Yes I know I’m a thick racist uneducated fool [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

More nonsense. Got drawn back into thread when I know I shouldn't have given the people on it.

I definitely got the 2017 election wrong as expected Labour to be wiped out then rather than now. Hey ho though, you stick to your imaginary world of what other people are thinking.

 

[Chicken Run]

More nonsense. Got drawn back into thread when I know I shouldn't have given the people on it.

I definitely got the 2017 election wrong as expected Labour to be wiped out then rather than now. Hey ho though, you stick to your imaginary world of what other people are thinking.

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

 

[kevo]

If the policies were so popular, why did Labour get hammered?
I'll start you off. The electorate did not believe the policies were realistic and achievable, even if they liked them..............Free goodies for everybody, what's not to like! Ha-ha. They didn't believe that taxes would only go up for the top 5%.
Northern working class man and woman believe the Labour party no longer represents their views and is 'owned' by Momentum nutters and a middle class elite who are generally comfortably off and can afford to espouse their virtue signalling tendencies at no real cost to themselves.
Now you take over!

While I think there is some truth in this, surveys after the election found the two main issues preventing people voting Labour were Corbyn and Brexit.

 

[Chicken Run]

While I think there is some truth in this, surveys after the election found the two main issues preventing people voting Labour were Corbyn and Brexit.

Well on this basis of 50% of the issue being Corbyn let’s hope the Labour Party don’t elect a leader who is just like him then [emoji23]

 

[kevo]

Well on this basis of 50% of the issue being Corbyn let’s hope the Labour Party don’t elect a leader who is just like him then [emoji23]

Or someone who is demonised by the media in the same way he was. Little chance of that, tho...

 

[BLOCK F]

Or someone who is demonised by the media in the same way he was. Little chance of that, tho...

Well, given his political choices and associations over the years, the wicked media didn't have to work too hard, did they!
Hey-ho, bring on RLB and everything will be ok for Labour, eh!

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

If RLB wins then it's a further 10 years from now in the wilderness for Labour.

That's IMO of course - I just believe the UK is in need of a centrist Party (not the Liberals, they're finished)

Yes, like the Blair / Brown years but without the illegal wars.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Rebecca throws in her hat - who knew?

From the BBC:

Rebecca Long Bailey is pitching herself as the "carry on Corbyn" candidate.

It's no big surprise - she has long been a stalwart of Camp Corbyn. She's been ultra loyal to the Labour leader in the shadow cabinet and in the NEC (the party's ruling body).

In her launch article in the Tribune, she makes absolutely clear that she stands by the Corbyn policies that the party put before the electorate.

Interestingly, though, in a subsequent interview with the BBC, she adopted a slightly more nuanced approach.

She acknowledged that Brexit harmed the party in the election. She also conceded on anti-Semitism - saying that behind the scenes she was pressing for tougher action on this.

Mrs Long Bailey said Labour's election defeat last month, its fourth in a row, was due to a failure of campaign strategy and the "lack of a coherent narrative", rather than a rejection of its policies.

What an absolute plum. And she's guaranteed to win.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

If RLB wins then it's a further 10 years from now in the wilderness for Labour.

That's IMO of course - I just believe the UK is in need of a centrist Party (not the Liberals, they're finished)

Yes, like the Blair / Brown years but without the illegal wars.

There were no illegal wars. And we would have had the same war if the tories had been in charge.

The war that did for labour was the one Brown launched on Blair.

 

[Gwylan]

If the policies were so popular, why did Labour get hammered?
I'll start you off. The electorate did not believe the policies were realistic and achievable, even if they liked them..............Free goodies for everybody, what's not to like! Ha-ha. They didn't believe that taxes would only go up for the top 5%.
Northern working class man and woman believe the Labour party no longer represents their views and is 'owned' by Momentum nutters and a middle class elite who are generally comfortably off and can afford to espouse their virtue signalling tendencies at no real cost to themselves.
Now you take over!

I didn't say they were popular. GCCM said that there were policies that would only be popular when the country was considerably poorer and I pointed out that there were countries that are considerably richer who were perfectly happy to adopt them.

As to why Labour lost. Brexit was a huge problem; Corbyn was a huge problem - those are the two biggest factors. But I also think Labour promised too much: rail nationalisation and free university education were fine - both were popular policies. Then the party went too far - nationalisation of OpenReach (the cost of which was wildly under-estimated) and the women's pension poliicy (which was completely uncosted in Labour's'carefully costed' manifesto) were a step too far. And you're right, there was a concern that there would be tax rises to pay for them.

It could be that people will acccept tax rises (the UK's tax rate is relatively low compared to the rest of Europe) but there would need to be a long campaign to explain why they were needed. Keeping them hidden was a big mistake.