The New Leader of the Labour Party

[Barrington Womble]

6 minutes ago, Brownie said:

Well I would class that as simplifying the message, like I suggested.

 

Focus on a small number of key policies and hammer the message home, with appropriate language.

Well it's not just simplifying the message, it's simplfying the manifesto. I think we need to do both. 

[Brownie]

Just now, Barry Wom said:

Well it's not just simplifying the message, it's simplfying the manifesto. I think we need to do both. 

I agree, the 2017 manifesto was better.

[Megadrive Man]

6 hours ago, Barry Wom said:

Loads of people on this forum. We had this discussion on the Corbyn thread a few times. Blair is used as a dirty word on this forum, yet he's the only fella who's formed a labour government since the year I start infant school and I'll be 50 this year. There's a message in there. Anyone who thinks this country was ready for Corbyn and that manifesto that seemed like a brain dump when pissed of all the things they thought were great, are kidding themselves. 

 

In 2017 Labour under Corbyn weren't far away from winning the election. 

 

The only reason Blair was so successful was because he jumped in to bed with The S*n and newscorp. The reason Labour lost many members and voters from the Blair years is because people started to realise that New Labour were hardly any better than the tories! Even Thatcher said it!

 

I said it at the time of the election, but even if the 97 Blair was in charge of Labour in this election he would have had no chance. He would have had Labour as a full on remain party, pushing all out for a second referendum, he wouldn't have had the support of the newspapers and he'd have faced headlines like Brexit Blocker Blair wants to stay in the EU and scrap the pound, He's a Scot with a fake English accent and his wife is weird etc. 

 

It may take a long time but the Tories won't stay in power forever. Eventually they will piss off enough of the electorate that they will lose. Isn't it better to have a real alternative ready for when they do? 

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 hour ago, Brownie said:

Winning, by becoming who you are trying to beat, is not winning.

I’ve heard this a few times from people on here and elsewhere. Are people arguing for that? I’ve honestly not heard anybody argue that Labour should do anything like become like the Tories, at least not in a policy sense. Labour need to get better at winning votes and playing the political game. I’ve also heard people talk about Starmer being a lurch to the right. I’m not sure where they’re getting their information, but it’s not right. 

[moof]

Just now, Numero Veinticinco said:

I’ve also heard people talk about Starmer being a lurch to the right. I’m not sure where they’re getting their information, but it’s not right. 

We’ll see, but he’s a long way away from his days of contributing to Trotskyite magazines etc. At this moment I have no idea who his appointees will be, who he’ll choose for shadow chancellor, where he sits on foreign policy etc. His career as sir prosecutor raises plenty of questions, as does his abstaining on the welfare bill, voting against an inquiry into Iraq etc. But, as I said, we’ll see. I suspect he’s next in line either way

[Numero Veinticinco]

5 minutes ago, moof said:

We’ll see, but he’s a long way away from his days of contributing to Trotskyite magazines etc. At this moment I have no idea who his appointees will be, who he’ll choose for shadow chancellor, where he sits on foreign policy etc. His career as sir prosecutor raises plenty of questions, as does his abstaining on the welfare bill, voting against an inquiry into Iraq etc. But, as I said, we’ll see. I suspect he’s next in line either way

Do you know the details of those abstentions and his overall voting on those issues? Could well be more to it than him being anti welfare or pro Iraq. Not sure what about his career would be an issue though. I like the fact that he, ya know, had one. 

[Brownie]

15 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I’ve heard this a few times from people on here and elsewhere. Are people arguing for that? I’ve honestly not heard anybody argue that Labour should do anything like become like the Tories, at least not in a policy sense. Labour need to get better at winning votes and playing the political game. I’ve also heard people talk about Starmer being a lurch to the right. I’m not sure where they’re getting their information, but it’s not right. 

People aren't arguing for a direct imitation of the Tories, of course they aren't, but they are suggesting that Labour first and foremost should be aiming to win an election as opposed to just proposing policies that align with their values. When you have an electorate that is right wing on social issues, well you don't need to be Poirot to figure out what the means in terms of policy.

 

It doesn't mean fascism of course but it still equates to you abandoning certain principles.

