True, I'm just not convinced Liz Kendall is the best one to lead the party.
That said I'm not who is.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF |OT2| - We Blue Ourselves
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
That said I'm not who is.
CyclopsRock
Member
If there's anything the last election proved it's that it comes down to trust of politicians rather than policy, and the Conservatives are undeniably winning on that front.
Blair, Brown, and anyone attached to them are inextricably linked to the credit crunch, however much I want to scream from the rooftops that Osborne would have done the same if not worse. Conversely, we have an entirely new generation coming in who don't understand the bad things that Thatcher supposedly did to the country and therefore feel no ideological opposition to the Conservatives.
Labour need to gut the party of anyone linked to Blair and Brown, they need to lead the charge to bring left-wing politics away from the image of the Tube strike and the anti-austerity protests (and the whole nonsense after Thatcher's death) and back towards what it was meant to be about, because if they just represent "the Conservatives but a bit nicer" they will lose. Everyone will just vote Conservative.
CyclopsRock
Member
Well... do we? I mean, the "young" was the only demographic in which Labour got more votes than the Tories. In fact, all the demographics that were alive during Thatcher's time in power voted Tory (except one where it was a tie - I forget which). Furthermore, I think most people with a not-personally-experienced-but-interested view of history see the 70's as an era of depressing shit and the 90's as totally baller, don't they? It's very, very hard to look at the evidence and come to the conclusion that everything in the 70's was great and then Thatcher came along and fucked everything up. I mean, bodies went unburied and we had rolling blackouts. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy depicts 1970's London as a depression crap hole for a reason! Compare that to Trainspotting! Hmm, lovely!
Maybe baby, but the question keeps getting asked - in an era where there's no real desire for mass-nationalisation and there's not loads of money to splash about (as there was in the 90s), what is the left "meant to be about"? Because personally, I have no idea. Large infrastructural projects as Keynsian stimulants and increases in welfare?
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
...who's arguing to nationalise the goddamned phone companies?
Now if you said maybe the railways or energy companies, you may have a point OH WAIT NO HANG ON
Well that's my point, the big victory of Thatcher was dismantling the unions in the court of public opinion, just as the biggest victory of the current government has been convincing everyone that austerity was a success.
Nationalisation of things like the railways and energy companies are one of the few things the country is in favour of, surprisingly. So argue that, instead of taking the inherently negative 'anti-austerity' position; even if I agree with it ideologically it's not going to work electorally.
Nicktendo86
Member
Around 50 labour MPs rebelled.
The party is becoming unleadable, whoever wins the leadership is going to have a massive job of bringing the factions together. I can seriously see a split coming.
The party is becoming unleadable, whoever wins the leadership is going to have a massive job of bringing the factions together. I can seriously see a split coming.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
It is easy to say that because it is fucking true.
Major in 1992 ran a great campaign and he is underrated as a political leader but the government he presided over just collapsed into scandal, hypocrisy and incompetence. The Tories were unelectable by 1997. The level of humiliation would have been different without Blair but it is ludicrous to suggest anything but a Labour victory.
Also your characterisation of the alternative to the Blairite wing is a complete strawman.
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
Full list of the rebels. Only Corbyn out of the leadership candidates.
If he doesn't win then what the fuck is the point of the Labour party?
The thing is, back then Labour still had the a lot more of the left backing it, because who else would they vote for? The further right they go, the more of them they're going to lose, and why would someone on the right vote Labour over Tory?
But people do support publicly-owned services. It's clear to pretty much everyone that privatisation has been a monumental failure even on its own terms.
How can choose to reject these things if they're never offered them, even by the one party that should hypothetically be making the case for them?
CyclopsRock
Member
But again, that's all easy to say because he won. If he hadn't, if he'd lost like he was widely expected to at the time, no one would be saying the stuff you just said. People would be saying "Of course Kinnock won, how could he not after 13 years of Thatcherism" etc, even if he'd run the exact same campaign but people felt differently. The thing is, they didn't feel differently - they didn't want Kinnock.
As for the Alternative to Blair, I'm still not sure what it is.
It's clearly not an issue anyone gives a shit about, though. If it were, you don't think ol' Ed "Price Ceiling" Miliband would have offered it? He flirted with saying he'd renationalise the railway, yet never properly came out for it - why not? This was Ed "Rent Control, Reckoning with the Banks, Predatory Capitalism" Miliband. I just don't buy it. You ask people who's bill's just gone up or their train's late again if they'd rather some other fucker owned it and they're gonna say yes. But if this were an actual vote winner, Ed would have jumped on quicker than Charlie Gilmour on the Cenotaph. I just think it's so riotously far down the list of things people think about when they go into the voting booth that it's just implausible to build a new party vanguard around it.
Okay, so being left-wing isn't a vote-winner. That's why a left-wing party stormed Scotland. That's why the Greens, a left-wing party, quadrupled their vote since 2005. That's why the Labour party, who refused to espouse any kind of thoroughgoing, principled social democratic platform saw an embarrassing election defeat when their voter base decided not to vote for them, letting the thoroughgoing right-wing party storm to power with...36% of the vote. Clearly, there's a huge appetite for the Tories in the UK right now.
Let's be clear here. Right-wing neoliberal policies have been a failure, and the population knows it. Labour didn't offer a convincing alternative, and that's why they lost, nothing to do with there being no appetite for an alternative, if that alternative can be convincingly and passionately articulated.
It's clear why the right wing wants Labour to drift further to the right. It makes their more insane and damaging policies seem more sensible and centrist. But for the vast majority of people in the UK, the political spectrum drifting even further to the right would be a fucking disaster.
Nicktendo86
Member
David Lammy made a complete fool of himself last night, tweeting his mum relied on child tax credits when he was growing up. He is either confused or shopping his mum in for claiming benefits for a 31 year old 'child' lol
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
Something that I rarely see being brought up in the arguments about benefits, or just generally about the poorest: if the poorest people have more money, it helps everyone. Whenever government spending is discussed, it's talked about as if it goes to someone and then disappears when they spend it. It gets ignored that it goes to someone else, who also spends it, which means someone else gets it, who then spends that themselves, all the while slowly being chipped away by taxes, and going back to the government. It's a cycle. If you cut spending, you're cutting the inflow of money into the economy. If you're planning to run a surplus, it means you're actively taking money out of the economy.
Benefits are good because they stop people going homeless and hungry, which is just geeeenerally an agreed upon Good Thing, but they also help as something to keep a continuous flow of money going.
Benefits are good because they stop people going homeless and hungry, which is just geeeenerally an agreed upon Good Thing, but they also help as something to keep a continuous flow of money going.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Just because I'm an economics graduate, I have to point out that increased consumption is not necessarily good. Increased consumption naturally implies reduced savings, which means less investment; less investment means you begin to trade off extra consumption in the future for more consumption now. If present consumption becomes too high, you actually reduce future consumption below present levels altogether as capital depreciates faster than investment replaces it [if you're interested, look up Solow or Swan's work on economic growth and the Golden Savings rule]. Given current investment rates are at record lows, and the UK economy is in a relatively good position, this actually seems like a good time to take pro-savings policies (presumably why the BoE are looking to increase the interest rate).
Obviously this is not an argument against making sure the poorest are adequately provided for - they should be for a myriad other reasons. It's just saying that increased national consumption isn't the best argument right now (whereas it was in, e.g., 2008-2012ish). If anything, part of our provisions for the poorest should be making sure they can make adequate savings - pension provision being the most important example.
Obviously this is not an argument against making sure the poorest are adequately provided for - they should be for a myriad other reasons. It's just saying that increased national consumption isn't the best argument right now (whereas it was in, e.g., 2008-2012ish). If anything, part of our provisions for the poorest should be making sure they can make adequate savings - pension provision being the most important example.
CyclopsRock
Member
Oh come on. Scotland voted en masse for Labour at every election since half way through Thatcher's time, and you think that a thirty six percent swing in one election is because they're left wing? I don't doubt that Scotland is slightly (and I mean slightly) more to the left than the rest of the UK, but they could have voted for the SNP before, too. And some of them did, but 36% of the electorate changed in 2015 despite Ed being the most left wing candidate they've had since Kinnock. All that shows is that being left wing is not necessarily an impediment; but to win you need something more than "not being an impediment", and the SNP had that in Scottish Nationalism.
