• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Par Score

Member
David Miliband, the Great White Hope of the Blairites, showing he's still got his finger on the pulse by backing Liz Kendall.

It's just so beautiful.
 
David Miliband, the Great White Hope of the Blairites, showing he's still got his finger on the pulse by backing Liz Kendall.

It's just so beautiful.

tbf though...

CMhKldEWoAAG2fC.jpg:large


Edit: Oh, the source for that - which is here - is also the source of my earlier post about everything being worse under Corbyn (or so people think):

t2.jpg


Except trains.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
That's a stupid thing to use as evidence. It doesn't say "Would this person make *you* more or less likely to vote Labour?" (which itself has problems), but instead effectively "Do you think this person will make *other people* more or less likely to vote Labour?". In cases where the media is severely out of touch with the public, there's actually likely to be a pretty big gap between those two, as the majority of people might really like a candidate that the mainstream media pillories and therefore they assume that nobody else likes.

In other words, all that picture tells us is that the media like David Miliband, not actually that *people* like David Miliband.
 
That's a stupid thing to use as evidence. It doesn't say "Would this person make *you* more or less likely to vote Labour?" (which itself has problems), but instead effectively "Do you think this person will make *other people* more or less likely to vote Labour?". In cases where the media is severely out of touch with the public, there's actually likely to be a pretty big gap between those two, as the majority of people might really like a candidate that the mainstream media pillories and therefore they assume that nobody else likes.

In other words, all that picture tells us is that the media like David Miliband, not actually that *people* like David Miliband.

Sure, and in that sense it's like that NATO poll thing a while back which was actually about whether you think the US would come riding in on a white horse, not whether you want them to. But - aside from the other poll questions which are more useful - there's also some utility to it because I don't think the question of "do you think we're like to actually win?" is an irrelevant one from a party mangement POV. A general concensus that the boss isn't up to the job is pretty damning.
 

danwarb

Member
At the moment we have both main parties wanting to further facilitate the exploitation of people and resources by established multinational corporate interests, and calling that progress. We need to shift the political debate and Corbyn will do that.

I also hope B. Sanders does well in the US presidential primary.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Sure, and in that sense it's like that NATO poll thing a while back which was actually about whether you think the US would come riding in on a white horse, not whether you want them to. But - aside from the other poll questions which are more useful - there's also some utility to it because I don't think the question of "do you think we're like to actually win?" is an irrelevant one from a party mangement POV. A general concensus that the boss isn't up to the job is pretty damning.

I mean, sure, but it feels like you're shifting the goalposts now. You were responding to someone mocking David Miliband for being out of touch by proposing Liz Kendall, the implication being that Liz Kendall won't do anything for Labour electorally, and your response was to say "well, Corbyn's not electable either" - only your data wasn't actually sufficient to prove that. It's probably true that it indicates he will have a hard time managing the party - but that's more or less obvious to anyone with common sense, and it's also fairly ludicrous, in the context of David Miliband's "in-touch-ness", to argue that Kendall could manage the party either given she's apparently on about 7-8% first preferences to Corbyn's 57-58%.
 

Par Score

Member
Also, I wasn't suggesting anything about Liz Kendal's wider electability, merely her chances in this contest.

Backing Kendal for Labour leader at this point has about as much point as backing David Miliband, never mind wondering which of them would have the better chance at a GE.
 
I mean, sure, but it feels like you're shifting the goalposts now. You were responding to someone mocking David Miliband for being out of touch by proposing Liz Kendall, the implication being that Liz Kendall won't do anything for Labour electorally, and your response was to say "well, Corbyn's not electable either" - only your data wasn't actually sufficient to prove that. It's probably true that it indicates he will have a hard time managing the party - but that's more or less obvious to anyone with common sense, and it's also fairly ludicrous, in the context of David Miliband's "in-touch-ness", to argue that Kendall could manage the party either given she's apparently on about 7-8% first preferences to Corbyn's 57-58%.

I know, I was just making a joke really about how in spite of it all, people still see him as Labours best hope.
 

danwarb

Member
Corbyn is the only one of the bunch to agree with most prominent economists that austerity was harmful, counterproductive. His economic policies aren't being dismissed by economists either.

You wonder what the hysterics are really informed by.
 
