General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Inquitus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Absolutely.

The Blairites refused to accept that the membership had elected Corbyn as leader and set out to remove him. They seem to believe it is their party and the proles in the membership with their £3 should shut up and do as their 'betters' tell them. The arrogance of that is astounding.

The reality is the membership made their choice and it was up to the Blairites to accept and work within that framework or find a home more suited to their politics - like the Lib-Dems.

The Blairites refused to accept the democratic vote of the membership.

Labour's leadership election methodology is poor, the Tory method ensures support of the Parliamentary party before it goes to the membership, Labour's methodology allows pretty much any headbanger to be selected by Momentum.

BadTurtle

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

No ..she was way smarter ...and had proved herself in a job that required skill.

He had never done anything but fringe populism. Student union level stuff really.

Both had same baggage tho....you could argue hers was worse. Only it was her husbands really not hers.

And trump is way worse than boris.

Clinton has just as many skeletons in the closet as Corbyn, not least her duplicitous methods to sabotage her own parties other candidates in order to get on the ticket.
She was an unpopular choice of candidate bit forged ahead and cost the Democrats (and the rest of the world) by giving that moron opposite her the edge he needed to win.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not what I mean. If you lose an election but your policy is copied by someone else and put into law then is that not a victory of sorts?

Indeed, By proxy. However, what Labour policies will this hard right Tory party implement

sid waddell

liamtech wrote: »

I agree with you - would go as far as to say that Corbynism is a counter-revolution to Blairism

But here is the problem, the lines on where to go are no SO BLURRED -

I criticize Corbyn quite a bit but feel i need to qualify my leftie credentials in doing so

In moving forward, and discussing where Labour goes from here, i will feel i will have to qualify everything i say with the caveat - I am NOT a blairist

There has to be something between Corbynism - and Blairism

And by Corbynism i dont mean socialism - i mean a total lack of pragmatism, electioneering, militant enforcement of party lines, and people who dont fully endorse Labour views being labeled Blairites

Clearly the most viable Labour leader in terms of winning elections in England is Andy Burnham.

Despite becoming an MP during the Blair era, I believe his progressive credentials are genuine.

He's urban but northern and has represented Leigh, which is the heartland now gone Tory, he's progressive but can carry the centrists with him.

He has something of Tony Blair about him in terms of his rhetorical gift, in terms of being a retail politician, he's top class.

It would require compromise on all sides, but Burnham as leader, mobilising the mass membership towards a genuine left alternative that can bring the Momentum and centrist wings of the party together is the way forward, but it's likely not going to happen, and definitely not now because Burnham is Mayor of Manchester.

26000 Elephants

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Going back to Blairism would be almost as disastrous as what they've just tried, reverting to 1970's style socialism.

You don't win elections by recreating the past. You win by reinventing yourself.

Cameron didn't regain power by reverting to Thatcherism. Johnson hasn't reinvigorated the Tories by reverting to Cameronism or Thatcherism.

Blairism was the *ultimate* reinvention of a Labour party.

They cannot recycle Blairism but, by golly, they need to re-brand themselves. They've got 5 years to come up with something, but in this age of short cycle lifestyles, its not a big ask. As long as they dont have a latter day Ho Chi Min at the helm they could be back. Especially if the election is about picking up the pieces of a disastrous post-brexit Britain.

joe40

prawnsambo wrote: »

Corbyn was the problem all along. Carried too much baggage and couldn't get away from it. Labour policies were not a major problem, although there was an element of desperation and "whatever you're having yourself" towards the end of the campaign.

Ed Milliband took it on the chin when it went tits up. For every day Corbyn stays on, he's emphasising how bad a choice he was.

Can anyone give me an explanation as to why Corbyn did quite well in 2017, but is now considered toxic. What changed apart from the labour party stance on Brexit.
In terms of policy or personality there hasn't been any significant change, as far as I can see.
Bercow on sky last night was saying this result had nothing to do with Tory policy apart from Brexit. This was not an endorsement of any other issues.
I'm not a Jeremy Corby fan but this election had a one item agenda.

Letwin_Larry

MPFGLB wrote: »

But maybe its the type of immigration

In London there s lots of immigration which is needed in service industry and in high tech

But in N England then maybe its more lower level workers competing for the few jobs ...

Blame and the British press is a big part of the issue

sure shoot the messenger, once you dont like the message.
worked for the Tudors.

Professor Moriarty

sid waddell wrote: »

Were Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband unprincipled because they got 29% and 30% of the vote respectively and "facilitated" hard right governments?

Was centrist Hillary Clinton "unprincipled" because she "facilitated" the far right regime of Donald Trump?

To use your logic, anybody who loses an election is "unprincipled" and a "facilitator" of their opposition.

No that's your logic. Don't put words in my mouth.

Having seen off the hard left in Labour, centrist Blair won three elections in a row. Thus denying the Tories the opportunity to inflict further pain on ordinary people. Having seen off the centrists, Corbyn and his merry men lost two elections in a row and have handed a massive majority to a hard right Tory party. You might think that's okay and nothing to do with Corbyn and chums. I don't.

prawnsambo

sid waddell wrote: »

Clearly the most viable Labour leader in terms of winning elections in England is Andy Burnham.

Despite becoming an MP during the Blair era, I believe his progressive credentials are genuine.

He's urban but northern and has represented Leigh, which is the heartland now gone Tory, he's progressive but can carry the centrists with him.

He has something of Tony Blair about him in terms of his rhetorical gift, in terms of being a retail politician, he's top class.

It would require compromise on all sides, but Burnham as leader, mobilising the mass membership towards a genuine left alternative that can bring the Momentum and centrist wings of the party together is the way forward, but it's likely not going to happen, and definitely not now because Burnham is Mayor of Manchester.

I thought I was pretty clued in about British politics, but I've never heard of Andy Burnham.

Chips Lovell

On the face of it, it ought to be easy for Labour to find someone more electable (after Corbyn the bar is pretty low). But the party has been so transformed at an institutional level it may take years to get that ocean liner to change course.

Having said that, they have a few years to work with because, with a majority of that size, it will take time for the Tory wheels to come off. However, one thing is certain, they definitely will come off. Just as Corbyn put Labour in the wilderness, Johnson too will do the same kind of damage to the Tories.

He has, for now, found a winning formula, but it is so incoherent that eventually it will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. He's now caught between having to do something utterly stupid (hard Brexit) or do something that will alienate the support base he has built (back away from a hard Brexit). He's also promised massive investment in public services to those who feel left behind by the economy, yet is also claiming to be the champion of a small-government capitalism freed from the fetters of Europe.

Professor Moriarty

joe40 wrote: »

Can anyone give me an explanation as to why Corbyn did quite well in 2017, but is now considered toxic. What changed apart from the labour party stance on Brexit.
In terms of policy or personality there hasn't been any significant change, as far as I can see.
Bercow on sky last night was saying this result had nothing to do with Tory policy apart from Brexit. This was not an endorsement of any other issues.
I'm not a Jeremy Corby fan but this election had a one item agenda.

May versus Johnson. Plus a clown show of a Brexit position.

liamtech

sid waddell wrote: »

Clearly the most viable Labour leader in terms of winning elections in England is Andy Burnham.

Despite becoming an MP during the Blair era, I believe his progressive credentials are genuine.

He's urban but northern and has represented Leigh, which is the heartland now gone Tory, he's progressive but can carry the centrists with him.

He has something of Tony Blair about him in terms of his rhetorical gift, in terms of being a retail politician, he's top class.

It would require compromise on all sides, but Burnham as leader, mobilising the mass membership towards a genuine left alternative that can bring the Momentum and centrist wings of the party together is the way forward, but it's likely not going to happen, and definitely not now because Burnham is Mayor of Manchester.

The problem is arguably we should take our time in choosing a new leader - BUT with Corbyn saying he is prepared to remain (pardon the pun) and help transition to a new leader - the opposite is also true - NEW LEADER ASAP

Barry Gardiner perhaps - cabinet experience from within Blairisms period - but also prominent Corbyn friendly MP (at least outwardly)

Keir Starmer - younger and relatively new - first elected 2015 - but outwardly reasonable - He is Corbyn friendly enough to keep them in check - and pragmatic enough to make the needed changes

Hilary Benn - personally have always admired him

prawnsambo

And just to put the nail in the coffin of Corbyn's leadership, here's why people didn't vote Labour.

Dr. Bre

Tory Blair more like..

hotmail.com

MPFGLB wrote: »

I must say I dislike immensely all this defammation of both Corbyn and Swinson characters on here

Saying they are arrogant or dont like the UK is just ridiculous

If anything they were naive and ill informed but both had the best of intentions for there heartland

That some people feel they can deride their characters when Boris Johnson is a know liar and racist is just ridiculous

Vitriol is rotten

Calling someone arrogant isn't defamatory.

Spanish Eyes

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Yeah. And its not us. And the DUP are gone. Look on the bright side.

I see the DUP cannot wait to get the Assembly up and running again now.

It is difficult not be cynical about them. Honestly.... but it's good that it might happen just the same. Every cloud and all that. Hopefully the cash for ash issue will be resolved before anyone agrees to re assemble.

Bannasidhe

Inquitus wrote: »

Labour's leadership election methodology is poor, the Tory method ensures support of the Parliamentary party before it goes to the membership, Labour's methodology allows pretty much any headbanger to be selected by Momentum.

Your bias is showing.

Momentum - no matter how you feel about them - are members of the Labour Party and since 2015 the leader of the the Labour Party is elected by one member one vote of the members and affiliated organisations.
MPs and MEPs have one vote each just like every other member.

As for your headbanger comment - that headbanger would need to get the support of 10% of the MPs to even get their name on the ballot so what is your problem? Are you afraid the MPs will allow pretty much any headbanger?

It's closer to democracy than the Tories carefully selected by the parliamentary party candidates - not to mention their tendency to indulge in a bit of knife of the longs knives when they want rid - even Thatcher was stabbed in the back by her own cabinet in the end...

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed, By proxy. However, what Labour policies will this hard right Tory party implement

I'm speaking more in general terms. Affecting discourse and making ideas/policies popular are what it's about (or at least it's meant to be), whether it's you or someone else who gets to implement them.
In UK terms the leftish vote being split between Labour and the Lib Dems means the Tories won in a landslide. Similar can and does happen elsewhere. A Lab-LD pact could've easily stopped a Tory majority if not given a majority to such a coalition. That's what I mean about people voting for their own interest knowing that the outcome will be worse than if they just voted for someone not-quite their favorite.

prawnsambo

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I see the DUP cannot wait to get the Assembly up and running again now.

It is difficult not be cynical about them. Honestly.... but it's good that it might happen just the same. Every cloud and all that. Hopefully the cash for ash issue will be resolved before anyone agrees to re assemble.

Don't think that should be a reason to stop the assembly sitting again. All parliaments have scandals of some sort or other involving government or opposition parties and they don't close down the whole shooting match to sort it out.

joe40

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

May versus Johnson. Plus a clown show of a Brexit position.

The Brexit position is the only one for me. I can't for a minute believe traditional labour voters would have any faith in either May or Johnson.
This vote was all about Brexit and Labour leavers not agreeing with the labour position.

sid waddell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No that's your logic. Don't put words in my mouth.

Having seen off the hard left in Labour, centrist Blair won three elections in a row. Thus denying the Tories the opportunity to inflict further pain on ordinary people. Having seen off the centrists, Corbyn and his merry men lost two elections in a row and have handed a massive majority to a hard right Tory party. You might think that's okay and nothing to do with Corbyn and chums. I don't.

I didn't put words in your mouth, I followed your logic. You're actually putting words in my mouth there.

Sure you could say the exact same thing about Brown, Miliband and Hillary Clinton. They lost elections. Throw in Neil Kinnock who lost two elections to Thatcher and Major.

How can Corbyn be "unprincipled" and the others not?

I mean it's literally the exact same logic.

They enabled terrible Tory governments and in Clinton's case the nightmare of Donald Trump, by losing.

Chips Lovell

The problem with giving membership such a prominent role in electing a party leader is that while Labour has less than half a million members it has (even now) more than 10 million voters. In this case the Labour membership elected someone who was appealing to them, but not to their electorate.

MPs, while they may be a small subset of the party membership, are directly accountable to the party's voters and may be more in tune with what voters want.

prawnsambo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Your bias is showing.

Momentum - no matter how you feel about them - are members of the Labour Party and since 2015 the leader of the the Labour Party is elected by one member one vote of the members and affiliated organisations.
MPs and MEPs have one vote each just like every other member.

I don't agree. Yes, the membership should have a say, but the MPs have the most involvement with the leader and like it or not, a leader that hasn't got the full support of MPs is always going to be a lame duck. A bit like a football club getting the supporters to elect the new manager. Doesn't matter if the players can't work with him.

Chips Lovell

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Having said that, they have a few years to work with because, with a majority of that size, it will take time for the Tory wheels to come off. However, one thing is certain, they definitely will come off. Just as Corbyn put Labour in the wilderness, Johnson too will do the same kind of damage to the Tories.

Half a dozen by-elections and the same number of deaths and the majority is razor-thin again. It would only take a small swing (couple of percent) for the Tories to lose their majority next time around.

Harry Palmr

Hardly a shocker, and yet so many refuse to believe it could be true

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1205510937995812864

Chips Lovell

One other thing on Labour is the claim that Corbyn lost because he was vilified by the media. For his supporters, it's no doubt an appealing narrative, but it rests on shaky ground.

Number one, the papers that most-demonised Corbyn were those that were the least likely to be read by Labour supporters. Socialists don't read the Daily Mail.

Number two, you're giving the media far more credit than it deserves in terms of its ability to brainwash the public. In fact, in terms of brainwashing, all the evidence points to agency lying with the public themselves rather than the media. In other words, a lot of people seek out the messages they want to hear and if they don't find it in the traditional news media, they'll seek out alternative sources, such online outlets, social media etc.

Letwin_Larry

poor Jeremy is in denial. incredible he hasn't seen fit to quit immediately after this car-crash. worst outing in 84 years!
as much as i dislike Swinson and her preachy voice, at least she had the decency to quit.

Corbyn reminds me of that vid of Hitler in his bunker, drawing up 'plans' for the Eastern front as the Russians are knocking on his door.

delusional doesn't come close to describing this guy.

prawnsambo

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Hardly a shocker, and yet so many refuse to believe it could be true

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1205510937995812864

I just posted that above. :rolleyes:

Harry Palmr

Well done for being a bit quicker than me.

MPFGLB

hotmail.com wrote: »

Calling someone arrogant isn't defamatory.

You missed the point completely

To blame/defame or knock Corbyn and Swinson characters and blame their defeat on their characters (which alot are doing on here ) is rich when Boris Johnson has proved to be a thoroughly more reprehensible character with sexist, racist remarks and many lies

This is a point everyone is ignoring while knocking Corbyn and Swinson and blaming them


Comparing Corbyn to Hitler you will find is defamation