General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Itssoeasy

This might be a long shot but what about Hillary benn ? I've always found him to be a good operator and would be well able for Johnson. I know it shouldn't be the primary concern but labour need someone as leader who will stand up to Johnson unlike Corbyn who didn't.

ancapailldorcha

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Fair points. The other question is what is going to happen about racism in the governing party? Will there be any reckoning at all? At least 3 tory candidates were facing allegations of antisemitism during the campaign, one of whom was elected. How long does the situation pertain where one party is judged by different standards to the other? Personally I'm not sure of the answers to any of those questions but it is still fair to say labour has to get its own house in order and not measure its moral compass against the other side.

The governing party have been vindicated as have the right wing press including the BBC. I can't imagine there will be unless said individuals do something racist in public. They'll be keeping a low profile I would think.

devnull

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I disagree.

The first thing they need to do is to amputate Momentum and select a new leader who can reform the party so that they can regain their lost northern seats. Momentum is electoral cancer and as such will take many, many years of internecine conflict to expunge. Laura Parker summed it up nicely when her defence amounted to looking at how the margin of defeat was last time.

Indeed and the result was so bad this time that if Momentum get one of their candidates in the leaders chair for 2024, any increase in seat numbers whilst still returning a Tory majority will be pointed towards as better than 2019 and why their strategy is working which will mean the Tories will probably win in 2029 too.

LuckyLloyd

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Telling voters that they're being tricked by dog whistling to appeal to the lowest common denominators while being lured by economically illiterate people is a very good way to lose their votes. Well, they did lose their votes.

Yes, the “Brexit” debate has been lost. But I don’t think emotion and language will be able to win an assessment of the actual Brexit that has been delivered in 5 years time. It is what it is.

LuckyLloyd

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I disagree.

The first thing they need to do is to amputate Momentum and select a new leader who can reform the party so that they can regain their lost northern seats. Momentum is electoral cancer and as such will take many, many years of internecine conflict to expunge. Laura Parker summed it up nicely when her defence amounted to looking at how the margin of defeat was last time.

Various campaigners have said that Corbyn came up time and time again on the door steps. The new leader will have to be free of the electoral taints of Remain and Corbynism. They'll also have to properly purge the party of anti-Semites ASAP. Of course, there's no chance of this being done or maybe even started by 2024 so we can expect another Johnson landslide again before Labour starts to resemble a viable party.

Fair enough, we can agree to disagree. I think we’ll find that the “anti - semitism crisis” magically disappears about five minutes after Corbyn is gone.

Professor Moriarty

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Fair points. The other question is what is going to happen about racism in the governing party? Will there be any reckoning at all? At least 3 tory candidates were facing allegations of antisemitism during the campaign, one of whom was elected. How long does the situation pertain where one party is judged by different standards to the other? Personally I'm not sure of the answers to any of those questions but it is still fair to say labour has to get its own house in order and not measure its moral compass against the other side.

Labour are irrelevant now. Doesn't matter who is antisemitic or Islamophobic anymore. The Tories will push through legislation that suits their political needs and Labour can do SFA about it. Because parliament is sovereign and because Johnson is PM with a huge majority of like-minded Tory MPs, to all intents and purposes he is a dictator.

Berserker5

Tory splits are never too far away esp with Brexit

They didn't suddenly.become a united front overnite

briany

In addition to reconsidering their direction, Labour needs to elect a leader with some real charisma. I don't think it should be underestimated how important it is to have someone who can lead the charge. Keir Starmer looks to be the nearest thing to a figure that Labour's support can rally around, but even at that he seems like Labour's David Cameron-lite.

Professor Moriarty

Berserker5 wrote: »

Tory splits are never too far away esp with Brexit

They didn't suddenly.become a united front overnite

Can you say more? My impression is that many centrist Tory MPs left politics. Also, every MP pledged to support Johnson's deal.

ancapailldorcha

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Fair enough, we can agree to disagree. I think we’ll find that the “anti - semitism crisis” magically disappears about five minutes after Corbyn is gone.

I did vote Labour. This isn't an outcome I wanted but, well.... Here we are.

Berserker5

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Can you say more? My impression is that many centrist Tory MPs left politics. Also, every MP pledged to support Johnson's deal.

I don't know yet until Brexit gets moving again

Professor Moriarty

Berserker5 wrote: »

I don't know yet until Brexit gets moving again

I think a harder Brexit is more likely now than before the election.

Ulysses Gaze

Funny that people think the BBC are Right Wing.They are most patently not.

They are Middle Class “Socialist” in outlook.

Watch their panels for any debate and they are stacked heavily to the left of the argument.

Strazdas

Berserker5 wrote: »

Tory splits are never too far away esp with Brexit

They didn't suddenly.become a united front overnite

The idea that they can become a unifying force in the UK for the next five years is also laughable. A hard right, isolationist government could never be a unifying force......it's an impossibility.

ancapailldorcha

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Funny that people think the BBC are Right Wing.They are most patently not.

They are Middle Class “Socialist” in outlook.

Watch their panels for any debate and they are stacked heavily to the left of the argument.

When I make the claim, I'm specifically alluding to Laura Kuenssberg who has just parroted the Conservatives.

Their comedy is certainly left wing and there's a lot of stuff they make for teenagers which would align with the modern left in Britain but IMO this just masks how f*cked up their political coverage is.

Harry Palmr

A majority of 80 means the ERG wing is now irrelevant, throw in the phalanx of newly minted MP's in working class seats who will be anxious to be more than a one term hit there is a pretty benign environment for Johnson to steer a path which is free of major potholes.

Lemming

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Can you say more? My impression is that many centrist Tory MPs left politics. Also, every MP pledged to support Johnson's deal.

With the large swell in Tory MP numbers, a lot of them will be 'unknown' actors in where their lines are regards Brexit among other volatile subjects. Massive electoral wins are as much a curse as a victory ...

Then again the cynic in me says that all these fresh-faced Tories are indeed Tories after all so there shouldn't be any surprises in so far as whatever they do agree with, it can be near-guaranteed to be cruel, vindictive, and self-servingly greedy if the calibre of the last government's cabinet is any yardstick.

Shelga

Ed Miliband opening up the membership seems to have been what allowed the tidal wave of left-wingers in.

What might be the mechanism by which they change how they select their leader?

If they leave it up to the membership again, it'll be another Momentum-type and a Tory government for another 10+ years.

McGiver

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I disagree.

The first thing they need to do is to amputate Momentum and select a new leader who can reform the party so that they can regain their lost northern seats. Momentum is electoral cancer and as such will take many, many years of internecine conflict to expunge. Laura Parker summed it up nicely when her defence amounted to looking at how the margin of defeat was last time.

Various campaigners have said that Corbyn came up time and time again on the door steps. The new leader will have to be free of the electoral taints of Remain and Corbynism. They'll also have to properly purge the party of anti-Semites ASAP. Of course, there's no chance of this being done or maybe even started by 2024 so we can expect another Johnson landslide again before Labour starts to resemble a viable party.

Amputate? They are substantial part of the party. You cannot remove substantial part of the party just like that.
Both main parties in the UK are coalitions and "big tent" parties.
Labour just need to be able to accommodate multiple fractions whilst also reaching a consensus both in terms of policies and personnel. They are unable to do so.

Yes, Corbyn has been an issue and a liability. But the issue was his personality not his policies. Policies were secondary. He was just not electable as a personality. There are several issues why he has been unattractive - huge media bias portraying him as terrorist sympathiser, Marxist etc., his lack of leadership and charisma and his lack of flexibility/pragmatism. He is an ideologue and too old. Basically, he is not a good politician and a leader of the opposition party - that's all.

I believe Labour's political position is to the right of current position but to the left of the Blairite position. It should be centre-left, or soft left, it cannot be left (as currently) or centre (New Labour), both are extremes within the Labour party fractions. Only by find a middle ground will all factions be united.
Labour need to adjust the current policies only slightly and move a bit towards centre, but what they lack is a personality. They need someone young, energetic, with leadership qualities and most importantly who can trash Tories in one sentence and also explain Labour policies in one sentence - the message must be simple. The problem with that is that left policies are rarely simple, that's why populist right wins/gains easily - they use simple soundbites. The Left will need to replicate that without compromising principles. And for that you really need a smart, young, strong personality who can articulate all this. People like Corbyn are not suitable for this, that is clear.

What is Corbynism by the way? The policies are not that hard left as the gutter press and the whole media space in the UK want everyone to believe. It is left, there is no denial, but it is "hard left" only from the UK very right-wing perspective. Barycenter of the UK political scene is by far the most on the right than anywhere else in Europe, that's why they present someone who would be on the left of a any other European social democratic party as a Marxist. It's incredible in fact.