Corbyn is the only one of the bunch to agree with most prominent economists that austerity was harmful, counterproductive. His economic policies aren't being dismissed by economists either.

You wonder what the hysterics are really informed by.

have you seen his fucking beard?
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Bookies paying out on Corbyn victory. Sources close to Burnham and Cooper say they're both resigned to defeat.
 
He'll move the debate left in the sense that the political axis is actually a sphere, yes. He'll basically be terrible for the party and for the country and as a (quite sexy) young man for whom the Tories are a natural home but with whom I disagree on some things, the idea of an opposition that's not going to be able to actually tie it's own shoe laces is less appealing (to me) than you might think it is.
 
He'll move the debate left in the sense that the political axis is actually a sphere, yes. He'll basically be terrible for the party and for the country and as a (quite sexy) young man for whom the Tories are a natural home but with whom I disagree on some things, the idea of an opposition that's not going to be able to actually tie it's own shoe laces is less appealing (to me) than you might think it is.

The way I see there might actually be an opposition, not just a typical Jack Johnson and John Jackson scenario.
 
The way I see there might actually be an opposition, not just a typical Jack Johnson and John Jackson scenario.

Jack.Johnson.jpg


Hmm, I don't think there will. The reason you end up with Jack Johnson and John Jackson is because that's where the center ground is - that's where the votes are (and that's how you a) win elections and b) get a mandate to actually govern - some Corbyn will fail to get, naturally). People decry how similar politicians are whilst refusing to acknowledge that it's like that because that's how people vote - that "the center" is where it is due to a sort of cultural and political dialectical process that has lead us to where we are now. With Corbyn, though, he had a guy that'll struggle to produce a proper shadow cabinet and will have a backbench that makes the Tories look well behaved. With a 12 seat majority, the Tories should have to be very careful and somewhat concilatory. With an opposition where there's no compulsion to abide by the whip and various groups bent on skullduggery will try to undermine Corbyn wherever possible, that smal minority suddenly looks a lot bigger...
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
The real reason that you don't want a left-wing opposition is that it makes shifting everything to the right easier in the future as long as the left stays 'centrist' (read: right-wing). Let's be real.
 
The real reason that you don't want a left-wing opposition is that it makes shifting everything to the right easier in the future as long as the left stays 'centrist' (read: right-wing). Let's be real.

Are you kidding? You think Corbyn's either a) atrocious leadership followed by either fraticide or suicide or b) atrocious leadership followed by electoral barracking will somehow shift the center to the left?! Yeah, just like Michael Foot did.
 
You'll forgive us for not taking our political advice from a member who repeatedly told everyone about how he was wanking as the election results came in.
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
Are you kidding? You think Corbyn's either a) atrocious leadership followed by either fraticide or suicide or b) atrocious leadership followed by electoral barracking will somehow shift the center to the left?! Yeah, just like Michael Foot did.
No, I don't think Corbyn will have much of a chance. It's already difficult for the opposition to shift things and the Tories will make short work of making sure he has no media control. But at the moment the centre isn't centrist, it's hugely right-wing (e.g. believing that the deficit is economically important rather than merely epiphenomal). The longer the Labour Party fight over the centre the easier it is for the Tories to push that steadily further right.
 
You'll forgive us for not taking our political advice from a member who repeatedly told everyone about how he was wanking as the election results came in.

Who am I giving advice to?

Anyway, you're free to disregard any analysis for any reason you want, though personally I find the analyser's personal approach to high-stakes wanking to be rather a silly one. You should disregard it because I'm a silly stupid head. Come on man, that was a fun thread.

No, I don't think Corbyn will have much of a chance. It's already difficult for the opposition to shift things and the Tories will make short work of making sure he has no media control. But at the moment the centre isn't centrist, it's hugely right-wing (e.g. believing that the deficit is economically important rather than merely epiphenomal). The longer the Labour Party fight over the centre the easier it is for the Tories to push that steadily further right.

I don't really understand how you're defining "the centre" though? There's no universal centre, even within a single country. What's centrist in Norway isn't centrist in the US, and what's centrist in 2015 isn't the same as what was centrist in 1984, 1973 or 1948. Neither politicians nor poli-sci philosophers decide where the centre is, the electorate does. When they voted in Blair, that's basically where the centre was, so overwhelming was his victory. In closer elections, the centre can be said to be somewhere more equally distant between the two major parties between which the election was fought. You can just point to somewhere and declare that the centre.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Are you kidding? You think Corbyn's either a) atrocious leadership followed by either fraticide or suicide or b) atrocious leadership followed by electoral barracking will somehow shift the center to the left?! Yeah, just like Michael Foot did.

Yeah, this is what I think. Corbyn will get rolled and the left will be put back a decade.

I think Cyclops's argument is fairly reductive. There is a political centre, but it isn't set in stone and obviously politicians can shift the political centre, something that e.g. Thatcher did very well and e.g. Miliband did rather poorly. Labour can try to capture the existing political centre again and again and again, but if the Conservatives keeping shifting the centre somewhat every time, then the fact Labour is winning is somewhat pointless because in the long-run (not in the short-run, which is important) but in the long-run, they end up being more conservative than the Conservatives were in past generations. So, sure, there needs to be an attempt to shift the political centre rather than always and only chase it. However, you need to know your limits. Corbyn is big distance from the political centre. Even if he succeeded in moving it a lot, he probably won't win. In addition, because he is likely to lose quite badly or even just not make the general at all after a revolt of some sort, the left will be discredited - which pushes the political centre right again (this is what happened in the Kinnock -> Smith -> Blair transition).

I'm a bit resigned to the future of the Labour Party now. Instead of electing a Labour centrist like Burnham, the party aren't going to take any risks next time around and someone like Chuka on the right of the party will be elected, and everything godelsmetric is worrying about will happen because the left couldn't accept that you can be leftwing without having to be Full Corbyn.
 

War Peaceman

You're a big guy.
An opposition that is actually opposed to what the government is doing will make a nice change!

I'm not big on Corbyn, his foreign policy is... disagreeable. However, if candidates can't sell themselves to their own party they have no chance with the general populace. His internal opposition (and I include Proxies like Blair/Mandelson) have shown a repeated lack of skill in how to combat him. Left wing ideas are popular and increasingly so, Labour need to be a cohesive platform and have a charismatic or at least trustworthy leader. I don't Corbyn will bring the former but may do the latter.

But we all know Labour is in a holding pattern for now.
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
The fundamental issue for me is that I don't have any trust whatsoever in the Labour party to shift things leftwards even if they got someone more 'moderate' (rofl) than Corbyn. This is why I said before; it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
godelsmetric (and actually anyone in this thread), you should trying reading Owen Jones' The Establishment. I know he's a bit of a wonk, but this reads more like a piece of long-form journalism than an argument, and it's a really interesting history of why the political centre has moved in the way it has over the past thirty years. I think particularly the parts on outriders and the media are something that the left could learn from.
 

Mindwipe

Member
He'll move the debate left in the sense that the political axis is actually a sphere, yes. He'll basically be terrible for the party and for the country and as a (quite sexy) young man for whom the Tories are a natural home but with whom I disagree on some things, the idea of an opposition that's not going to be able to actually tie it's own shoe laces is less appealing (to me) than you might think it is.

I'm not at all convinced it'll be a less effective opposition than the Labour party has been for the last five years, in truth.

I'm also not at all sure the Tories care about being consolatory with Labour, even with a fairly small majority, except on issues like their attacks on civil liberties, which the non-Corbyn candidates would vote with the Tories on, making them no opposition whatsoever.
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
godelsmetric (and actually anyone in this thread), you should trying reading Owen Jones' The Establishment. I know he's a bit of a wonk, but this reads more like a piece of long-form journalism than an argument, and it's a really interesting history of why the political centre has moved in the way it has over the past thirty years. I think particularly the parts on outriders and the media are something that the left could learn from.

Sure. Bought on Amazon right now in fact.
 
I'm not at all convinced it'll be a less effective opposition than the Labour party has been for the last five years, in truth.

Ed got some stuff done. To his shame, he stopped any action in Syria, for example. And it's hard to learn too many lessons about opposition from the last five years because of the uncharacteristic nature of the government - ie a coalition. I feel that the Lib Dems "diluting" the Tories sort of made some of the more overt aspects of opposition less necessary leaving just the margins to scrap over. Furthermore, the coalition was a symbiotic sort of relationship which encouraged good behaviour, limiting the number of rebellions - if a group of backbenchers voted down their leadership, they weren't simply humiliating the PM, they could potentially ruin the coalition and with it their position in government.

I'm also not at all sure the Tories care about being consolatory with Labour, even with a fairly small majority, except on issues like their attacks on civil liberties, which the non-Corbyn candidates would vote with the Tories on, making them no opposition whatsoever.

I think they have to be, to an extent. I mean, they don't "care about it" but every government has to be mindful of its majority and the smaller the majority, the more mindful it needs to be! It's not really a choice unless they want to legislate exclusively on very safe issues, which I think they'll run out of pretty quick (they even bailed on fox hunting!)
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
I don't really understand how you're defining "the centre" though? There's no universal centre, even within a single country. What's centrist in Norway isn't centrist in the US, and what's centrist in 2015 isn't the same as what was centrist in 1984, 1973 or 1948. Neither politicians nor poli-sci philosophers decide where the centre is, the electorate does. When they voted in Blair, that's basically where the centre was, so overwhelming was his victory. In closer elections, the centre can be said to be somewhere more equally distant between the two major parties between which the election was fought. You can just point to somewhere and declare that the centre.

I'm defining it exactly the same way that you are. My point is just that our 'relative centre' in the UK is, by an reasonable standards, very right-wing.
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
Not entirely. The people gets what the people thinks they want. The only reason the British public thinks that deficit reduction is an important economic consideration is because they're told it by politicians. If the standard of political discourse in this country were any higher, the people would know that it's a side concern at best, and in general is just a way for the Tories to subject the country to a bunch of welfare cuts that people probably wouldn't want if they knew they were totally unnecessary.
 
Not entirely. The people gets what the people thinks they want. The only reason the British public thinks that deficit reduction is an important economic consideration is because they're told it by politicians. If the standard of political discourse in this country were any higher, the people would know that it's a side concern at best, and in general is just a way for the Tories to subject the country to a bunch of welfare cuts that people probably wouldn't want if they knew they were totally unnecessary.

Well maybe but the people have just been living it for 5 years and the boys in blue got re-elected with a higher vote share. It might have something to do with our growth in both GDP and jobs which is markedly higher than most of our European neighbours and the fact that despite the cuts, things aren't all falling down, headway on a lot of areas of public sector reform and a general display of competancy (the cabinet, for example, was remarkably stable for the duration of the last parliament). If the only reason the right constantly wins is because of a massive media conspiracy, it must help that people seem to like what they're seeing.
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
Well maybe but the people have just been living it for 5 years and the boys in blue got re-elected with a higher vote share. It might have something to do with our growth in both GDP and jobs which is markedly higher than most of our European neighbours and the fact that despite the cuts, things aren't all falling down, headway on a lot of areas of public sector reform and a general display of competancy (the cabinet, for example, was remarkably stable for the duration of the last parliament). If the only reason the right constantly wins is because of a massive media conspiracy, it must help that people seem to like what they're seeing.

The recovery was in spite of cuts, not because of them. You know that.
 
The recovery was in spite of cuts, not because of them. You know that.

Well the cuts started before the Tories got into power, and the employment rise started around then and hasn't really stopped. I think it's about a lot more than GDP, though, no? I mean there's virtue to having less people paid by the state and more people paid privately, there's virtue to market support leading to lower bond yields, there's virtue to "streamlining" shitty, illogical benefits etc. There has been, especially during the height of the New Labour years, the idea that government departments and local government is basically chock full of people that basically don't do anything, a reputation that's half fueled by tabloid buffoonery and half fueled by the personal experiences of basically anyone that has to deal with them. The idea that they could do with having their fat trimmed has largely been bourne out by the scale of the cuts vs the scale of the output (which rather suggests that losing a chunk of budget doesn't have a proportional impact on the output of a department). This doesn't directly have anything to do with GDP or anything, but I think a lot of people feel like it was wasted money. The fact we have pretty good growth and great employment figures is also a benefit, naturally, but there's more to the "cuts" agenda than it intending to be an stimulatory thing (which is bullshit - the argument in favour of the cuts isn't about that, imo).
 
I am still enjoying the fireworks.

Liverpool's mayor/Sontaaran Joe Anderson came out strongly against Corbyn a couple of days ago on the Huffington Post. Thus we have the bizarre reality of a Liverpool Labour party being deeply in a huff because their soon-to-be-leader is too far to the Left.

The incoming implosion is going to be absolutely wonderful.
 

8bit

Knows the Score
I think it's less about Corbyn and more about his team in shadows though, Corbyn doesn't have long in the role but if there's a leftwards shift in the party core there might be some other younger voices ready to step up.

Anyone's got to be better than the three folk who would struggle between them to win the monthly 2nd best teller in a regional bank competition.
 
Anyone's got to be better than the three folk who would struggle between them to win the monthly 2nd best teller in a regional bank competition.

Whilst they're not very good, it's fallicious to think that there are no worse things than "boring" when it comes to a politician.
 
I've been trying to take more interest in politics after the wonderful Election thread you guys made, and took the time to explain things to me. However, this whole labor thing seems nuts and sort of makes me think that UK Parties right now are at an all time low in terms of 'Who they are'.

Thankfully it does seem like UKIP have faded from public view.
 

War Peaceman

You're a big guy.
I don't know why it seems nuts? A party that has over 20-25 years drifted far from its social democratic foundation is struggling to reconcile between a faction that likes how it is and a faction that prefers how it was (in very basic terms). It seems healthy and natural that a party does soul searching when it loses.

As for Corbyn... I like him domestically but not on foreign policy.

The problem with calling him unelectable is that it is a strawman. Nobody expects the next leader to win the next election, if even reach that far in the distance. Ergo, electability is not a priority. What Labour needs to do is overhaul its party political structure (they were humiliated by the Tory election team), rejuvenate its popular support (there are a lot of potential voters, moreso than Tories IMO) and most of all regain the trust of the public.

Regaining trust will take time and there is no short term answer. You might say electing someone who wants to renationalise the railways is a bad idea because it is out of touch (actually it is a popular idea, but that's not the point). But I don't think that is the case. Trust isn't about the ideas (within reason) but about the personality, the sincerity. The slick politician of the late 90s is no longer appealing. That bridge has been burnt for now. Character and experience is more valuable. The non-Corbyn candidates are as bland and unappealing as can possibly be imagined. I mean, Cooper campaigned without making any claims. Fuck her. That is not how you do it. Kendall has a bit of a spark. I don't agree wit her general leaning but she's the second best option IMO. Of course if Corbyn is backstabbed then all the trust will evaporate anyway...

However, because we all know this is a short term option the best option is to rejuvenate the party. That will not happen through New Labourites. They may appeal to Conservative/leaning people but the Tories currently have them sewn up. Best to gather up the more sympathetic, social-liberal types and then when Dan Jarvis emerges from the wreckage of 2020 you have a firm party base from which to expand.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I don't see how Corbyn meaningfully helps to overhaul the party or regain the trust of the party. Enthuse *potential* voters, I give you... but your implication is that after Corbyn is done and has lost his election, we can move to some new, presumably somewhat less leftwing figures - and I don't see much of the Corbyn support being retauned when that happens.
 
I don't know why it seems nuts? A party that has over 20-25 years drifted far from its social democratic foundation is struggling to reconcile between a faction that likes how it is and a faction that prefers how it was (in very basic terms). It seems healthy and natural that a party does soul searching when it loses.

I guess that makes sense.
 

Mindwipe

Member
I don't see how Corbyn meaningfully helps to overhaul the party or regain the trust of the party. Enthuse *potential* voters, I give you... but your implication is that after Corbyn is done and has lost his election, we can move to some new, presumably somewhat less leftwing figures - and I don't see much of the Corbyn support being retauned when that happens.

I don't think leftwing or rightwing matter that much - but I think the party had an established elite who literally didn't give a shit about the membership, and are seen as part of the establishment and part of the previous failed government by most of the electorate.

The assumption is a Corbyn victory will clear them out, which is why they are so nervous about his appointment.

At that point, new people will come in who may be more right wing, but most importantly, will be new, so they won't feel safe and they won't be tainted by Iraq et al.

I think "I'm not the jackass who lead you before and I always hated him" is literally the best thing you can say in an election. Labour's problem is that Corbyn is the only candidate who can say that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom