[Politics] Next leader of the Labour party

[Weststander]

It says that any doubts they may have harboured about Boris Johnson, the horror they had of Corbyn and McDonnell in charge of the country more than out weighed the misgivings re Johnson.

It also says that Brexiteers had not forgotten in any shape or form winning the referendum, making them very unforgiving in the GE on any party/politicians who’d spent 3 long years trying to destroy that.

 

[Bold Seagull]

It also says that Brexiteers had not forgotten in any shape or form winning referendum, making them very unforgiving in the GE on any party/politicians who’d spent 3 long years trying to destroy that.

And they damn well want to ring some bells to prove it.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Hopefully,well a shoe in it will be RLB and therefore what could possibly go wrong ?

 

[Weststander]

And they damn well want to ring some bells to prove it.

Cringy, that.

 

[Bodian]

Nope - the Thatcher period saw an element of mass support for Thatcherism (a little like the support Trump gets from a section of US society - but not on the same scale) - Thatcher whipped up jingoism and British nationalism, and her privatisation programme benefited a section of British society. Major came in on the tail end of that - but his success in 1992 was directly the result of the antics of Kinnock. Johnson has zero support base in British society - he had to hide in a fridge during the election campaign to avoid answering questions. As a result his government is significantly weaker than the majority would indicate. It really does help if you have people actively sabotaging your opponents election campaign.

Yes - we know all that. But my response was to your question asking where you had implied that Major's Government was strong. I was pointing out the sentences in your earlier post that could have led to someone thinking that's what you were saying!

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

This is the sad thing, a totally meaningless three word slogan influenced so many people. What does that say about the electorate?

The entire brexit fiasco had been dragging on for years - people were fed up and wanted it done and dusted. If Corbyn had come out and said that he was in favour of Leave, just like in 2017, then it would have forced Johnson and the Tories to debate what kind of a brexit should be happening (and that would have exposed all the cracks in the Tories). Instead Corbyn bent the knee to the Blairites and backed Remain - cutting the LP off from a swathe of working class support in the Midlands and the North who wanted brexit finished - and it also presented him as a politician who couldn't be trusted and was willing to bend to pressure and change his politics. For working class people Corbyn was judged by a much higher standard than Johnson and the Tories (and rightly so).

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Blair was a tremendous populist. "Third way". "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". And Alistair Campbell controlling the media in an even better way than Dom does for Boris. You have to look at all this and think that the policies on their own are never going to win a thing. Labour has to shift to the middle and it has to get better spin doctors or they will continue to lose to a racist with an inane slogan and a walk in fridge.

Let's be clear about this - Blair never had mass support among the British working class (or middle class) - he had very superfluous support that ebbed away very quickly once people realised how superficial and lacking principles he was. Blair only survived as long as he did because there was a bubble in the world economy which came crashing down just as he was forced out as PM by Brown and others who wanted a slice of the power. If the crash had happened two years earlier Blair would have been buried in the election in 2005.

 

[beorhthelm]

The entire brexit fiasco had been dragging on for years - people were fed up and wanted it done and dusted. If Corbyn had come out and said that he was in favour of Leave, just like in 2017, then it would have forced Johnson and the Tories to debate what kind of a brexit should be happening (and that would have exposed all the cracks in the Tories). Instead Corbyn bent the knee to the Blairites and backed Remain - cutting the LP off from a swathe of working class support in the Midlands and the North who wanted brexit finished - and it also presented him as a politician who couldn't be trusted and was willing to bend to pressure and change his politics. For working class people Corbyn was judged by a much higher standard than Johnson and the Tories (and rightly so).

clearly Corbyn wasnt the right leader then, couldnt lead his own party and caved to the Blairites.

 

[Weststander]

The entire brexit fiasco had been dragging on for years - people were fed up and wanted it done and dusted. If Corbyn had come out and said that he was in favour of Leave, just like in 2017, then it would have forced Johnson and the Tories to debate what kind of a brexit should be happening (and that would have exposed all the cracks in the Tories). Instead Corbyn bent the knee to the Blairites and backed Remain - cutting the LP off from a swathe of working class support in the Midlands and the North who wanted brexit finished - and it also presented him as a politician who couldn't be trusted and was willing to bend to pressure and change his politics. For working class people Corbyn was judged by a much higher standard than Johnson and the Tories (and rightly so).

I think you’re correct about Corbyn here. He was career anti-EEC, yet he mistakenly listened to erroneous strategists and devout Remainers such as Thornberry and Starmer, who manipulated him into a screw-Brexit corner.

So much so that NSC’s relentless Remain posters, many of whom wouldn’t normally have had any truck with a marxist, warmed to Corbyn. He was seen as ‘anything but May or Johnson’, if he helped screw Brexit. That was played out throughout Brighton and Hove, London and some other large metropolitan areas.

A fatal mistake by the LP.

It was repeatedly mentioned on NSC in 2019, that it’s a Remain bubble here. There are huge numbers of voters in the Midlands, North and Wales who are fundamentally anti our membership of the EU. The BBC met many of those people in its radio/TV tour of the UK in the autumn, of all ages, singing from the same hymn sheet. NSC left wingers and Remainers dismissed this, with an Ostrich mindset to what people felt in the key marginals.

On the EU, we might’ve ended up with a more palatable, gentler arrangement with the EU, if Corbyn hadn’t been manipulated from within the LP.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Let's be clear about this - Blair never had mass support among the British working class (or middle class) - he had very superfluous support that ebbed away very quickly once people realised how superficial and lacking principles he was. Blair only survived as long as he did because there was a bubble in the world economy which came crashing down just as he was forced out as PM by Brown and others who wanted a slice of the power. If the crash had happened two years earlier Blair would have been buried in the election in 2005.

Let's also be clear that you've ignored (or conceded) the other points in my message to rewrite history.

Michael Foot - 0 General Election wins.
Jeremy Corbyn - 0 General Election wins
Tony Blair - 3 General Election wins. 3 THREE. Three.

F.A.C.T.

 

[Gwylan]

Hopefully,well a shoe in it will be RLB and therefore what could possibly go wrong ?

She's trailing Starmer 33% to 67% according to today's YouGov poll - she's got a lot of catching up to do.

 

[drew]

Let's be clear about this - Blair never had mass support among the British working class (or middle class) - he had very superfluous support that ebbed away very quickly once people realised how superficial and lacking principles he was. Blair only survived as long as he did because there was a bubble in the world economy which came crashing down just as he was forced out as PM by Brown and others who wanted a slice of the power. If the crash had happened two years earlier Blair would have been buried in the election in 2005.

What utter garbage.

How the hell did he win such a large majority in 97? Do think it was just disenfranchised Tory voters that got him over the line. And then again in 2003 and he still won in 2007.

 

[Surf's Up]

Let's be clear about this - Blair never had mass support among the British working class (or middle class) - he had very superfluous support that ebbed away very quickly once people realised how superficial and lacking principles he was. Blair only survived as long as he did because there was a bubble in the world economy which came crashing down just as he was forced out as PM by Brown and others who wanted a slice of the power. If the crash had happened two years earlier Blair would have been buried in the election in 2005.

Why debate with this man? He's obviously intelligent but he's also clearly a sophomaniac with an incredibly egocentric perspective i.e. a bit like the hard left within the Labour party, he's right and no amount of objective analysis based on fact will ever change his rigid and totally inflexible opinions. Sad.

 

[Bold Seagull]

What utter garbage.

How the hell did he win such a large majority in 97? Do think it was just disenfranchised Tory voters that got him over the line. And then again in 2003 and he still won in 2007.

The voting trend was a decline:
1997 - 13.5m
2001 - 10.7m
2005 - 9.6m
2010 - 8.6m

So that’s a pretty steep Blair/Brown shedding of 5.1m voters in 13 years. Subsequently;
2015 - 9.3m
2017 - 12.9m
2019 - 10.3m

So Corbyn pretty much got the same votes as Blair 97 & 01, just that the political landscape is completely different. 10.7 and 9.6m wins you big victories in 01 & 05, 12.9m is still a defeat in 17.

There is much more to political trends, than just seats, although ultimately that is the measure, how to get there is always less clear. Labour know Corbyn was unpopular, as was their Brexit stance, and an over stuffed manifesto. Doesn’t mean the core of their offering was though.

 

[drew]

The voting trend was a decline:
1997 - 13.5m
2001 - 10.7m
2005 - 9.6m
2010 - 8.6m

So that’s a pretty steep Blair/Brown shedding of 5.1m voters in 13 years. Subsequently;
2015 - 9.3m
2017 - 12.9m
2019 - 10.3m

So Corbyn pretty much got the same votes as Blair 97 & 01, just that the political landscape is completely different. 10.7 and 9.6m wins you big victories in 01 & 05, 12.9m is still a defeat in 17.

There is much more to political trends, than just seats, although ultimately that is the measure, how to get there is always less clear. Labour know Corbyn was unpopular, as was their Brexit stance, and an over stuffed manifesto. Doesn’t mean the core of their offering was though.

You can't just look at that in isolation, you need to factor in the brexit vote where many people voted that probably hadn't before and then subsequently voted in the next elections. At the end of the day, it is seats that matter, nothing else.

In 1992, Major increased share of popular vote but lost 40 seats, and in 87 Thatcher increased the popular vote but lost 21 seats!

 

[Bold Seagull]

You can't just look at that in isolation, you need to factor in the brexit vote where many people voted that probably hadn't before and then subsequently voted in the next elections. At the end of the day, it is seats that matter, nothing else.

In 1992, Major increased share of popular vote but lost 40 seats, and in 87 Thatcher increased the popular vote but lost 21 seats!

I’m agreeing with you, you cannot just look at things in isolation, but many people are. They are basically saying Blair won so you have to do what he did, drop current policies etc. It is more complex than that.

 

[Weststander]

The voting trend was a decline:
1997 - 13.5m
2001 - 10.7m
2005 - 9.6m
2010 - 8.6m

So that’s a pretty steep Blair/Brown shedding of 5.1m voters in 13 years. Subsequently;
2015 - 9.3m
2017 - 12.9m
2019 - 10.3m

So Corbyn pretty much got the same votes as Blair 97 & 01, just that the political landscape is completely different. 10.7 and 9.6m wins you big victories in 01 & 05, 12.9m is still a defeat in 17.

There is much more to political trends, than just seats, although ultimately that is the measure, how to get there is always less clear. Labour know Corbyn was unpopular, as was their Brexit stance, and an over stuffed manifesto. Doesn’t mean the core of their offering was though.

More than 2/3 of voters rejected that recent core Labour offering.

In polling most people including myself will always say yes individually to more police, more nurses, higher paid nurses, rebuilt hospitals, etcetera, But we also weighed up whether Corbyn and Momentum, advised by marxist academic Lansman, was good for the UK PLC and whether the total tax and spend mix was credible. Millions in the key marginals decided overwhelmingly not. Handing a further 5 years to a centre-right government, that had been unpopular. You couldn’t make this up, the series of Momentum Corbyn own goals.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Why debate with this man?

There are worse things you could be doing

He's obviously intelligent

Why, thank you

but he's also clearly a sophomaniac with an incredibly egocentric perspective

Ah here -

i.e. a bit like the hard left within the Labour party, he's right and no amount of objective analysis based on fact will ever change his rigid and totally inflexible opinions.

I'll come back to the 'hard-left' bit in a minute - but rigid and totally inflexible opinions I do not have. I change my opinion on a daily basis on a whole variety of topics as a result of objective analysis based on fact - sometimes this change of opinion is minor and quite subtle - sometimes it is quite significant - sometimes it is based on my own research and work - sometimes it is based on the work of others. The problem with a lot of the debate on this thread is that it is not based on objective analysis - it is based on emotional response and personalised outlook (we are all products of our environment) - and facts are rarely provided or considered (example - my demonstration, using evidence, that a significant majority of the British population support the nationalisation of a wide variety of industries is dismissed out of hand).

As for me - I know what I have some expertise in and what I do not - politics and history yes - football, science, economics, not so much - fashion, celebs etc, not a clue. The subjects that I do have expertise in I am noted for being extremely detailed (almost to a fault), concise, with comprehensive research. I am repeatedly asked to enter academia which I point blank refuse to do - because that is where you will find rigid and totally inflexible opinions. The difference in my political approach is that I do not view politics on the basis of an emotional response or from a personalised outlook. I am from a poor working class background but as a result of a series of fortunate circumstances I have an income and a standard of living that is comfortably in the top 20% - and on a family basis comfortably in the top 10%. In most respects I should be the quintessential Tory or Blairite voter (probably Blairite as I should be pro-EU). I could own rental property and stocks and bonds - but I have chosen not to. I could if I wanted to run my own business and would have the financial wherewithal to be successful - I have chosen not to. Instead I have chosen to be on what most people here would consider to be the 'hard left'. I do not consider myself 'hard-left' - I consider my someone who believes in the potential of the human species, who believes that human beings are kind, generous, considerate with a capacity for co-operation, solidarity and charity. I hold the view that capitalism is stifling this potential and is causing untold suffering and misery in the process. Most people would say that in Britain (and Ireland) - well nobody is starving. This is true - but it does not mean that some in our society do not go hungry. It also do not mean that we do not have a homeless epidemic (partly as a result of the gentrification of working class areas) - two days ago in Ireland a homeless man suffered life changing injuries when the local council were doing a homeless sweep and using a mechanical digger to clear a small tent village of homeless people (about 15 tents) swept up a tent with the homeless man inside. In developed countries we have a serious and rapidly growing mental health crisis - few people these days do not know someone who has committed suicide. In Ireland 5 times as much money is spent subsidising greyhound racing and coursing than is spent on mental health services. Many years ago I came to the conclusion that we lived in a corrupt, decrepit society with a growing wealth inequality where a small number of people are willing to screw most of the population to preserve their power and wealth. I looked for potential solutions and after a prolonged period of debate and discussion I drew the conclusion that capitalism needed to be replaced by a democratically planned socialised economy. I wish I didn't draw this conclusion - because there is no task more difficult and every day I look to be convinced that there is an alternative - through objective analysis based on fact.

The main issue at the recent election was Brexit - and at its core Brexit was driven by the conflict between 'old money' and 'new money' in British society - 'old money' as the wealth based on the old landed aristocracy and property speculation - and 'new money' based on financial services, banking and vulture funds. 'old money' saw its dominant position of power being usurped by the 'new money'. The Johnson wing of the Tories are the representatives of the 'old money' brigade - 'new money' by the Remain Tories like Ken Clarke and the Blairites and based around the dominance of the financial services sector in the EU. For the Tory brexiteers, in particular, it was the dominance in the EU of the German and French banking sector with the old Tory imperialist outlook playing second fiddle. Farage proved a useful foil - whipping up xenophobia and racism. However, the primary reason why the Brexit referendum was passed was because of the destruction and de-industrialisation of the industrial heartland of Britain in the Midlands and the North as a result of the policies of Thatcher and the Tories in the 1980s and 1990s and by the Blairites in the 1990s and 2000s. By the time the financial crash came in 2007 it was too late to reverse policy - with the EU being blamed for deregulation and de-industrialisation.

The problem for Corbyn has been that he has existed in the bubble that is Westminster since the 1980s - unlike others who fought the abandonment of left-wing policies by Kinnock and the Blairites (and were either sidelined or expelled), Corbyn put his head down and largely kept quiet. When he was catapulted into the leadership of the LP through the ineptitude of the Blairites, Corbyn had no base of support within the LP. The £3 membership that got him elected was not an active membership, it was very much passive and had little influence within the LP. Corbyn was forced to go out and mobilise support in order to prevent his removal by the Blairites. Momentum was part of this mobilisation (and, unlike what many think on here - Momentum is not really left wing - as demonstrated by Momentum's endorsement of Angela Rayner for deputy LP leader - Momentum is a soft-left/liberal grouping, largely internet based and totally controlled in a bureaucratic fashion by Jon Lansman - people have been leaving Momentum in droves - because it is not left-wing - and the recent vote on leadership endorsement demonstrated the undemocratic nature of the group).

Corbyn had an opportunity coming out of the 2017 election - the election campaign built a significant support base through mass campaigning, mass meetings etc - and a significant momentum was built through the election campaign that posed the potential for the development of the LP as a mass party of the working class. The problem was that instead of continuing to build on this momentum Corbyn back-tracked, saw the opportunity of power and decided he needed the Blairites onside to win the election (which was expected to be in 2022). Instead of implementing mandatory re-selection and democratising the LP, Corbyn chose to leave the Blairites in control of the party. On top of that the 'left' trade union leaders (Serwotka, Wrack, Ward, Cash, Hedley) adopted the approach that they didn't need to fight Tory attacks on workers because of the expectation that Corbyn would win the following election and everything would be sorted then. The momentum from the 2017 election campaign was lost - and Corbyn was at the mercy of the Blairites who, seeing mass support dissipating, moved to undermine Corbyn at every turn through a smear campaign and forcing him to abandon the 'Leave' position of the 2017 election campaign and adopt what was effectively a Remain outlook - this cut the LP away from a whole swathe of working class voters in the North and the Midlands who just wanted to 'get brexit done'. If Corbyn had come out in favour of 'Leave' then the debate would have been about what type of brexit would happen and would put the debate back in the LP's court of workers rights, public services etc. The Blairites succeeded in preventing a Corbyn victory and Corbyn facilitated them in that.

Now - where does this analysis of mine come from - it comes for 40 years of experience of dealing with both right-wing and left wing parliamentarians (in Ireland - but they are no different - we have our Tories and our Blairites here as well) - it comes from adopting a scientific approach to political analysis and engaging in widespread discussion and debate on the topic - and it comes from keeping an open mind and being willing to consider any objective analysis based on fact.

Sad.

Nah - don't worry -

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

More than 2/3 of voters rejected that recent core Labour offering.

More than 55% rejected the core Tory offering

In polling most people including myself will always say yes individually to more police, more nurses, higher paid nurses, rebuilt hospitals, etcetera,

So why not vote for policies that will bring about this result?

But we also weighed up whether Corbyn and Momentum, advised by marxist academic Lansman,

Lansman isn't a Marxist - nor is he an academic - the best description of Lansman is a 'full-time political spoofer'.

was good for the UK PLC and whether the total tax and spend mix was credible.

Britain is not a PLC - it is a country - and if you try and run it on a capitalist business model you will end up bankrupting the country (which the Tories/Blairites have done more than once). You cannot divorce the economic from the social and the political - to do so gives control of society to a tiny handful of wealthy propertied men (and they are almost exclusively men) to the detriment of the vast majority of the population.

Millions in the key marginals decided overwhelmingly not.

LP didn't lose millions of voters - but it didn't need to in order for the seats to go Tory.

 

[Weststander]

Len McCluskey’s Unite have chosen RLB and Richard ‘Car Crash’ Burgon as their dream team. No surprise if truth be told.

If you want a strong and very electable Labour duo in 2024, they’re the polar opposite, an awful pairing. Both are hard left leaning, very defensive/blinkered about Corbyn and ‘that manifesto’, charmless, and Burgon’s hopeless when facing straight forward questions in interviews (see a plethora of youtube disaster clips).

Hopefully the membership will be more pragmatic in their final say.