Lefty Bicek

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Brexit has been successfully sold as the salve to all the ills Labour fought the election on. “Brexit” is a lovely big church containing dog whistling to appeal to the lowest common denominators while also allowing economically illiterate people spout off half baked theories on “global Britain” and some such. It’s everything to everybody and definitely a massive opportunity to the super wealthy primed to take advantage of significant economic shifts.

Fundamentally a huge body of opinion that I subscribe to believe “Brexit” will eventually collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. Real compromises have been avoided by “Brexit” thus far apart from on Northern Ireland, and you can check out the twitter of Jamie Bryson if you want to see how someone who enthusiastically cheered on “Brexit” with a little Union Jack feels when the actualities of Brexit let them down. And the DUP / loyalists in NI are only the first interest group that will be dismayed to discover what “Brexit” turning into Brexit means for them.

Cummings is a clever political operator when it comes to winning “Brexit” votes, his record speaks to that. But this “Brexit” messaging has not moved the needle in the withdrawal agreement negotiations, and that was the easy bit. Now we move onto trade. The UK need service access, and they’ll get it by sacrificing movement, manufacturing, the city and the fish. The can has been successfully kicked down the road, but finally “Brexit” needs to become Brexit for everyone.

If this huge body of opinion I subscribe to is wrong and Brexit does indeed salve the ills of an ailing England (while keeping Scotland aboard) then fair enough, glory to Boris and the Conservatives. But if it’s right, the anger that is coming is going to upend English political discourse. The people are screaming for change, and “Brexit” has been successfully prescribed as giving them the change they want. It better, or the people - after electing a huge majority Tory government - will know who to blame.

'The anger that is coming' does not take priority over the anger that is now, just because their opponents have a lower opinion of the people who have screamed for change this week, and who have upended English political discourse this week.

So let's have some consideration of the past and present faults of those whom the voters have rejected, before gliding on impatiently to the future faults of anyone.

The best thing Labour can do now to get their own house in order, is to actually shut up and listen for a change.

sid waddell

And here we go...

Trumpism is official Tory policy.

Turn reality on it's head, always. It's going to be a car crash.

https://twitter.com/JohnSimpsonNews/status/1206010631763234817

Harry Palmr

Labours position has to chime in with the people it wants to vote for it.

There is no point trying to define degrees of socialism or how leftist they are - we laugh at American regarding "obamacare" as communist because we are not Americans - in the States that had some traction because of it's particular political culture. In the UK some polices are framed as "too left" as they are too left for that political culture.

If Labour want to regain power next time they need to bend to the will of the public rather than bend the public to their will.

Professor Moriarty

sid waddell wrote: »

And here we go...

Trumpism is official Tory policy.

Turn reality on it's head, always. It's going to be a car crash.

https://twitter.com/JohnSimpsonNews/status/1206010631763234817

Wonder if he will abolish the licence fee. And have a cut off Channel 4.

ancapailldorcha

McGiver wrote: »

Amputate? They are substantial part of the party. You cannot remove substantial part of the party just like that.
Both main parties in the UK are coalitions and "big tent" parties.
Labour just need to be able to accommodate multiple fractions whilst also reaching a consensus both in terms of policies and personnel. They are unable to do so.

Yes, Corbyn has been an issue and a liability. But the issue was his personality not his policies. Policies were secondary. He was just not electable as a personality. There are several issues why he has been unattractive - huge media bias portraying him as terrorist sympathiser, Marxist etc., his lack of leadership and charisma and his lack of flexibility/pragmatism. He is an ideologue and too old. Basically, he is not a good politician and a leader of the opposition party - that's all.

I believe Labour's political position is to the right of current position but to the left of the Blairite position. It should be centre-left, or soft left, it cannot be left (as currently) or centre (New Labour), both are extremes within the Labour party fractions. Only by find a middle ground will all factions be united.
Labour need to adjust the current policies only slightly and move a bit towards centre, but what they lack is a personality. They need someone young, energetic, with leadership qualities and most importantly who can trash Tories in one sentence and also explain Labour policies in one sentence - the message must be simple. The problem with that is that left policies are rarely simple, that's why populist right wins/gains easily - they use simple soundbites. The Left will need to replicate that without compromising principles. And for that you really need a smart, young, strong personality who can articulate all this. People like Corbyn are not suitable for this, that is clear.

What is Corbynism by the way? The policies are not that hard left as the gutter press and the whole media space in the UK want everyone to believe. It is left, there is no denial, but it is "hard left" only from the UK very right-wing perspective. Barycenter of the UK political scene is by far the most on the right than anywhere else in Europe, that's why they present someone who would be on the left of a any other European social democratic party as a Marxist. It's incredible in fact.

I never said it will be "just like that". The entryist voters in the party will choose the next leader and it will be someone very similar to Corybn.

Labour cannot accommodate factions who want mutually exclusive things. The working class northerners want Brexit while the city dwelling liberals and socialists want to remain in the EU. These are mutually exclusive stances and Corbyn's dithering culminating in his clearly reluctant second referendum proposal were calamitous.

I don't see the current party as being that far left. I think the bigger problem, aside from the press was the amount of left wing policies. In hindsight, focusing on the NHS, policing and social care might have been better than proposing a 4-day working week and free broadband for all. A new leader needs to be elected ASAP so they can formulate a clear, coherent message. They need to learn from Miliband and Corbyn's errors.

sid waddell

I keep hearing that the Labour party needs "to listen to people".

Anna Turley said that "Labour didn't listen", and by that she means that the party should have taken an unambiguously pro-Remain stance.

Caroline Flint and Gloria De Piero said that "Labour didn't listen", and by that they mean Labour should have taken an unambiguously pro-Leave stance.

Both sides saying exactly the same thing, except meaning directly opposite things.

Yet if there was one thing Labour's Brexit policy actually was, it was the result of listening to people.

Maybe Labour's Brexit policy was the result of listening too much to too many people, if anything?

ancapailldorcha

sid waddell wrote: »

I keep hearing that the Labour party needs "to listen to people".

Anna Turley said that "Labour didn't listen", and by that she means that the party should have taken an unambiguously pro-Remain stance.

Caroline Flint and Gloria De Piero said that "Labour didn't listen", and by that they mean Labour should have taken an unambiguously pro-Leave stance.

Both sides saying exactly the same thing, except meaning directly opposite things.

Yet if there was one thing Labour's Brexit policy actually was, it was the result of listening to people.

Maybe Labour's Brexit policy was the result of listening too much to too many people, if anything?

I listen to the Remainiacs podcast and various Labour MP's and MEP's have stated that Corbyn was the problem. He kept coming up on the doorstep and Naomi Smith, CEO of Best for Britain said that Brexit only came up when the canvassers and campaigners mentioned it. Corbyn came up voluntarily all the time.

Letwin_Larry

poor Jeremy he never stood a chance.
probably the most vilified politician in history. once he challenged the media moguls and the tax-dodging billionaires he was dead-man walking. it's been a right-wing coup UK style. they did their homework and executed their dastardly plan with chilling efficiency.

i hope he stays on and makes sure his successor carries on the good work of socialism.

Lefty Bicek

sid waddell wrote: »

I keep hearing that the Labour party needs "to listen to people".

Anna Turley said that "Labour didn't listen", and by that she means that the party should have taken an unambiguously pro-Remain stance.

Caroline Flint and Gloria De Piero said that "Labour didn't listen", and by that they mean Labour should have taken an unambiguously pro-Leave stance.

Both sides saying exactly the same thing, except meaning directly opposite things.

Yet if there was one thing Labour's Brexit policy actually was, it was the result of listening to people.

Maybe Labour's Brexit policy was the result of listening too much to too many people, if anything?

Pity they didn't listen to anyone who pointed to Corbyn as the liability that he is.

We have some evidence before us that it is the Corbyn factor that was primary, not Brexit.

sid waddell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I listen to the Remainiacs podcast and various Labour MP's and MEP's have stated that Corbyn was the problem. He kept coming up on the doorstep and Naomi Smith, CEO of Best for Britain said that Brexit only came up when the canvassers and campaigners mentioned it. Corbyn came up voluntarily all the time.

Yet Corbyn wasn't a particular problem in 2017.

So what has changed?

ancapailldorcha

sid waddell wrote: »

Yet Corbyn wasn't a particular problem in 2017.

So what has changed?

He did make certain noises about freedom of movement coming to an end and respecting the referendum result. They also had the disaster that was Theresa May and her Dementia tax.

Now though, Johnson and Cummings are different beasts... They knew what they were doing.