As for the rest, well, I just don't think the data backs up your argument. The idea that people want a left wing alternative and yet voted for the Tories because Ed wasn't the correct flavour of left seems utterly bizarre. If Cameron's Tories - who you do seem to think are basically neo Nazis - were a more appealing prospect to people than Ed's Labour, how do you come to the conclusion that everyone thinks "neo-Liberal" (what does that even mean?) have been a failure? They're crying out for change so much that they vote for the Conservative party? Come on, man.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Also, the SNP are just less left-wing than Labour are; at least in terms of policy positions. This is a party which created of a single national police force, with the regular use of armed response units, and put in place a stop and search rate over four times higher than the rest of the United Kingdom, with plans to create an integrated ID database. Even a heyday Blair didn't go that far (admittedly not for lack of effort). This is the party that sucked up to Donald Trump, Brian Souter, and was completely on board with the BSkyB deal because of Murdoch's long-running relationship with Salmond; the party that wanted to lower corporation tax so that businesses in the north of England, a poorer area than Scotland, would relocate to Edinburgh (hardly we're all in it together). They cut welfare and educational provision for the poorest while in office. Salmond floated the idea of a benefits cap himself, so they're not even different from Harriet Harman in that respect.
The SNP are, policy-wise, almost identical to New Labour and possibly even a smidge more right-wing. Their sole defining "left" policy achievements are retaining tuition fees, a system which redistributes money from those who don't go to university (and thus are likely to be poorer) to those who do go to university (and thus are likely to be richer), and the abolition of NHS prescriptions. England doesn't actually have NHS prescriptions for the poorest anyway because of the Low Income Scheme provisions (although it's inadequate and needs adjustment), so this is another "free stuff for the middle classes" policy, not an actual attempt to improve the plight of the poor.
Labour lost in Scotland because they were seen as incompetent and uninspiring, and because the SNP are damn good at what they do. Salmond and Sturgeon are both incredibly effective politicians and know exactly what to do to sell a story. It also helps that they're supported the entire way by Murdoch's empire and various other business papers that support their economic slant comparative to Labour. They're just a different flavour of Blair and Mandelson and the era when Labour had the support of the press, rather than the Miliband era where he was vilified. Ed Miliband was the most leftwing leader Labour has had since Foot - you have to remember Kinnock was the man behind the original prawn cocktail offensive and did a great deal of work in establishing the basis of Blair's later successes. If your thesis that people are gagging for a leftwing party is correct, you should have seen the Green vote diminish as people move towards Labour to reinforce their leftward policy shift; same with the SNP. Instead, they both rebounded.
The reason for that is Labour needs a leader that can sell ideas, and an implicit part of being able to sell ideas is having the support of the largely Conservative and pro-business media in this country. I think you're right that people are largely misinformed and want policies that don't even help them, let alone the country as a whole. I think you're also right that the Conservatives are doing a great deal of harm to fundamentally important things like social mobility and provision for the most vulnerable. I also think that Labour needs to accept that the only way it can do something about those is by changing the terms of the debate, something only possible from a position of power rather than outside it. Win an election, reform the electoral system and then you can change something.
I don't think Kendall is the answer; she's about as inspiring as a wet flannel, and I think Cyclops is absolutely wrong when he says policy position alone determines elections and therefore Kendall will do well. Policy position doesn't determine it, leader charisma in selling policies combined with a platform for that leader to sell from does and while Kendall might get given the second she couldn't do the first if her life depended on it, so the net result would just be what remains of the Labour Party collapsing in a demoralized heap. I do think, however, that it's important to bear in mind, in the long-term, what the Labour Party actually does require. 2020 is de facto lost already, so what we need to do is build the Jarviswagon now. The most important part of building the Jarviswagon is making sure the Labour Party doesn't implode altogether, which is what it is at grave, grave risk of doing even according to people inside the party right now. Corbyn has been a backbencher his entire life and his parliamentary cohort consists of about 10 MPs. Who is he supposed to form a cabinet from? The party would not last a week beyond his election, you'd see something like the SDP break-off of the '80s, it'd be disastrous.
Vote Burnham or Cooper, suck it up, and begin to make long-term plans.
The SNP are, policy-wise, almost identical to New Labour and possibly even a smidge more right-wing. Their sole defining "left" policy achievements are retaining tuition fees, a system which redistributes money from those who don't go to university (and thus are likely to be poorer) to those who do go to university (and thus are likely to be richer), and the abolition of NHS prescriptions. England doesn't actually have NHS prescriptions for the poorest anyway because of the Low Income Scheme provisions (although it's inadequate and needs adjustment), so this is another "free stuff for the middle classes" policy, not an actual attempt to improve the plight of the poor.
Labour lost in Scotland because they were seen as incompetent and uninspiring, and because the SNP are damn good at what they do. Salmond and Sturgeon are both incredibly effective politicians and know exactly what to do to sell a story. It also helps that they're supported the entire way by Murdoch's empire and various other business papers that support their economic slant comparative to Labour. They're just a different flavour of Blair and Mandelson and the era when Labour had the support of the press, rather than the Miliband era where he was vilified. Ed Miliband was the most leftwing leader Labour has had since Foot - you have to remember Kinnock was the man behind the original prawn cocktail offensive and did a great deal of work in establishing the basis of Blair's later successes. If your thesis that people are gagging for a leftwing party is correct, you should have seen the Green vote diminish as people move towards Labour to reinforce their leftward policy shift; same with the SNP. Instead, they both rebounded.
The reason for that is Labour needs a leader that can sell ideas, and an implicit part of being able to sell ideas is having the support of the largely Conservative and pro-business media in this country. I think you're right that people are largely misinformed and want policies that don't even help them, let alone the country as a whole. I think you're also right that the Conservatives are doing a great deal of harm to fundamentally important things like social mobility and provision for the most vulnerable. I also think that Labour needs to accept that the only way it can do something about those is by changing the terms of the debate, something only possible from a position of power rather than outside it. Win an election, reform the electoral system and then you can change something.
I don't think Kendall is the answer; she's about as inspiring as a wet flannel, and I think Cyclops is absolutely wrong when he says policy position alone determines elections and therefore Kendall will do well. Policy position doesn't determine it, leader charisma in selling policies combined with a platform for that leader to sell from does and while Kendall might get given the second she couldn't do the first if her life depended on it, so the net result would just be what remains of the Labour Party collapsing in a demoralized heap. I do think, however, that it's important to bear in mind, in the long-term, what the Labour Party actually does require. 2020 is de facto lost already, so what we need to do is build the Jarviswagon now. The most important part of building the Jarviswagon is making sure the Labour Party doesn't implode altogether, which is what it is at grave, grave risk of doing even according to people inside the party right now. Corbyn has been a backbencher his entire life and his parliamentary cohort consists of about 10 MPs. Who is he supposed to form a cabinet from? The party would not last a week beyond his election, you'd see something like the SDP break-off of the '80s, it'd be disastrous.
Vote Burnham or Cooper, suck it up, and begin to make long-term plans.
QuicheFontaine
Member
And have to buy a load of new ties, stationery, etc.? Come on.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Honestly, I think Burnham probably has the most sensible stance on this particular issue. As a leadership candidate, you simply can't encourage the notion that it is acceptable for almost a quarter of your party to revolt over an issue where there's no practical difference in terms of policy outcome between abstention and voting no anyway. How do you even lead a party that's willing to do that? Harriet Harman made a bloody awful decision, but right now the party is immensely close to falling apart. Saying "for lack of better alternatives, I'll go along with you, but if I was leader here is what I'd do" is better than Cooper's weak acquiescence and Corbyn's one-man-band attempts.
EDIT: honestly though, Harman deserves absolutely all of the blame for this. She's an interim deputy leader, her job is simply to maintain the status quo until the next leader determines the future, not to make gung-ho attempts to change things herself.
EDIT: honestly though, Harman deserves absolutely all of the blame for this. She's an interim deputy leader, her job is simply to maintain the status quo until the next leader determines the future, not to make gung-ho attempts to change things herself.
CyclopsRock
Member
FYI I did actually say I thought Liz would lose the election, but that she'd help get them back into the centre-ground, which is where they need to be to win in 2025. I stand by that - any of the other leaders will also lose, but make 2025 a bigger hill to climb.
Edit: Also, Cooper and Burnham are shadow cabinet. They can't defy their leader - temporary or no - on this issue without resigning, realistically. Collective responsibility and all that. Corbyn has that luxury, and Liz just fucking loves the axe.
Edit: Also, Cooper and Burnham are shadow cabinet. They can't defy their leader - temporary or no - on this issue without resigning, realistically. Collective responsibility and all that. Corbyn has that luxury, and Liz just fucking loves the axe.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Nah, Liz would also destroy the party. There's no way she can carry people with her. Yes, Labour will win by convincing centrist voters on the margins but only insofar as it can continue to carry the current base too. Kendall will not do that in the slightest. I think she'd probably just lead Labour to a Ramsay McDonald style defeat.
CyclopsRock
Member
The good old days.
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
Osborne now decreeing police, councils and transport may face cuts of up to 40%.
Who the fuck voted for these maniacs?! Didn't want to go all the way to 50% eh, Ozzy? Really just fucking slice shit in half, i'm sure it will all work out somehow!
Who the fuck voted for these maniacs?! Didn't want to go all the way to 50% eh, Ozzy? Really just fucking slice shit in half, i'm sure it will all work out somehow!
I didn't say people voted for the Tories because Labour didn't offer an alternative. I said nobody even voted for the Tories, and Labour's support base didn't turn out to vote.
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
Cut your way to success. The method of economic growth proven time and time again by countries such as... Umm... Errr...
What an absolute joke of a government.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It's especially frustrating as tax revenue remains lower than it was for 2007 despite current GDP being higher.
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
But the books! Books balance! Maxed out credit card!
EDIT: What the fuck is this
Seriously what the fuck
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
Who needs a degree or any training in economics when its obviously just like any household budget?
I really do think Cooper's authoritarian tendencies and general incompetence would doom the party completely, not help in the long term.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
That's why I'm voting Burnham. You have a choice of a) destroying the party, b) destroying the party, c) incompetence, d) uninspiring, so I guess d) wins.
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
You really want Scott Tracy leading Labour?
EDIT: Also, it's worth thinking about who they'll actually be up against in 2020. Isn't it more likely to be Boris or Osborne than David Cameron? So buffoon or lizard man who got booed at the Paralympics. I would hope that Labour would be able to form a coherent argument against one of them, but you never know with the morons involved in the party. Maybe the Greens will continue to grow. Like a plant. FUCKING SIMILES AND METAPHORS AND SHIT, INNIT.
I need to go home
Nicktendo86
Member
This labour election is basically them voting for their IDS anyway. Might as well go full batshit insane and go Corbyn.
What makes it especially galling is that Osborne has a degree in economics. He was taught that the economic policies he's pursued since he came into power are failures that don't work, will increase inequality, and result in lower economic growth than the alternative, and yet he's pursuing them anyway. If you needed any more proof of the knowing, callously sociopathic attitude of the Tory cabinet, I don't know what to say.
My mistake. I had thought he was one of the PPE lot. So it's Cameron who knows that their economic policy is dogshit, then.
In contrast to Left wing economics that never fails to bring prosperity to everyone?
I didn't say it's perfect. But the track record of sensible 'Left-wing' economic policies is far more successful than the kind pursued by the post-1970s Tory party, yes. The economy was in far better shape, and for longer, during the post-war 'Keynsian' consensus than it has been since the rise of neoliberalism in the late 1970s, which has seen dramatically spiking inequality, declining growth in living standards for most of the population, and far less economic stability.
Any rational individual can see that the economic policies pursued by the Tories are, generally speaking, not as good as the alternatives.
Yes, everyone but the Tories is right. Silly Tories.
Politics frustrates me. We could do with a conservative mindset of a government in a boom and a more left minded government in a crash, why does it always seem like the opposite happens?
QuicheFontaine
Member
Didn't you vote for Ed Miliband in the last leadership election? Sticking with uninspiring again then?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Didn't you vote for Ed Miliband in the last leadership election? Sticking with uninspiring again then?
He was my second preference, and largely for similar reasons to why I'm picking Burnham (who was my first preference then) now - David was the Blairite candidate and Balls the Brownite and the last thing Labour needed was to rehash the last decade and a half again. I don't regret that choice, I think he did as well as could be expected.
RobotNinjaHornets
Banned
Blah blah blah polls blah blah blah, but
Huh
Huh
Nicktendo86
Member
Amazing. We're literally watching a party explode.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
That was conducted prior to the welfare debacle, too - I should know, I was polled for it. I assume the Corbynmobile has only accelerated since then.
EDIT: it seemed threadworthy
EDIT: it seemed threadworthy
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked