Jump to content
king canary

New Labour Leader

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, BigFish said:

This rather proves your point, KC. That and the fact that constitiencies the Tories won tended to have smaller than average electorates, while Labout constituencies are now tending to be larger than average.

image.thumb.png.77d653d70f66ab19d2cc71da26265f3d.png

Cheers. 

The limited appeal of the Corbyn lead Labour party rather exacerbates the issues caused by the stupid FPTP system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, king canary said:

Cheers. 

The limited appeal of the Corbyn lead Labour party rather exacerbates the issues caused by the stupid FPTP system.

Yep, if dozebLabour had managed to squeeze even a couple of more per cent onto their vote share they could have saved dozens of seats and possibly won a few Tory ones. Still would have lost, but it would be a very different political landscape. That they didn't was down to three factors: 1) floating voters in marginal constitiencies were repelled by the Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott axis; 2) the manifesto was rubbish, no one understood what Labour's aims are or believed the retail offer could be delivered; 3) The Party organisation was chaotic, focus was on the wrong seats, hubris around Momentum's canvassing machine, poor messaging......the list is long.

Boring as he is, Starmer is best placed to resolve this. He won't repell, he might not attract but will give confidence in his competence. Over Brexit he showed he was capable of reconciling opposing views. Nandy may be the mist charismatic of the three, but Northern towns arn't where Labour will win - that will be in the Cities, University towns and commuterland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KG- unfortunately, RTB isn't really misrepresenting what was said.

I know what has been reported as said. And as the law stands, if he chooses to identify as a woman what else can they do.

Unfortunately, RTB has a history of many phobias, and while I would disagree with the law, and what Nandy feels about it, he was questioning why I would choose Nandy.

I was merely pointing out that it has nothing to do with him as he is not a Labour party member. And i wouldn't write off someone because their views are different to mine on ONE subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

KG- unfortunately, RTB isn't really misrepresenting what was said.

I know what has been reported as said. And as the law stands, if he chooses to identify as a woman what else can they do.

Unfortunately, RTB has a history of many phobias, and while I would disagree with the law, and what Nandy feels about it, he was questioning why I would choose Nandy.

I was merely pointing out that it has nothing to do with him as he is not a Labour party member. And i wouldn't write off someone because their views are different to mine on ONE subject.

Well, what they can do is not house a rapist in women's prisons. There is no law saying they have to be as far as I'm aware. 

Edited by king canary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, king canary said:

This seems an oddly hostile response to my post to be honest.

My debate with you isn't about whether Corbyn was/wasn't electable (he clearly wasn't) but for the reasons. The point I took from your post was that it was the media's fault that Corbyn was seen as unelectable- I think Corbyn made himself unelectable.

His foreign policy is straight from the 6th form common room- 'the west is bad! America is evil! Therefore anyone anti West/anti America is good!'

His economic policy really did just boil down to us vs them economic populism which isn't actually that popular in this country, with a bunch of 'free stuff for all' chucked in. 

The man and the people he surrounded himself with were walking liabilities. When you've got lifelong Labour voters either not voting for them or having to seriously hold their noses to do so then I think it clearly goes beyond a hostile media environment.

You say you are a dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporter yet you talk a lot of sense, KC. You have to be old-school and I suspect Labour would get a lot more support if they operated in their traditional areas of expertise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Is that the same Lisa Nandy who just said that the child rapist Christopher Worton, who raped a teenage girl five times, but has since self-identified as a woman, should a) have his crimes recorded as commited by a woman & b) be housed in a women's prison.?

I thought us right-wingers were supposed to be the nut-jobs but the Labour leadership candidates are living in a delusional transgender fantasy world that is going to end up with people getting badly hurt and maybe even killed. And they think they're going to win the Warrington vote? That's beyond sick.

You really are the pits. We know you probably think any LGBT person wants locking up and that they don't have a life or personality of their own. And to compare this idiot to LGBT people is pathetic. I do not understand, from what I have read, why Nandy said this. I guess the same as you don't understand why Johnson said Erdogan had **** with a goat or Obama was a part Kenyan or that xenophobia should be worn as a medal.

And all this has happened on the Tory watch. They have let him out. And that sounds an equally stupid remark to counter yours.

And what the hell has the election of the new Labour leader got to do with you? I've told you before. Stay on the topics that suit you. Which is the Brexit thread. Tat was black and white and didn't involve any delicate problems in life that you do not have the ability to contribute to. 

I quite understand that the desire to de-platform people that do not share your views is a strong trait amongst those of the left. You can add it to the least of reasons of why Labour lost the last election, if you like. But I won't be silenced by you or anyone else for that matter, so you'll just have to suck it up that we do have free speech in this country. Besides, I had a vote in the last election for a Labour leader of the Labour party, so I have a very strong interest in who will stand opposite the Prime Minister during PM's Question Time.

Now it may have escaped your notice, or it might be one of these irksome little problems that just won't go away, but the Labour party are digging themselves a giant hole into which most of the members seem to be happy to jump right into. And this hole is all about trans rights. As you are no doubt aware the party is requesting its members to sign a pledge to support all trans rights as defined by the Stonewall organisation. Indeed, Long-Baily and Angela Rayner have gone even further and said that they will expel anyone who refuses to support this pledge.

Now unfortunately for Labour, many switched-on women, including many who self-identify as feminists realise that signing this pledge gives men the right to invade such areas as women's sports, female healthcare, women's shelters and refuges, and prisons to name just a few. It throws out of the window everything that has been done in the name of 'safe-guarding' over the past couple of decades. It also rolls back decades of progress made in the name of feminism since the end of World War II. And as a result many women are now grouping together to fight the nonsense that is the direct and logical result of following an ideology based in fantasy and delusion rather than one based in scientific fact.

So if it's all the same to you, I would rather not allow anybody who carries such delusions to be a representative of the people in Parliament, let alone allowing them to become , however small the probability, Prime Minister. And if you don't see just how damaging this is to the very fabric of our society then you really are a fool, and shouldn't be allowed to vote in any election of any type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

You say you are a dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporter yet you talk a lot of sense, KC. You have to be old-school and I suspect Labour would get a lot more support if they operated in their traditional areas of expertise.

Not the endorsement I was looking for to be honest.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rock The Boat said:

Now unfortunately for Labour, many switched-on women, including many who self-identify as feminists realise that signing this pledge gives men the right to invade such areas as women's sports, female healthcare, women's shelters and refuges, and prisons to name just a few. It throws out of the window everything that has been done in the name of 'safe-guarding' over the past couple of decades. It also rolls back decades of progress made in the name of feminism since the end of World War II. And as a result many women are now grouping together to fight the nonsense that is the direct and logical result of following an ideology based in fantasy and delusion rather than one based in scientific fact.

God I hate the fact you keep saying things I agree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Herman said:

Bezzies?? 

Not even close.

The problem is I don't subscribe to some of the more extreme ends of the identity politics debate which in some of the more left-wing circles would make me a Tory or something (even though I've never voted for them and have never considered it).

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a reason for the saying “in all things moderation” - whatever our Individual political views, we probably have a great many things we agree about as general principles.

Political parties that run purity tests ultimately have nowhere to go except to grab or retain power by suppressing the people that they are supposed to serve.

Bernie Sanders supporters are on that path, so is Donald Trump, I worry about Boris and yes I see the danger here for / from Labour. It has already bitten them hard and for the sake of the country I wish they can gat past this phase. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, king canary said:

Not even close.

The problem is I don't subscribe to some of the more extreme ends of the identity politics debate which in some of the more left-wing circles would make me a Tory or something (even though I've never voted for them and have never considered it).

 

I can't disagree. There is a lack of nuance in political debate. If you're not for Corbyn you must be a tory, if you're not pro-brexit you must be a lefty,if you're a LibDem you must be a secret tory etc etc etc. It's tiresome but, unfortunately, I do find myself getting dragged down into that mindset, mostly out of frustration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if it's all the same to you, I would rather not allow anybody who carries such delusions to be a representative of the people in Parliament, let alone allowing them to become , however small the probability, Prime Minister. And if you don't see just how damaging this is to the very fabric of our society then you really are a fool, and shouldn't be allowed to vote in any election of any type.

This rubbish from someone who has shown nothing but contempt for social matters in the past. So you think society is being damaged? So you want to go back to the "good old days". Absolute rubbish. Your support for Johnson, Farage and trump show that you would rather believe in society where you are pigeon holed and placed in areas where you can be easliy identified.

I even agreed that this particular comment from Nandy, as reported, seems illogical but that doesn't mean the woman isn't fit to govern this country.

How about the chap you supported as PM and his comments on rape?

And one comment I would make is I think an awful lot of money and an awful lot of police time now goes into these historic offences and all this mullarkey

Allowing that he couldn't even spell it correctly, the word malarkey means rubbish or nonsense. So you think it is OK for our PM to think that historical rape cases are rubbish and nonsense. What a spendid way to talk about a continent and a present day attitude toward it

The best fate for Africa would be if the old colonial powers, or their citizens, scrambled once again in her direction; on the understanding that this time they will not be asked to feel guilty..the problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more.

What a splendid way to talk about a continent and a present day attitude toward it

Hooray, I say. Bravo – and keep going

His views on AL-Assad's genocide of his own people.

I coud produce many more about the man you hail as the perfect person to lead this country.

So in future, rather than pick out one, apparent and puzzling thing for someone to say, just remember tha tyou cannot hide your hatred for anything that isn't right wing and dangerous in this day and age.

And you have no say in the election of the Labour leader and we know would never vote for one so your two faced, obsessive views are not not welcome on this post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Surfer said:

There is a reason for the saying “in all things moderation” - whatever our Individual political views, we probably have a great many things we agree about as general principles.

Political parties that run purity tests ultimately have nowhere to go except to grab or retain power by suppressing the people that they are supposed to serve.

Bernie Sanders supporters are on that path, so is Donald Trump, I worry about Boris and yes I see the danger here for / from Labour. It has already bitten them hard and for the sake of the country I wish they can gat past this phase. 

Completely agree.

I rather hope the election result has maybe woken up enough of the more enthusiastic Corbynites that telling everyone who doesn't support your agenda 100% to '**** off and join the Tories' isn't a winning strategy. 

Far too many would rather feel the warm glow of purity in opposition than compromise anything and actually get the chance to help the people they claim to care about so much.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conundrum Labour faces is enormous. The party grew out of the Trade Union movement and without disparaging other Unions, it was the trades Unions that had the ability to read and write that provided many of the early thinkers. And as education enabled so many more, the powerful industrial Unions such as the Miners also gathered thinkers and messengers.

And thus the Labour Party could unshackle itself from the Right Wing press and use its own intelligence to press for greater conditions and social preferences. It wasn't total all about money with many. It was the uplifting of the working classes in education, housing, travel etc.

But of course they couldn't achieve power. And when they did even their first government was shrouded in controversy. It wasn't really until Blair that the Labour Party achieved the most decisive majority to govern for more than one parliament. And that after the Thatcher years had decimated the institutions that had formed the Party.

My own Union, the NGA was initially called the Kamikaze Union. Not because it had the strength of Miners Union but it controlled membership of the newspapers. And nobody wants yesterday's papers so real power was in the hands of a few. But Wapping, and the apparent betrayal from within the Union movement, and technology has caged the tiger. And even Scargill betrayed his members and us following that life changing strike

After Blair, who knows what John Smith could have achieved, the Party was in turmoil because of its apparent move to beyond the centre of politics and first up protection of the markets and Banks during the collapse.

And the capture of the same ground that Blair had occupied by Cameron meant that there had to be an alternative or else he wouldn't be ousted. And by know, it was quite "fashionable" to pretend to be poor by much of the middle class and people sat round tables, drinking their Claret and not Brown Ale, decided that their consciences were pricking them as the world moved away from racism, homophobia and the Church.

And we ended up with Momentum and Corbyn. But also the re-emergence of people like McCluskey whose agenda was not really industrial. After all, what industry did we have?

And with December's mauling, obviously including Brexit, the party has been decimated and many life long members who I know have left the party, for instance locally in my area but activists like Michael Cashman.

So who do we choose? Who is that spark, that realist who knows we have to work on the effects of Brexit, the realisation by many who turned on the Party at the election that they may have made a grave mistake and the need to bring every side of the debate together.

Realistically, it isn't any of the three candidates that we have to choose from right now. But we have to make a start. We have to oppose stoutly and cleverly, the mistakes that this government has already, and will continue to make. Who has called out Boris for not visiting the floods yet? No-one. And he thinks he is fir proof. This was the opportunity to make a start. Missed already.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting read KG.

For me the Labour party's issue is in some ways mainly one of optics. Too many 'ordinary' people think Labour is obsessed with niche issues that make no difference to their lives rather than the core bread and butter issues. Labour is now seen as the party of upper-middle-class types, obsessed with who has the most privilege. From a foreign policy perspective, they are seen as the classic 'guilt-ridden liberals' who refuse to say anything good about the UK, not to mention the bizarre obsession with Israel/Palestine. 

These have always been issues but a combination of Corbyn and the membership he enabled have made those viewpoints much more valid. Someone like Starmer or Nandy can hopefully give at least the impression of a party with its finger on the pulse of issues people care about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting point. One of the things that stuck me on my last trip back to the UK was the amount of whining on local radio. Everything was negative, negative, negative, and I'm not surprised that people would want to tune that out and find something more positive. Even if that positive message is from a charlatan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/02/2020 at 17:11, Herman said:

I can't disagree. There is a lack of nuance in political debate. If you're not for Corbyn you must be a tory, if you're not pro-brexit you must be a lefty,if you're a LibDem you must be a secret tory etc etc etc. It's tiresome but, unfortunately, I do find myself getting dragged down into that mindset, mostly out of frustration.

You certainly do!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, king canary said:

Completely agree.

I rather hope the election result has maybe woken up enough of the more enthusiastic Corbynites that telling everyone who doesn't support your agenda 100% to '**** off and join the Tories' isn't a winning strategy. 

Far too many would rather feel the warm glow of purity in opposition than compromise anything and actually get the chance to help the people they claim to care about so much.

Why on earth did they need waking up, it’s a glaring lesson from history, and recent history at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, king canary said:

Completely agree.

I rather hope the election result has maybe woken up enough of the more enthusiastic Corbynites that telling everyone who doesn't support your agenda 100% to '**** off and join the Tories' isn't a winning strategy. 

Far too many would rather feel the warm glow of purity in opposition than compromise anything and actually get the chance to help the people they claim to care about so much.

Nail - hit - on - head - absolutely!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Nail - hit - on - head - absolutely!! 

The sad fact here is there were enough senior members of Labour who had lived though the Militant Tendency years and seen the resultant chaos and diminishing of the party it resulted in, but still allowed young enthusiastic minds to be misled down the same path to political obscurity. 

Edited by Van wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Van wink said:

The sad fact here is there were enough senior members of Labour who had lived though the Militant Tendency years and seen the resultant chaos and diminishing of the party it resulted in, but still allowed young enthusiastic minds to be misled down the same path to political obscurity. 

You mean like a 70 year old leader who had been an MP since 1983, but still tried to desperately recreate "the longest suicide note in history", the manifesto of the very same year, 1983?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Icecream Snow said:

You mean like a 70 year old leader who had been an MP since 1983, but still tried to desperately recreate "the longest suicide note in history", the manifesto of the very same year, 1983?

 

As someone who has supported Labour in the past and watched it destroy itself twice in recent times by lefty introspective ideology, its a sad thing to see, particularly at a time when strong opposition was needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting read KG.

For me the Labour party's issue is in some ways mainly one of optics. Too many 'ordinary' people think Labour is obsessed with niche issues that make no difference to their lives rather than the core bread and butter issues. Labour is now seen as the party of upper-middle-class types, obsessed with who has the most privilege. From a foreign policy perspective, they are seen as the classic 'guilt-ridden liberals' who refuse to say anything good about the UK, not to mention the bizarre obsession with Israel/Palestine. 

These have always been issues but a combination of Corbyn and the membership he enabled have made those viewpoints much more valid. Someone like Starmer or Nandy can hopefully give at least the impression of a party with its finger on the pulse of issues people care about.

The middle classes have hijacked the success of the trade union movement. I knew that every time I achieved success when I was National Secretary of the NZ Printing Union I was creating another group of people who now saw themselves as middle class and not really needing a union. The fact that they were doing better than the average was because our minimum was the average but they couldn't understand that.
When I came to Cornwall in 1980, our FOC (a printing shop steward) and our Branch Secretary were both Tories and believed Thatcher would solve the nations ills. All the guys in printing were driving around in their Range Rovers, we moaned if the chocolate was on the wrong side of the biscuit that our employer had to provide. So we gladly paid £10 a week to keep the miners out on strike and all chucked in £50 for Xmas presents for their kids.
As long as we didn't have to stop earning everything was rosy.
So the less privileged in society had to look for new sponsors. And those students and tutors who sat around debating in the 60s and 70s, were now the middle class who were never going to miss a meal. But our forefathers had raped India and Africa and imposed our will on half the world. And now we had abandoned them.
Coupled with the successes in the western world of a better and fairer society, not only achieved by governments but by trade unions, their attention had to be turned to something. Communism had finally ended its reign as the largest committee run Conservative/**** party in the world, so what was left. The Middle East.
Russian influence was diminishing as they could hardly feed themselves so American foreign policy filled the void. And the middle classes I mention saw the USA as just a clone of the UK. And Fatah became more likely on  t-shirt than Che Guevera. Zionism was seen as invented by Balfour and the star of David as evil as the swastika.
Now they are turning their attentions to home politics and now we find ourselves with a party founded by workers now being undermined by those who wouldn't know what a days graft was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 “a party founded by workers now being undermined by those who wouldn't know what a days graft was.”

👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Van wink said:

 “a party founded by workers now being undermined by those who wouldn't know what a days graft was.”

👍

The nature of work and work itself has changed. The heavy industries that formed a foundation for organised Labour have largely disppeared. In other industries automation has reduced the numbers required. Legislation has reduced the powers of the Unions and the result has been the creation of a precarious gig economy for many. The job for life has largely gone for the working classes making the idea of apprenticeships largely redundant. The Labour Party needs to reflect this, and adapt. The old thinking will no longer bring any chance of of either electoral success or sucessful government. It is difficult, but the problems are not represented by old ideas of workers and work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, BigFish said:

The nature of work and work itself has changed. The heavy industries that formed a foundation for organised Labour have largely disppeared. In other industries automation has reduced the numbers required. Legislation has reduced the powers of the Unions and the result has been the creation of a precarious gig economy for many. The job for life has largely gone for the working classes making the idea of apprenticeships largely redundant. The Labour Party needs to reflect this, and adapt. The old thinking will no longer bring any chance of of either electoral success or sucessful government. It is difficult, but the problems are not represented by old ideas of workers and work.

The quote from KG was illustrative imo BF, intended to reflect the soul of the party being manipulated  by an ideological group moving it away from its core support and practical values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Van wink said:

The quote from KG was illustrative imo BF, intended to reflect the soul of the party being manipulated  by an ideological group moving it away from its core support and practical values.

Strong analogy there @Van wink. The point I was trying to make was that core support no longer exists as a cohort in the electorate, the practical values    you refer to are out of date and obsolete and the  soul of the party needs to change if the modern progressive party I believe is possible is to emerge. I don't really buy this ideological group idea, I think there are a number of groups trying to feel their way to it.

I don't hold a candle for Corbyn, and unlike @keelansgrandad I didn't for the miners. Both I think were on the wrong side of history, fighting the wrong battles at the wrong time. With hindsight I think we are where we are because the Iraq war. Without it Brown would have won in 2010, David rather than Ed Miliband would have followed him, Cameroon would never have become PM, Corbyn/Abbott/McDonnell/Stop the War would be backbenchers only recognised by political nerds and we would be in very different territory now. Still they have had their chance and will now be consigned to political history. Johnson does not offer anything to wind sections of society (including the Red Wall seats) and this will become obvious next year. Things could change very quickly.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigFish said:

The nature of work and work itself has changed. The heavy industries that formed a foundation for organised Labour have largely disppeared. In other industries automation has reduced the numbers required. Legislation has reduced the powers of the Unions and the result has been the creation of a precarious gig economy for many. The job for life has largely gone for the working classes making the idea of apprenticeships largely redundant. The Labour Party needs to reflect this, and adapt. The old thinking will no longer bring any chance of of either electoral success or sucessful government. It is difficult, but the problems are not represented by old ideas of workers and work.

There are certainly big issues and questions to unpack for any party purporting to care about working people.

Automation is bad for low paid, low skilled workers but pushing back against it is fighting the inevitable.

Is it possible to reskill people who've been working in manual jobs? 

Will there be enough jobs for unskilled workers going forward?

Do we need to start talking about UBI? I believe so but I believe it involves a massive cultural shift in how we view work as being good in and of itself.

These all feel like bigger, long term questions. For now, I believe an effective Labour Party needs to help redress the balance between large employers and their employees that, in the absence of effective trade unions, has swung far too far in one direction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Strong analogy there @Van wink. The point I was trying to make was that core support no longer exists as a cohort in the electorate, the practical values    you refer to are out of date and obsolete and the  soul of the party needs to change if the modern progressive party I believe is possible is to emerge. I don't really buy this ideological group idea, I think there are a number of groups trying to feel their way to it.

I don't hold a candle for Corbyn, and unlike @keelansgrandad I didn't for the miners. Both I think were on the wrong side of history, fighting the wrong battles at the wrong time. With hindsight I think we are where we are because the Iraq war. Without it Brown would have won in 2010, David rather than Ed Miliband would have followed him, Cameroon would never have become PM, Corbyn/Abbott/McDonnell/Stop the War would be backbenchers only recognised by political nerds and we would be in very different territory now. Still they have had their chance and will now be consigned to political history. Johnson does not offer anything to wind sections of society (including the Red Wall seats) and this will become obvious next year. Things could change very quickly.     

I can’t agree with your opening remarks BF, there is undoubtedly imo still a large core support within the U.K. for values of society, a social safely net that is fair but accessible, a modern and well funded NHS and well funded quality public service provision. My view is that most of the U.K. is centre left but that there is no electable party that reflects that. Many voted Tory holding their noses, I think you underestimate the allegiance to historical views of injustice ( represented to many by the Tories ) and family voting patterns that still influence how whole communities are inclined to vote, the fact that Labour lost these votes is a damning indictment of Corbynism. The soul of the party for me should represent social justice, the practical values are the means by which social justice is delivered. That hasn’t changed, the working environment has been transformed in the modern era, but the basic underlying principals remain the same.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...