General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

Water John

Water John wrote: »

Would Starmer be ok if he was given elocution lessons to speak differently like Thatcher?

No, Tony Blair was a highly effective leader and very convincing communicator.

Furthermore, he was spot on today with his comments. Labour must move back to where it's voter base lies, not where they hope it will lie.

Water John

A Lb that went into a war to stay in step with George W Bush. It was not New Labour but Pretend Labour. What did it years in power achieve for the ordinary people of the UK?

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

No, Tony Blair was a highly effective leader and very convincing communicator.

Furthermore, he was spot on today with his comments. Labour must move back to where it's voter base lies, not where they hope it will lie.

But with respect, I think it's clear that you would never, ever, ever vote Labour so it's fair to say you are not in the category they are looking to appeal to - quite the opposite in fact.
You are simply not a member of it's voter base.
It would be fair to say the Tories would never, ever, ever, appeal to me so I would be the last person to be in a position to comment on who would appeal as a leader to their voter base.

Lefty Bicek

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Never said Labour introduced it. I said I believe it should exist.

And yes, it was LLoyd George's Liberal government - he was responsible for a raft of legislation to improve people's lives.
Only men over 70 could claim it - an age only 1 in 4 people reached at the time.
Married men were paid extra.
Women got diddly squat.

Not sure about that. Reference, please. PM fine, let's not derail the thread.

Anyway, you offered it as an example of why socialism is not inherently wrong.

Nor is socialism inherently wrong as others insist.
No one will ever convince me that giving pensions to the elderly is wrong.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112042092&postcount=5959

Ergo, you characterised it as a socialist initiative. It was not. No other sensible construction can be put on your words, I think.

You might as well say that Bismarck and Emperor William I were socialists, decades earlier again.

Water John

Water John wrote: »

A Lb that went into a war to stay in step with George W Bush. It was not New Labour but Pretend Labour. What did it years in power achieve for the ordinary people of the UK?

That's not a serious point.

We all know Blair's fault re: the War in Mesopotamia.

But that doesn't detract from the kind and style of politics he represented, and how he communicated that to both Labour and Tory voters.

You can be a supporter of his kind of politics without supporting the Iraq War.

What Labour needs is a Neo-Blairite who doesn't support foreign intervention. Such a person can exist.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But with respect, I think it's clear that you would never, ever, ever vote Labour so it's fair to say you are not in the category they are looking to appeal to - quite the opposite in fact.
You are simply not a member of it's voter base.
It would be fair to say the Tories would never, ever, ever, appeal to me so I would be the last person to be in a position to comment on who would appeal as a leader to their voter base.

I think that line of thinking is fraught with error.

For instance - we can all agree that some Labour figures would not make good leaders. Furthermore, we can agree that this kind of Corbynite politics is not the way forward. So, what is needed is a move back to the centre. That makes Labour more electable for its established base, as well as more attractive for more lenient Tories who are willing to make the switch.

rossie1977

Deleted User wrote: »

No, Tony Blair was a highly effective leader and very convincing communicator.

yes he was

Furthermore, he was spot on today with his comments. Labour must move back to where it's voter base lies, not where they hope it will lie.

But that brings us to this. Corbyns Labour got alot more votes in 2017 than Brown's Labour in 2010 or Millibands Labour in 2015 so clearly millions of voters had no issue with Labour's political stance just two years ago. Moving centre right doesn't mean the electorate will vote for you.

Based on their manifesto what changes politically should they undertake, no longer worry about climate, forget most vulnerable in society, stop looking after workers rights? https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/

Lefty Bicek

The next Labour leader is sacrificial.

The party should be thinking of the successor to that.

rossie1977

rossie1977 wrote: »

But that brings us to this. Corbyns Labour got alot more votes in 2017 than Brown's Labour in 2010 or Millibands Labour in 2015 so clearly millions of voters had no issue with Labour's political stance just two years ago. Moving centre right doesn't mean the electorate will vote for you.

Based on their manifesto what changes politically should they undertake, no longer worry about climate, forget most vulnerable in society, stop looking after workers rights? https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/

They need to drop fantasy spending politics.

They need to support the UK, rather than sympathise with its enemies.

They need to attract more than just "traditional Labour voters". To win a majority, you need to cast as wide a net as reasonably needed.

They need to accept that Brexit is done and they should support the government in that regard.

They need to offer optimism and hope, rather than miserable language about how bad the other side is.

They need an effective, charismatic leader who can communicate all of the above to all of the electorate.

Furthermore re: your point about 2017. That was a battle against May -- a terrible leader -- and they STILL lost. Second, they promised to respect the referendum result in that election, too.

ancapailldorcha

Water John wrote: »

A Lb that went into a war to stay in step with George W Bush. It was not New Labour but Pretend Labour. What did it years in power achieve for the ordinary people of the UK?

There is a decent list here:

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2017/03/what-did-new-labour-actually-achieve-epic-twitter-thread-hits-back-at-ken-loach-and-paul-mason/

It irritates me no end when people equate centrism with the Iraq war. Blair is a war criminal and should be imprisoned IMO but that doesn't mean he hadn't any valuable lessons for the Labour party which unfortunately decided not to learn them.

Joe_ Public

Tony Blair is as entitled to have his say as anybody and easy to agree with much of what he says.

However, if people want to try and understand the problems that confront labour and its future direction, they need to engage with the rot that set in while blair was in charge.

That abandonment of labour in the north didnt start with brexit and it didnt start with corbyn, though its patently true the latter failed to properly address it. If it started with thatcher, then blair was the first with the chance of doing something about it, which he too abjectly failed to do.

In fact, blair with his nod to murdoch and the capitalists and all his talk about a "skills-based economy", was the first to take the northern constituencies for granted with the result that the labour vote went into steady decline from his stewardship, including his own sedgefield constituency.

David Miliband, for example, was parachuted into south shields with a 70% labour vote. By the time he left it was just over 50%. This apparent saviour of the labour party is reportedly creaming off a near seven figure salary from a US charity, a reminder of the old new labour dictum of being "intensely relaxed" about people getting filthy rich.

So blair can make some cogent and incisive points about the failings of the current leadership but i also think its important his own role is highlighted too.

rossie1977

Deleted User wrote: »

They need to drop fantasy spending politics.

List examples of supposed fantasy spending.

UK needs huge amount of government investment over next decade. Another ten years of austerity will be a disaster for a large percentage of population especially middle and working class.

They need to support the UK, rather than sympathise with its enemies.

Sympathise with enemies, explain.

They need to attract more than just "traditional Labour voters". To win a majority, you need to cast as wide a net as reasonably needed.

Once again it was more than traditional labour voters that voted for them in 17.

They need to accept that Brexit is done and they should support the government in that regard.

They need to get off fence on this topic. This was labour and Corbyn's biggest failings last 2 years, not communicating where they stood.

They need to offer optimism and hope, rather than miserable language about how bad the other side is.

Seems to work OK for Trump. His campaign was based on Dems are terrible, America is f**ked, 98 million out of work.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

So blair can make some cogent and incisive points about the failings of the current leadership but i also think its important his own role is highlighted too.

Fine, a move to Centrism you have outlawed as a sensible move.

I disagree with you, but what do you seriously suggest Labour should do?

There are now two possible alternatives -- Labour remain where they are, with a Corbyn clone, or Labour move yet further to the Left.

Jimmy Garlic

The UK labour party got pummeled because it didn't represent the interests of It's core voter base. Too interested in the likes of identity politics, race baiting and climate cultism to be bothered with the issues facing real people. Combine that with the drole tired old Marxist Corbyn, a cold bowl of porridge would have more carisma. A big all round failure on every level.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There is a decent list here:

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2017/03/what-did-new-labour-actually-achieve-epic-twitter-thread-hits-back-at-ken-loach-and-paul-mason/

It irritates me no end when people equate centrism with the Iraq war. Blair is a war criminal and should be imprisoned IMO but that doesn't mean he hadn't any valuable lessons for the Labour party which unfortunately decided not to learn them.

He is the only Labour leader to get Labour elected into government in the past 40 years. Of course he should be listened to. It's Corbyn and his hard left pals that messed up the past two elections. Now the Labour party might elect a Corbyn clone and carry on with Momentum policies. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Bannasidhe

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Not sure about that. Reference, please. PM fine, let's not derail the thread.

Anyway, you offered it as an example of why socialism is not inherently wrong.



https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112042092&postcount=5959

Ergo, you characterised it as a socialist initiative. It was not. No other sensible construction can be put on your words, I think.

You might as well say that Bismarck and Emperor William I were socialists, decades earlier again.

The first "old age" pension was introduced by the Government in 1908, paying five shillings a week (worth around £14 today). At a time when the average life expectancy was 47, it was only available to men aged over 70.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/special-reports/11523196/A-turbulent-history-of-British-pensions-since-1874.html

The argument has been made that Lloyd George moved left in an attempt to outflank the growing socialist movement - and yes, I can provide citations for where this hypothesis has been posited but I don't want to derail the thread - also many are only available through academic sources but if anyone can access Jstor this is a good place to start https://www.jstor.org/stable/24422523?seq=1.


The growth of Socialism and the Labour Party was rightly perceived as a threat to the Liberal Party, as The Liberals relied on the Working Class vote. As a way of countering this threat Lloyd George moved slightly to the left and began to introduce watered down versions of socialist demands.

And I still never said it was the Labour Party who introduced it - I said the impetus came from socialism, even if that impetus was as the result of trying to outflank the socialists on the left.

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that line of thinking is fraught with error.

For instance - we can all agree that some Labour figures would not make good leaders. Furthermore, we can agree that this kind of Corbynite politics is not the way forward. So, what is needed is a move back to the centre. That makes Labour more electable for its established base, as well as more attractive for more lenient Tories who are willing to make the switch.

Far from fraught with error - it's quite obvious that the person I think (given my political philosophy) would be in my opinion the best leader of the Conservative Party would be the least Tory of the lot of them.

Ditto for you, you would favour the candidate most to the right to be leader of the Labour Party because you dislike the left intensely - yet the LP is supposed to be a party of the Left.

There is also zero evidence a move to the centre would be effective - as I have pointed out several times Brown and Miliband shed votes and seats.
The centerist Lid-Dems are no where near ever being anything more than a very junior partner in Govt.
The Tories who moved to the Right and away from the centre did well.

Chips Lovell

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Tories who moved to the Right and away from the centre did well.

Not sure if you can describe their strategy as a shift to the right. It's so incoherent and self-contradictory that it's hard to define.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Far from fraught with error - it's quite obvious that the person I think (given my political philosophy) would be in my opinion the best leader of the Conservative Party would be the least Tory of the lot of them.

Ditto for you, you would favour the candidate most to the right to be leader of the Labour Party because you dislike the left intensely - yet the LP is supposed to be a party of the Left.

There is also zero evidence a move to the centre would be effective - as I have pointed out several times Brown and Miliband shed votes and seats.
The centerist Lid-Dems are no where near ever being anything more than a very junior partner in Govt.
The Tories who moved to the Right and away from the centre did well.

David Cameron was centre-right, and Miliband was centre-left. Miliband lost.

As for Brown, he was the scapegoat of the economic crash. It didn't matter who was in charge at that time, they would have lost regardless.

Corbyn was far-left, and Johnson was right-wing. Corbyn lost even more.

So, what do you suggest is the solution?

Bannasidhe

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Not sure if you can describe their strategy as a shift to the right. It's so incoherent and self-contradictory that it's hard to define.

What they say is incoherent and self-contradictory, but what they have done is actually very much a move to the right justified by claiming the need for austerity and/or Getting Brexit Done.

It's not me saying it- it's Ex Tory ministers.

Anna Soubry
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/23/hard-right-captured-tory-party-boris-johnson-victory-proves-it

Phillip Hammond
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/29/boris-johnson-using-election-to-move-tories-further-right-says-philip-hammond

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Fine, a move to Centrism you have outlawed as a sensible move.

I disagree with you, but what do you seriously suggest Labour should do?

There are now two possible alternatives -- Labour remain where they are, with a Corbyn clone, or Labour move yet further to the Left.

"Outlawed". Who outlawed anything? As strange a use of language as when you frequently use the word "condemn".

Labour are free to go where it chooses, whichever direction that might be. I dont pretend to have answers because the issues facing it are very complex and demand a lot of sober, reflective analysis to figure out. You dont have to be centre or hard left and just engage in simplistic labels and throw them around to demonise certain people. There's a nuanced position to be found there and i believe either Starmer or Nandy would be well placed to find it. But that's just the beginning of course. Long road ahead.