 

I've always said the same; i'd rather lose with my principles and values intact and try to change minds, than to fall in line with accepted lines of thought but that's just me.

[Numero Veinticinco]

4 minutes ago, Brownie said:

People aren't arguing for a direct imitation of the Tories, of course they aren't, but they are suggesting that Labour first and foremost should be aiming to win an election as opposed to just proposing policies that align with their values. When you have an electorate that is right wing on social issues, well you don't need to be Poirot to figure out what the means in terms of policy.

 

It doesn't mean fascism of course but it still equates to you abandoning certain principles.

 

I've always said the same; i'd rather lose with my principles and values intact and try to change minds, than to fall in line with accepted lines of thought but that's just me.

What social issues would Labour have to bend on? 
 

And yeah, the last line is something that we definitely disagree on. There’s a sure fire way to ensure we get Tory policies and that’s losing. Seems a touch counter productive to say you don’t want to be like the Tories and then have the Tories win. 
 

I also don’t agree with your reading of ‘we need to win’ as ‘be the Tories’. There’s lots of grey area and things that can be done to improve. Having somebody who is liked is a good start. It is a popularity contest, after all. 

[Brownie]

1 minute ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

What social issues would Labour have to bend on? 
 

And yeah, the last line is something that we definitely disagree on. There’s a sure fire way to ensure we get Tory policies and that’s losing. 

Immigration for a start.

[Barrington Womble]

15 minutes ago, MegadriveMan said:

 

In 2017 Labour under Corbyn weren't far away from winning the election. 

 

The only reason Blair was so successful was because he jumped in to bed with The S*n and newscorp. The reason Labour lost many members and voters from the Blair years is because people started to realise that New Labour were hardly any better than the tories! Even Thatcher said it!

 

I said it at the time of the election, but even if the 97 Blair was in charge of Labour in this election he would have had no chance. He would have had Labour as a full on remain party, pushing all out for a second referendum, he wouldn't have had the support of the newspapers and he'd have faced headlines like Brexit Blocker Blair wants to stay in the EU and scrap the pound, He's a Scot with a fake English accent and his wife is weird etc. 

 

It may take a long time but the Tories won't stay in power forever. Eventually they will piss off enough of the electorate that they will lose. Isn't it better to have a real alternative ready for when they do? 

You can say Corbyn nearly won. But he lost. Blair got the only labour victory since 1975. So we can carry on losing or we can find a way to win. Blair didn't just take Murdoch with him, he took the whole country, that's what it takes to get a labour government. There was a whole euphoria of all that new Britannia shite. But it carried us out of the hands of the Tories. Blair might have lost this election, because he was the man for 97. But absolutely certainly Corbyn wasn't the man for 17 or 19 because he lost twice to the worst and most split Tory party of all time. If you want to believe you can ignore all of the election results for over 40 years, fine. I don't ignore them and I want labour to be a party of government, not just some joke side show who's best support is on a liverpool football forum. 

[Barrington Womble]

7 minutes ago, Brownie said:

People aren't arguing for a direct imitation of the Tories, of course they aren't, but they are suggesting that Labour first and foremost should be aiming to win an election as opposed to just proposing policies that align with their values. When you have an electorate that is right wing on social issues, well you don't need to be Poirot to figure out what the means in terms of policy.

 

It doesn't mean fascism of course but it still equates to you abandoning certain principles.

 

I've always said the same; i'd rather lose with my principles and values intact and try to change minds, than to fall in line with accepted lines of thought but that's just me.

Brownie, do you not think it is easier to change minds and have social reform from being the party of government than the party of opposition?

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, Brownie said:

Immigration for a start.

Anything else? Because if it’s one or two things, it’s worth, I’d argue, bending on certain things in a campaign so you can get in, and save the thousand other policies. 

[moof]

31 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Do you know the details of those abstentions and his overall voting on those issues? Could well be more to it than him being anti welfare or pro Iraq. Not sure what about his career would be an issue though. I like the fact that he, ya know, had one. 

No, do you? I said it raises questions, I wasn’t condemning him for it. Although abstaining on the welfare bill is going to be a very difficult one to adequately explain. 
 

You can ask rape victims why his career may be an issue, after measures brought in under his stewardship led to significantly fewer rapists being prosecuted and convicted, and rape victims being prosecuted for false allegations, which, as a layman, seems a bit fucking backwards. To say the least. 
 

Im sure he’s not solely responsible, but where does the buck stop, if not at the top? 
 

edit: http://womenagainstrape.net/content/open-letter-keir-starmer-consultation-alleged-fals

 

edit edit: this is an actual problem, in my opinion 

 

https://www.emilythornberry.com/legacy/2012/09/25/cps_backslides_on_rape_prosecutions/

[Brownie]

8 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

Brownie, do you not think it is easier to change minds and have social reform from being the party of government than the party of opposition?

That goes without saying. But i’m not prepared to get in on a ticket that I disagree with. You can call it naive, idealistic, whatever you want but it’s where I stand on it.

[Strontium]

33 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Do you know the details of those abstentions and his overall voting on those issues? Could well be more to it than him being anti welfare or pro Iraq. Not sure what about his career would be an issue though. I like the fact that he, ya know, had one. 

 

Labour abstained on the welfare bill because they put forward a reasoned amendment which would have killed it. Maybe a tactical error with hindsight, because it relies on people understanding nuance, but painting it as support for welfare cuts is typical hard-left revisionism.

[Megadrive Man]

9 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

 Blair didn't just take Murdoch with him, he took the whole country, that's what it takes to get a labour government. There was a whole euphoria of all that new Britannia shite. But it carried us out of the hands of the Tories. Blair might have lost this election, because he was the man for 97. But absolutely certainly Corbyn wasn't the man for 17 or 19 because he lost twice to the worst and most split Tory party of all time. If you want to believe you can ignore all of the election results for over 40 years, fine. I don't ignore them and I want labour to be a party of government, not just some joke side show who's best support is on a liverpool football forum. 

 

So you will be supporting Jess Phillips then? She's the Murdoch choice.

 

The point is, Blair only took the whole country with him because that's who Murdoch told them to vote for! 

 

You say the Tories were split, but Labour were as well. Brexit was a massive problem for both of the major parties, the main difference was that the Tories membership were strongly for leave, whereas the Labour Membership was strongly remain. 

[Bruce Spanner]

It’s a bit more complicated now than just Owd Cunt Murdock, he seems positively charming in place of what we have now. He still plays quite the role though...
 

You have sophisticated systems in place, bought at quite the price, which can specifically target individuals, demographics and communities with tailored scare tactics. Every time we click accept cookies more info is passed on and a bigger more ‘real’ picture develops which is bought and sold then utilised in 0.003 of a second. ‘They’ know who ‘we’ are to a disturbing degree.
 

We either embrace this and utilise it as a positive tool for engagement or we will be decimated no matter which candidate is front and centre.
 

Simply handing out branded sheets of paper with a, vaguely, photogenic politician on with a couple of pity sound bites doesn’t cut it anymore.

 

‘Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it’

[A Red]

Plenty of people have questioned why the need to spend the time. effort and billion and billions buying water/electric/trains etc for potentially little gain when taxing utility companies higher would have been far easier and raise just as much revenue. In my opinion they are missing the point, nationalisation was critical to Corbyns legacy, he would have been the man that enabled future labour opposition to bring down the tories, with the help of the unions, through mass industrial action. Just like the 70's. 

 

 

[Numero Veinticinco]

16 minutes ago, moof said:

No, do you? I said it raises questions, I wasn’t condemning him for it. Although abstaining on the welfare bill is going to be a very difficult one to adequately explain. 
 

You can ask rape victims why his career may be an issue, after measures brought in under his stewardship led to significantly fewer rapists being prosecuted and convicted, and rape victims being prosecuted for false allegations, which, as a layman, seems a bit fucking backwards. To say the least. 
 

Im sure he’s not solely responsible, but where does the buck stop, if not at the top? 
 

edit: http://womenagainstrape.net/content/open-letter-keir-starmer-consultation-alleged-fals

 

edit edit: this is an actual problem, in my opinion 

 

https://www.emilythornberry.com/legacy/2012/09/25/cps_backslides_on_rape_prosecutions/

I'll look into those things, mate. But I do know his record on welfare voting, and he is one of the good guys. Have a look it his entire record on that, it paints a different picture.  

[Barrington Womble]

20 minutes ago, MegadriveMan said:

 

So you will be supporting Jess Phillips then? She's the Murdoch choice.

 

The point is, Blair only took the whole country with him because that's who Murdoch told them to vote for! 

 

You say the Tories were split, but Labour were as well. Brexit was a massive problem for both of the major parties, the main difference was that the Tories membership were strongly for leave, whereas the Labour Membership was strongly remain. 

I'll be voting for whichever candidate I feel is most likely to return a labour government. If I feel there are multiple candidates who can do that, I will vote for the one I prefer and who's campaign appeals the most to me. 

 

Murdoch didn't get on board with Blair until way after Blair had already won over the country prior to the election. Labour were heading for a landslide before Blair got Murdoch's backing and Murdoch backed blair because he wanted to be onside with the winner. 

 

You think labour were just split on Brexit? Labour were in an awful shape and we led by a man who was unable to unite his party, so he had no chance of leading a government. We can continue down that path, or we can choose another that gives us a chance of being a useful opposition to Johnson and then be in a position to get rid of him in 5 years or whenever the next election is. 

 

[Barrington Womble]

8 minutes ago, A Red said:

Plenty of people have questioned why the need to spend the time. effort and billion and billions buying water/electric/trains etc for potentially little gain when taxing utility companies higher would have been far easier and raise just as much revenue. In my opinion they are missing the point, nationalisation was critical to Corbyns legacy, he would have been the man that enabled future labour opposition to bring down the tories, with the help of the unions, through mass industrial action. Just like the 70's. 

 

 

Personally I think you're being a little dramatic there, but I think large parts of the electorate are too. Corbyn just believes in the state running the essential aspects of daily life. I don't believe it really has anything to do with unions bringing down future Tory governments. 

 

Personally I see both sides of the nationising debate, but I feel very far from convinced corporations, who are motivated purely by profit, should be responsible for delivering something as basic and fundamental to human survival as water. I also have never agreed with the privatisation of anything that just allows for a corporate monopoly to replace the state monopoly that existed - these companies are just as inefficient as the state run programmes. Then take for instance the railways. Trenitalia have just taken over from virgin. Where is the commercial choice for me on the west coast mainline? Can i choose the operator I think does the best job? No I just get the one who took care of the Tories the most by profiteering on my dollar. 

[Sugar Ape]

3 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I'll look into those things, mate. But I do know his record on welfare voting, and he is one of the good guys. Have a look it his entire record on that, it paints a different picture.  

It’s Obvious what is going to come as it becomes increasingly clear RLB is a piss poor candidate. He’ll get more shit from his own side than he will from the Tories. Owen Jones is already gearing up for it by saying he should have more scrutiny than the other candidates. 
 

 

[moof]

Of course he should have more scrutiny. He is going to lead labour, after all

[aRdja]

10 minutes ago, Barry Wom said:

I'll be voting for whichever candidate I feel is most likely to return a labour government. If I feel there are multiple candidates who can do that, I will vote for the one I prefer and who's campaign appeals the most to me. 

 

Murdoch didn't get on board with Blair until way after Blair had already won over the country prior to the election. Labour were heading for a landslide before Blair got Murdoch's backing and Murdoch backed blair because he wanted to be onside with the winner. 

 

You think labour were just split on Brexit? Labour were in an awful shape and we led by a man who was unable to unite his party, so he had no chance of leading a government. We can continue down that path, or we can choose another that gives us a chance of being a useful opposition to Johnson and then be in a position to get rid of him in 5 years or whenever the next election is. 

 

For Labour to win back the Workington men votes, they need to select a left wing leader who has a track record of backing Brexit from the onset IMO.

[TheHowieLama]

4 minutes ago, Sugar Ape said:

It’s Obvious what is going to come as it becomes increasingly clear RLB is a piss poor candidate. He’ll get more shit from his own side than he will from the Tories.

 

At least he wont be divisive.