[Politics] Next leader of the Labour party

[Lower West Stander]

This has nothing to do with optimism or pessimism - it has to do with analysing the situation being face on a national and a global basis. Even the most conservative of economists are predicting an economic recession in the next 6-24 months based on the ongoing trade war between the USA and China - a bubble in stock prices in the USA and Germany - a rapidly growing debt burden in China - slowing growth in the US economy - a contracting German economy (where they are now planning on pumping €50billion of printed money into the economy to try and keep it afloat) - contracting UK GDP - a string of industrialised countries in the neo-colonial world in recession - and Brexit.

As regards the national question - the SNP will and are demanding a independence referendum - Johnson will refuse the referendum - the SNP have hyped this up so much that they will be under pressure to organise a plebiscite of their own (á la Catalonia) - and this will lead to a constitutional crisis. The situation in the North of Ireland is far more serious - the Tories have been the main bedrock of support for Unionists for more than 2 centuries - Johnson has now indicated that he will put a customs border along the Irish sea - this will provoke a massive reaction from the Protestant community in the North who will be whipped up into a frenzy by Unionist politicians - and if Johnson doesn't back down we will see the re-emergence of Loyalist paramilitaries engaging in open sectarian violence (which will provoke a backlash from dissident republicans who have only been waiting for the opportunity to re-ignite the 'war') in the expectation that it will force the British government to act.

The GFA did not solve any of the problems of Northern Ireland - it wasn't a solution. It was a temporary reprieve from the violence by institutionalising sectarianism into the 'peace process' - it will eventually breakdown unless sectarianism and the sectarian parties are undermined. The only way that will happen is through the emergence of an anti-sectarian party of labour that can unite working class Catholics and Protestants around a programme that represents their class interests. The election of Corbyn as leader held out a possibility of such a party developing - more than 4,500 people joined the LP in the North - but the Blairites blocked the LP from standing in the North's constituencies and Corbyn didn't fight them on it. Unless another formation emerges (and it could happen) then the likely outcome is a return to sectarian violence at some point - and that will be the direct responsibility of the British state (and to a lesser extent the Irish state) who have fostered sectarianism in the North for decades for its own interests.


I beg to point out that I have not been 'pessimistic' or 'down' on people who didn't vote for the LP this time (I am not a member of Momentum) - I have pointed out the reasons why working class people chose to abandon the LP and vote for 'get brexit done' - getting these people back into supporting the LP and getting more of those working class people who voted Tory and LD to support LP will be directly related to whether the LP can transform itself from a party of pale pink tory Blairites to a party of the working class putting forward policies that benefit working class people. I have an absolute confidence in the ability of the British working class (just as I have with the Irish working class) to draw the lessons of this period, to develop a class consciousness and to mobilise to defend the interests of working class people - whether that be through the LP or through the emergence of a new formation for working class people.

Who knows? Sounds like we’ll finish up like Venezuela.

That’d be good wouldn’t it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It couldn’t. The independent IFS said the Labour manifesto ‘budget’ (and the Tory plans) “were not credible”.

So a Momentum government would either have had to:

a) Tax everyone else below £80k far more heavily; or
b) Not embark on a large part of all the promises.

To the best of my understanding you and I straddle the centre ground, with me a little to the left of centre and you a little to the right. To win the next GE labour need not just my vote but yours, and the vote of people further to the right.

I am likely to vote labour next time, but I can easily see myself not doing so. I need to see a shift towards sanity and away from magic numbers and the sort of 'couldn't care less if you vote labour or not' attitude from the Blair-hating lunatics now populating the party. Ironic that the party of inclusion thinks it is a good plan to abuse the likes of me as a pink tory Blairite.

Imagine a hot dog seller screaming 'either buy a hot dog or admit you are a vegetarian reactionary class-traitor ponce'.

So, to what extent are the well-researched and considered posts of JRG drawing you back into the labour fold?

 

[Bulldog]

JRG would need a telescope to even be able to see the centre ground he is so far from the reality the rest of experience.

I consider myself to be a little left of centre but have been called a commie by some on the far right, proving to me that the extremists on both flanks are like religious fanatics that refuse to see reality.

I admit I have occasionally ranted about the Tories but it's the far Right that get up my nose, not the centre right, where most Tory voters live.

For me to be considered a pink Tory is just an indication of how far into cloud cuckoo land he lives.

 

[BLOCK F]

Why is anyone bothering to engage with JRG?
He is one of those extreme socialists who inhabit a completely different universe to the one that most reasonable bods on here do, whether they be sensible moderate lefties or righties.
Basically, he is a fanatic.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

 

[kemptown kid]

Interesting the number of self evidently non Labour supporters eager to post on a thread about the next leader of a party they would never vote for...

 

[BLOCK F]

Interesting the number of self evidently non Labour supporters eager to post on a thread about the next leader of a party they would never vote for...

Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion, aren't they?...........even JRG!
The subject of who will be the next Labour leader is of general interest to anyone with a modicum of interest in politics and regardless of whether or not they would vote Labour, it is surely in the interests of the country as a whole, to have an Opposition leader who is capable of returning Labour into a party that is fit to be elected to govern.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Just like Rachel 'we'll be tougher than the Tories on benefits' Reeves - these are the Blairite policies that you are clearly not offended by

Labour bloody well should be tough on benefit cheats. I never understand how we let the Tories win that argument. Labour created the welfare state, they should defend its integrity continuously. The tories just want to tear it apart, and turning a blind eye to cheats just gives them the ammunition

 

[WilburySeagull]

JRG needs to be challenged on several fronts. It is not entirely true that the labour party was founded as what he would call a "socialist" party. The trades unions were key to its creation and at that point were by no means socialist organisations. Having said that it is also the case that the party has always been a broad tent including "real socialists" and many who supported the fairness and social justice aims of the party. If the LP ever wants to be in power again it has to keep that coalition together. It has to avoid becoming a oure socialist sect. I see JRG is advocating deselection for those who dont fit his socialist criteria. That way lies electoral disaster. To take a local example no doubt he regards Peter Kyle who has built a labour safe seat in Hove as an unacceptable "Blairite" while Mr Russell-Moyle (apologies if spelling wrong) who appears to blame everyone except the Corbyn purists for defeat , as a perfect labour MP.

It may be true that many of the manifesto ideas were popular individually: the problem is no one believed they could all be delivered at once. Then other costly ideas were added at which point the whole thing became unbelievable.

Just to be clear I still voted labour to try and keep liar Johnson out. If Kyle is deselected for a momemtum candidate I might not do so again

 

[Weststander]

To the best of my understanding you and I straddle the centre ground, with me a little to the left of centre and you a little to the right. To win the next GE labour need not just my vote but yours, and the vote of people further to the right.

I am likely to vote labour next time, but I can easily see myself not doing so. I need to see a shift towards sanity and away from magic numbers and the sort of 'couldn't care less if you vote labour or not' attitude from the Blair-hating lunatics now populating the party. Ironic that the party of inclusion thinks it is a good plan to abuse the likes of me as a pink tory Blairite.

Imagine a hot dog seller screaming 'either buy a hot dog or admit you are a vegetarian reactionary class-traitor ponce'.

So, to what extent are the well-researched and considered posts of JRG drawing you back into the labour fold?

Spot on. I was of the voters who opted for Blair to kick out Major in 1997. I have no regrets about that, despite the retrospective pincer attack on Blair/Brown/Dewar/Blunkett from the hard right and left, deeming those years as awful time for the UK.

Labour needs to woo centrist voters in the Midlands, Wales and the North, to gain power again. People aren’t stupid, they don’t want see an attack on business owners, entrepreneurs, the aspirational, as part of a spite agenda.

 

[Weststander]

Interesting the number of self evidently non Labour supporters eager to post on a thread about the next leader of a party they would never vote for...

Baloney. NSC’s lefties had plenty to say about Tory leadership contests. Plus many of us are swing voters, who voted for the pre-Momentum Labour Party. All entitled to a view in a non-Stalinist NSC.

 

[Jackthelad]

I never realised how right-wing our support is I always had us a much more left but a lot of Daily Mail prats posting these days.

 

[Weststander]

I never realised how right-wing our support is I always had us a much more left but a lot of Daily Mail prats posting these days.

The GE election result sent many NSC lefties into political hiding, whilst the Brexiteers who’d got bored with years of the same old, came flooding back to celebrate.

 

[Chicken Run]

I never realised how right-wing our support is I always had us a much more left but a lot of Daily Mail prats posting these days.

How’s work back in Radio?

 

[Chicken Run]

Interesting the number of self evidently non Labour supporters eager to post on a thread about the next leader of a party they would never vote for...

Good point well made, it’s because we are scared that TLP might appoint a centerist and stop Boris in 2024.

 

[BLOCK F]

I never realised how right-wing our support is I always had us a much more left but a lot of Daily Mail prats posting these days.

Prior to the G.E. result, NSC became an echo chamber for many of the lefties on here. Since then, balance has been restored.
I don't think there are many 'Daily Mail prats' posting, unless you are labelling anyone who isn't a leftie as a DM prat.

 

[Hastings gull]

I never realised how right-wing our support is I always had us a much more left but a lot of Daily Mail prats posting these days.

Given that the Tory vote on the poll prior to the election was actually singularly the highest, and your extremely generalised comment about readers of the DM, then I would respectfully suggest that it is your good self who is the prat . .

 

[Hastings gull]

Interesting the number of self evidently non Labour supporters eager to post on a thread about the next leader of a party they would never vote for...

Any why should they not? I do not vote labour, but can see the sense of posters of any persuasion pointing out that an effective opposition is likely to keep the government of the day on its toes. Should I start a thread, praising, say Boris Johnson, I would have no doubt that it would attract all sorts of political opponents having their negative say, as you might well do, so try and avoid such silly statements.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

What are they % of the labour party membership?

Ah come on - it is the level of support for these policies among voters - and you know this.

it is a very odd definition, CEO is working class but a self employed tradesman isnt.

As has been pointed out - these CEOs would get substantial share options as part of their package -

Social class is determined by the relationship of the individual to the means of production - and yes - a self-employed tradesman (or woman), given their relationship with the means of production, are middle class - they do not work for a salary, they receive a payment for a service. Just as someone with a substantial income - e.g. an NHS consultant on £100K a year - are working class, they may, and usually do, have a middle class outlook - a self-employed trades-person can have a working class outlook. The social outlook of the individual does not determine their social class - how they relate to the economic system does.

Probably 90% of the British population are working class - most of the rest are middle class with a small percentage actually exercising financial, political and social control over society. And the percentage of the population that are middle class continues to shrink as inequality grows and conglomerates monopolise the economy.

Who knows? Sounds like we’ll finish up like Venezuela.

That’d be good wouldn’t it?

Be very bad actually - and would be worse when the right-wing manage to stage a successful coup like they have in Bolivia

Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion, aren't they?...........even JRG!

I appreciate the support

The subject of who will be the next Labour leader is of general interest to anyone with a modicum of interest in politics and regardless of whether or not they would vote Labour, it is surely in the interests of the country as a whole, to have an Opposition leader who is capable of returning Labour into a party that is fit to be elected to govern.

I agree - this is a topic that should be discussed and debated by anyone interested in improving the lot of the British population - I approach the question on the basis of what is in the interest of working class people - others from the perspective of the Tories and others from the so-called middle-ground which actually does not exist.

Labour bloody well should be tough on benefit cheats. I never understand how we let the Tories win that argument. Labour created the welfare state, they should defend its integrity continuously. The tories just want to tear it apart, and turning a blind eye to cheats just gives them the ammunition

We constantly here this nonsense about being 'tough on welfare cheats' - the real welfare cheats are the rich elites who receive £billions in corporate welfare every year.

I would have to research the numbers in Britain - but we have the same nonsense in Ireland - Ireland has 380 welfare inspectors who carry out inspections into 'welfare fraud' - Ireland has 7 inspectors who investigate company fraud and discrimination by employers against workers. In 2017 social welfare inspectors carried out reviews of 775,000 welfare claims and 325,000 child benefit claims. Out of the welfare claims 300 cases were brought for fraud - less than 0.0004% of inspections. The government claimed that €520million were 'saved' - but almost €500million of that was due to mistakes in payment by the department rather than any element of fraud among claimants. In relation to child benefit - less than 10,000 cases were noted for consideration - the vast majority of these were related to children that were no longer living in Ireland that the department themselves mistakenly paid. The Irish government does not disclose the number of cases of companies being brought to court for fraud, breaches of labour law or discrimination - but it is known to be substantially greater than the number of welfare fraud cases in Ireland - with only 7 inspectors.

To demonstrate - in 2005 a scandal broke in Ireland (and I was one of the people involved in exposing this scandal - albeit a minor role) when a Turkish construction company, Gama, were stealing the wages of hundreds of Turkish workers who had been brought to Ireland to work on government infrastructure contracts. Employment law stated that these workers should be paid €14 per hour - they were paid as little as €2 per hour - the company was hiving off the remainder of their wages into Dutch bank accounts. When the scandal was exposed in the Irish Parliament the government refused to acknowledge that there was anything underhand going on and refused to investigate the scandal. We helped the Turkish workers to organise strikes on the works schemes and help them in travelling to Holland where they uncovered over €80million in wages that had been stolen from these workers. Even then the Irish government continued to give contracts to this company.

Welfare fraud is tiny in comparison to corporate fraud and tax avoidance - yet the constant refrain is that 'we must be tough on welfare fraud'.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

JRG needs to be challenged on several fronts. It is not entirely true that the labour party was founded as what he would call a "socialist" party. The trades unions were key to its creation and at that point were by no means socialist organisations.

The LP was founded as a socialist party - originally as the political wing of the trade union movement. On foundation the LP was a federalist party that invited anyone who supported the principles espoused by the party, including many socialist clubs and societies and groups like the Independent Labour Party, the Fabian Society and the Social Democratic Federation. Most of the leading individuals who drove the formation of the LP - Keir Hardie, Robert Smillie, Tom Mann, John Burns and Ben Tillett - were Marxists. The right-wing elements who emerged within the PLP in the pre-WW1 period - Philip Snowden and Ramsay MacDonald - were openly hostile to the trade unions, and in particular opposed the idea that the LP should operate as an independent left-wing party outside the control of the Liberals. The LP officially adopted Clause IV of the LP constitution in 1918 committing the LP to socialist policies as the primary objective of the LP. Blair removed Clause IV in 1995. To suggest that the LP did not have a socialist outlook at its foundation flies in the face of historical evidence.

Having said that it is also the case that the party has always been a broad tent including "real socialists" and many who supported the fairness and social justice aims of the party.

Since its foundation the LP has seen a constant battle between the right-wing of the party and the left of the party - it replicated the class struggle that exists in society as a whole. The socialists within the LP have always welcomed people of differing political views, approaching these differences on the basis of robust argument and debate with the conference deciding policy - the right-wing have always been the elements who have shut down political debate within the party because they lose the debate when it is open, fair and based on the involvement of the membership. Furthermore, the right-wing of the LP have always been the elements who have initiated and engaged in witch-hunts, expelling left-wing members and groups within the LP and shutting down the democratic structures - Blair and the Blairites took this to the ultimate extreme - removing any vestiges of democracy within the LP over the past 25 years.

If the LP ever wants to be in power again it has to keep that coalition together. It has to avoid becoming a oure socialist sect.

Socialism is not a 'sect' - a majority of the population in Britain support socialist policies (as demonstrated by the comment I posted earlier in this thread from the opinion poll last week). For the LP to be elected the membership of the LP (including the trade unions) must decide LP policy - the membership of the LP must decide the candidates who will represent the LP - and those in a minority must accept and work for those policies under the leadership of whoever is elected the leader. Unfortunately - this has not been the case over the past 4 years - the Blairites have consciously and consistently engaged in a smear campaign against Corbyn and the policies decided by the LP conference - and they have consistently prevented anyone they believed might support Corbyn from joining the LP - 170,000 people at the last count.

For decades left-wing activists have fought for socialist policies at the LP conference - for decades the LP conference adopted socialist policies - for decades the PLP ignored conference policies - yet left wing activists went out and canvassed for right-wing candidates. Their reward consistently has been to be expelled from the LP by the right-wing. Over the past 25 years the Blairites have removed all elements of democracy from the LP, including having policy decided by the LP conference - and up until 2016 the LP membership collapsed - losing more than 80% of the membership over that period.

I see JRG is advocating deselection for those who dont fit his socialist criteria. That way lies electoral disaster.

No I have not - and this demonstrates that you failed to read what I actually posted. I argued for mandatory reselection of candidates - with the membership deciding who should be the candidate. If the membership chose a Blairite as candidate then so be it - and every LP member should canvass for the candidate irrespective of their political views. However, the Blairites blocked mandatory reselection because they knew that many of the Blairite MPs would be deselected (and unfortunately Corbyn again compromised with the Blairites despite their sabotage).

To take a local example no doubt he regards Peter Kyle who has built a labour safe seat in Hove as an unacceptable "Blairite" while Mr Russell-Moyle (apologies if spelling wrong) who appears to blame everyone except the Corbyn purists for defeat , as a perfect labour MP.

Yet people on here were claiming that Kyle was elected because he was a good constituency MP, rather than because he was a LP candidate. But that isn't really the issue - when the membership of the Brighton and Hove LP indicated that a majority wanted to have reselection of the LP candidates for the election the Blairite LP HQ shut down the B&H LP organisation - depriving the LP membership in the region of their democratic rights.

You decry the approach of Russell-Moyle and praise Kyle - yet both Kyle and Russel-Moyle both saw a drop in the LP vote of roughly the same amount - Kyle slightly less - Hove had a LP MP from 1997-2010 - Kyle won it in 2015. Kemptown had a Tory from 2010-2017 before Russell-Moyle won it. Yet people here praise Kyle for winning a seat for the LP - but attack Russell-Moyle despite the fact that he did exactly the same thing with a higher percentage of the vote in Kempton than any MP since the Tories controlled the constituency in the 1980s. People view two similar situations - one in a positive light and one negative - depending on their political outlook.

It may be true that many of the manifesto ideas were popular individually: the problem is no one believed they could all be delivered at once. Then other costly ideas were added at which point the whole thing became unbelievable.

This is nonsense - as I said before Britain is the 5th richest country in the world - of course it could afford these policies. Most of the measures would have returned Britain to the level of spending that existed in 2010. Someone linked to a report saying that neither the LP or Tory policies were affordable - a right-wing think-tank that opposes public spending of any description. The policies in the LP manifesto weren't very radical - far less radical than in 1945 when there was a lot less money in the economy after WW2 (when Britain was effectively broke).

Just to be clear I still voted labour to try and keep liar Johnson out. If Kyle is deselected for a momemtum candidate I might not do so again

I would argue that this is the wrong approach - you should vote for LP because of the policies it is putting forward in its manifesto. There have been plenty of Blairites who have praised Johnson for his 'approach' as mayor - and their are many Blairites who have imposed policies as bad as what Johnson has done.