Lefty Bicek

Bannasidhe wrote: »

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/special-reports/11523196/A-turbulent-history-of-British-pensions-since-1874.html

The argument has been made that Lloyd George moved left in an attempt to outflank the growing socialist movement - and yes, I can provide citations for where this hypothesis has been posited but I don't want to derail the thread - also many are only available through academic sources but if anyone can access Jstor this is a good place to start https://www.jstor.org/stable/24422523?seq=1.

The growth of Socialism and the Labour Party was rightly perceived as a threat to the Liberal Party, as The Liberals relied on the Working Class vote. As a way of countering this threat Lloyd George moved slightly to the left and began to introduce watered down versions of socialist demands.

And I still never said it was the Labour Party who introduced it - I said the impetus came from socialism, even if that impetus was as the result of trying to outflank the socialists on the left.

Keeping the labour movement at bay was one source of impetus towards the creation of the welfare state. But only one.

Indeed jstor is a good place to start. Contemporary understanding was that 'The Act applies to both men and women...', if I read p.69 correctly here -

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1945920?seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents


History Ireland suggests that

Claimants to the state pension under the terms of the Old Age Pensions Act (1908) received their first payments at post offices throughout the country. Charged with awarding pensions to men and women aged 70 or over,

https://www.historyireland.com/volume-25/on-this-day-33/


Even (sorry, I know) Wiki...

Initially, most of the recipients of the pension benefit were women.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old-Age_Pensions_Act_1908


I'll leave it there, but appreciate a PM for those sources.

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

David Cameron was centre-right, and Miliband was centre-left. Miliband lost.

As for Brown, he was the scapegoat of the economic crash. It didn't matter who was in charge at that time, they would have lost regardless.

Corbyn was far-left, and Johnson was right-wing. Corbyn lost even more.

So, what do you suggest is the solution?

A candidate who has less baggage that can be used against them (although there will still be media smear attempts by the usual lot who ever it is).
Someone better at communication.
Someone better at keeping the malcontents in their place - although that is really the role of the Chief Whip.

Corbyn was too much of the 80s (not the 70s as some would have it) - he thought he was up against Thatcher, they need someone younger and more in tune with the 21st century - media savvy, good with soundbites.

Someone from the North would probably be wise.

But they need someone who is left of centre -not leftish.
A Left counter-Balance to hold the Right to account.

They also need to find their 'Ruth Davidson' in Scotland - the losses to the SNP are a major cause of their lack of seats in the HoC but no-one is discussing what needs to be done in Scotland.

Bannasidhe

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Keeping the labour movement at bay was one source of impetus towards the creation of the welfare state. But only one.

Indeed jstor is a good place to start.

Contemporary understanding was that 'The Act applies to both men and women...', if I read p.69 correctly here -

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1945920?seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents

History Ireland suggests that

Claimants to the state pension under the terms of the Old Age Pensions Act (1908) received their first payments at post offices throughout the country. Charged with awarding pensions to men and women aged 70 or over,

https://www.historyireland.com/volume-25/on-this-day-33/

Even (sorry, I know) Wiki...



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old-Age_Pensions_Act_1908


I'll leave it there, but appreciate a PM for those sources.

I have done some more digging and It seems the source I used was incorrect and women did get the OAP in 1909.

My embarrassed apologies.

It was one impetus, but an important one, socialism fed the calls for social reforms up to and including the Interbellum and was very much a factor in the post WWII creation of the Welfare State.

We better leave it there tho or we will be banished to History & Heritage.

Chips Lovell

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What they say is incoherent and self-contradictory, but what they have done is actually very much a move to the right justified by claiming the need for austerity and/or Getting Brexit Done.

This is it. Get Brexit Done was a large part of the campaign and it would be generous to give it any kind of designation other than say it's a meaningless slogan.

Lefty Bicek

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We better leave it there tho or we will be banished to History & Heritage

Indeed. I'm unfortunately rather too fond of a combative style. Mea culpa.

Letwin_Larry

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But with respect, I think it's clear that you would never, ever, ever vote Labour so it's fair to say you are not in the category they are looking to appeal to - quite the opposite in fact.
You are simply not a member of it's voter base.
It would be fair to say the Tories would never, ever, ever, appeal to me so I would be the last person to be in a position to comment on who would appeal as a leader to their voter base.

well in that case why bother trying to win over anybody, as you probably wont succeed. and posters are wondering why Lab did so poorly?

personally i could vote for either party. but you dont just weigh up the leader in isolation, or the policies in isolation either.

you look at the whole package.
like a savvy shopper buying say a car, you'll look at a range of things and not just price, like reputation, dealership, aftersales service, running costs, maintenance, reliability, what might impress your g/f or your mates perhaps, options, trade in value and depreciation etc. etc.

Bannasidhe

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

well in that case why bother trying to win over anybody, as you probably wont succeed. and posters are wondering why Lab did so poorly?

personally i could vote for either party. but you dont just weigh up the leader in isolation, or the policies in isolation either.

you look at the whole package.
like a savvy shopper buying say a car, you'll look at a range of things and not just price, like reputation, dealership, aftersales service, running costs, maintenance, reliability, what might impress your g/f or your mates perhaps, options, trade in value and depreciation etc. etc.

As much of this discussion was what LP leader would win back the Labour voting base and what would they need to do it is very much on topic to focus on that group.

You are a floating voter which is not the same thing.

I, for example, will always vote left - so I would never vote Tory (or FF/FG) ,it wouldn't matter jot who is leader and if they had any policies attractive to me they wouldn't be the CP in the first place. So it would be utterly pointless for them to take my opinion on who should be their leader.

quokula

rossie1977 wrote: »

yes he was



But that brings us to this. Corbyns Labour got alot more votes in 2017 than Brown's Labour in 2010 or Millibands Labour in 2015 so clearly millions of voters had no issue with Labour's political stance just two years ago. Moving centre right doesn't mean the electorate will vote for you.

Based on their manifesto what changes politically should they undertake, no longer worry about climate, forget most vulnerable in society, stop looking after workers rights? https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/

Yeah it's amazing how many people are comparing Corbyn 2019 to Corbyn 2017 as a critique of the left, but missing the fact that in terms of vote share Corbyn 2019 actually did much better than Milliband 2015 and Brown 2010, and was within a single percentage point of Blair in the previous election - all this despite Scottish Independence and Brexit supplying Labour with huge headwinds that weren't there a decade ago. The reality is that FPTP proved not fit for purpose as usual, and the Conservatives did unusually well with their "Get Brexit Done" message that no other parties had an answer to.

It's also interesting when people try to use dismissive terms like "hard left", "cult" or "narrow focussed" to describe Labour because they failed to convince a certain type of voter in marginal northern constituencies.

Yet they convincingly dominated London again (along with the vast majority of large cities), which is one of the most diverse melting pots on the planet. If anything that showed Labour managed to have the most widespread appeal to different demographic groups, but they failed to reach the one largest demographic group, the same one which was predominantly pro-Brexit at the referendum. And it's not easy to be a progressive party and still appeal to people who believe in everything that Brexit stands for.

Thargor

Neil Kinnock predicting what would happen with Corbyn years ago, interesting read:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/08/secret-recording-neil-kinnock-jeremy-corbyn-step-down-speech-to-mps-in-full

Must be sickening for the likes of him and Skinner to see this happening after a lifetimes work.

Professor Moriarty

quokula wrote: »

Yeah it's amazing how many people are comparing Corbyn 2019 to Corbyn 2017 as a critique of the left, but missing the fact that in terms of vote share Corbyn 2019 actually did much better than Milliband 2015 and Brown 2010, and was within a single percentage point of Blair in the previous election - all this despite Scottish Independence and Brexit supplying Labour with huge headwinds that weren't there a decade ago. The reality is that FPTP proved not fit for purpose as usual, and the Conservatives did unusually well with their "Get Brexit Done" message that no other parties had an answer to.

It's also interesting when people try to use dismissive terms like "hard left", "cult" or "narrow focussed" to describe Labour because they failed to convince a certain type of voter in marginal northern constituencies.

Yet they convincingly dominated London again (along with the vast majority of large cities), which is one of the most diverse melting pots on the planet. If anything that showed Labour managed to have the most widespread appeal to different demographic groups, but they failed to reach the one largest demographic group, the same one which was predominantly pro-Brexit at the referendum. And it's not easy to be a progressive party and still appeal to people who believe in everything that Brexit stands for.

Since the 2017 election, Labour's vote dropped by 2,500,000 which equates to -20%. Nothing to do with Miliband or Brown. Everything to do with Corbyn, his buddies and their policies.