The Labour Party

bellbuzzer said:
it was jingoistic racism wot won it, no question.
Click to expand...

It was the constant unfounded accusations that most definitely lost it.

Stop trying to blame and look a little closer to home would be my best advice if you want to be backing a winning side anytime soon and are genuine in wanting change.
 
Is there any way back? All the apparatus is in the hands of the Corbyn faction, and the new leader is likely to be of the same ilk as Jeremy.
 
Cheesy said:
Despite all the venom you hear from the far left & the far right (they do shout loudest), the majority in this country are firmly center ground in their political views. This is what the current Labour leadership seem to have not grasped.
Click to expand...

So, let me ask you, in particular (I'm not responding to the others, cos I can't be arsed) what's the point in having 2 parties with a paper's width between them in existence?

This is what is got this country in this position.

You may as well submit to Tory rule and whatever they take from you and be done with any opposition.

I find that stance dumb, but that's what you're asking for.
 
Bigga said:
So, let me ask you, in particular (I'm not responding to the others, cos I can't be arsed) what's the point in having 2 parties with a paper's width between them in existence?

This is what is got this country in this position.

You may as well submit to Tory rule and whatever they take from you and be done with any opposition.

I find that stance dumb, but that's what you're asking for.
Click to expand...

Surely it keeps the pressure on the government in power and hopefully prevents them from drifting to far right or left.

The tories should they choose to could go further right in the knowledge that they are safely in power for a decade or more.

Labour went to the extreme left and became unelectable in the eyes of millions. Boris has now got a free run at it and can afford to push the boundaries which i expect him to do.
 
Apologies if this was posted already (it's four days old), but I thought this was excellent, and mirrors many of my fears about how the Democratic party here in the US is approaching our next election. The recent focus on ideological purity over actually winning elections is endlessly frustrating to me.
Well, guess what. Labour’s “radical” manifesto of 2019 achieved precisely nothing. Not one proposal in it will be implemented, not one pound in it will be spent. It is worthless. And if judged not by the academic standard of “expanding the discourse”, but by the hard, practical measure of improving actual people’s actual lives, those hate figures of Corbynism — Tony Blair and Gordon Brown — achieved more in four hours than Corbyn achieved in four years. Why? Because they did what it took to win power.

That’s what a political party is for. It’s not a hobby; it’s not a pressure group that exists to open the Overton window a little wider; it’s not an association for making friends or hosting stimulating conversations and seminars; it’s not “a 30-year project”. Its purpose is to win and exercise power in the here and now. It is either a plausible vehicle for government or it is nothing.
Click to expand...

Exactly right in my view.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/13/corbynism-labour-left-party
 
Bigga said:
So, let me ask you, in particular (I'm not responding to the others, cos I can't be arsed) what's the point in having 2 parties with a paper's width between them in existence?

This is what is got this country in this position.

You may as well submit to Tory rule and whatever they take from you and be done with any opposition.

I find that stance dumb, but that's what you're asking for.
Click to expand...

Imagine the scenario. The Tories decide to bring back the death penalty. It might well be popular with some working class voters.
What do Labour do?

A) We agree, but we'd go further, hanging is too good for these people. We propose hanging, drawing and quartering them.

B) If it's what our core voters want let's put in our manifesto.

C) Out it for what it is,reactionary bullshit that has no place in a civilised country in the 21st century.

Option 3 might lose votes but it's the correct choice.
 
robbieh said:
Imagine the scenario. The Tories decide to bring back the death penalty. It might well be popular with some working class voters.
What do Labour do?

A) We agree, but we'd go further, hanging is too good for these people. We propose hanging, drawing and quartering them.

B) If it's what our core voters want let's put in our manifesto.

C) Out it for what it is,reactionary bullshit that has no place in a civilised country in the 21st century.

Option 3 might lose votes but it's the correct choice.
Click to expand...

The death penalty isn't popular anymore as far as I can see.

https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media-...eleases/bsa-32-support-for-death-penalty.aspx

But assuming it is (which it once was), if the Labour Party called it 'reactionary bullshit' and called the people who supported it 'uncivilised' then it isn't going to go down well with the voters. Go away from the voters on too many issues then you're not going to win an election.

That's not to say that the Labour Party should never try and change attitudes but you do that by reasonably debating the issues, and not by trying to shut down the argument, using joke figures (lying) or by abusing people.
 
Fame Monster said:
The death penalty isn't popular anymore as far as I can see.

https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media-...eleases/bsa-32-support-for-death-penalty.aspx

But assuming it is (which it once was), if the Labour Party called it 'reactionary bullshit' and called the people who supported it 'uncivilised' then it isn't going to go down well with the voters. Go away from the voters on too many issues then you're not going to win an election.

That's not to say that the Labour Party should never try and change attitudes but you do that by reasonably debating the issues, and not by trying to shut down the argument, using joke figures (lying) or by abusing people.
Click to expand...
I take your point. But my view parties do need to lead a bit rather than just appeal to what the public want.
 
robbieh said:
I take your point. But my view parties do need to lead a bit rather than just appeal to what the public want.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I think it's a decent point - the difficulty is just finding the balance.

In the death penalty example though, I think all party leaders supported it in 1965 so it wasn't politically disadvantageous for Labour to do at the time plus they deliberately didn't have it in their manifesto and introduced it as a private member's bill so as not to put off the public. Some people might say that's duplicitous, others might call it wise. Either way, there's probably a lesson in there.
 
One thing is for certain, Labour need to make a clean break now. Away from anyone associated closely with Corbyn, because it will be pounced on.
Starmer is the only one of the present lot who seems to represent a figurehead who has, potentially, broad appeal. And that's what they need to focus on.
We need to get a leader and opposition that adopts some of the hope without scaring the electorate, whilst nullifying the venom of some of the media.
 
Fame Monster said:
The death penalty isn't popular anymore as far as I can see.

https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media-...eleases/bsa-32-support-for-death-penalty.aspx

But assuming it is (which it once was), if the Labour Party called it 'reactionary bullshit' and called the people who supported it 'uncivilised' then it isn't going to go down well with the voters. Go away from the voters on too many issues then you're not going to win an election.

That's not to say that the Labour Party should never try and change attitudes but you do that by reasonably debating the issues, and not by trying to shut down the argument, using joke figures (lying) or by abusing people.
Click to expand...


I agree, but how do we get back to reasonable debate? Especially on emotive topics where heart overrules head?

We live in a click-bait world where people read headlines and not the content. A five second clip or an unconfirmed story of a lie goes viral through social media pipes well before the truth gets out. When we no longer care we're being lied too and manipulated and are willing to sacrifice our morals and integrity for one divisive issue, we're in trouble.

Our politicians should be the best of us and reflect us as a society, none more so than the party leaders. This election served up possibly the worst collection of leaders of the main parties to ever stand for office. We (over time) allowed that to happen.

Back to Labour.

I can't recall who said "The Tories are better at selling lies than Labour are at selling the truth" but they are bang on the money. Labour need to find someone who can sell the truth and that the media moguls find palatable, because if not they and the UK are in for a long and painful 5 years.
 
This absurd rhetoric is exactly what puts people off Labour. How dare the LibDems campaign for power, to implement their own views, in a democracy.

Also, using Grenfell as a reason to bash the Liberals excercising their democratic right is shameful.

She’s Momentum, this is what they are...


 
Ban-jani said:
This absurd rhetoric is exactly what puts people off Labour. How dare the LibDems campaign for power, to implement their own views, in a democracy.

Also, using Grenfell as a reason to bash the Liberals excercising their democratic right is shameful.

She’s Momentum, this is what they are...


Click to expand...


Yeah, but she is pretty fit
 
Ban-jani said:
This absurd rhetoric is exactly what puts people off Labour. How dare the LibDems campaign for power, to implement their own views, in a democracy.

Also, using Grenfell as a reason to bash the Liberals excercising their democratic right is shameful.

She’s Momentum, this is what they are...


Click to expand...


What really annoys me about that is that labour did the exact same in other constituencies but they won't even mention that, let alone consider it forgiveable or not ...The entire tactical voting premise intent from them was a complete con (unlike the greens and lib dems who tried to do it properly), all they really meant was "vote for us so we can get in"

They gave anyone thinking about tactically voting no real reason to. To take myself as an example, brexit aside, I thought the lib dem manifesto was spot on and I've been a lib dem voter all of my life previous to this election. Had I voted for labour to tactically keep the tories out, then my actual opinion is completely lost. I'm not lending them my vote by doing it, I'm essentially giving full approval of their manifesto.

If they wanted me to do that, then there has to be a much better offer and an acknowledgment of my true opinion. Had they suggested they'd back proportional representation as an example, that might have been enough to make me consider it.

There was nothing though. To all intensive purposes, they were asking me to vote for something I didn't want and then they'd have treated me as just another voter that supported them all along. They can cock off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top