Ask yourself… if you were a member of some shadowy rich and influential cabal, hell bent on having governments bend to your will, and sabotaging democracy for your own evil ends, why on earth would you bother with the labour party? What on earth would you hope to gain by that?
You don't really understand how politics works, do you? Not that that should stop you commenting on here; your posts do at least serve as light hearted relief from what is a truly depressing reality. But just so you know; we're laughing AT you, not WITH you.
The real reason Labour is **** is because the wealthy elite of the party want it as their own political vehicle, to serve their own ends. Hence the failed neoliberal project.
GMB bosses Paul Kenny and Tim Roache split earnings of £263,000
TUC chief Frances O’Grady earns £152,365.
Stephen Cotton, head of the International Transport Workers Federation took home £149,005
Cathy Warwick was paid £147,139. head of Royal College of Midwives
RMT union general Sec. Mick Cash paid £137,349.
The wealthy right of the party deliberately sabotaged him at every turn. The Blairites, Mandelson, etc. So blame them.
Maybe so. But Corbyn and some of his closet aids were "wealthy" as well, and, before they were in position, sabotaged Labour and its previous leaders "at every turn".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Murray_(trade_unionist)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seumas_Milne
GMB bosses Paul Kenny and Tim Roache split earnings of £263,000
TUC chief Frances O’Grady earns £152,365.
Stephen Cotton, head of the International Transport Workers Federation took home £149,005
Cathy Warwick was paid £147,139. head of Royal College of Midwives
RMT union general Sec. Mick Cash paid £137,349.
Far too easy:
I really can't be bothered to list any more. That'll do you for starters though. Quite telling that you're attacking union leaders, who if they were in similar level positions in corporate jobs, would probably be earning multiples of those figures. So; what was your point again?
Maybe so. But Corbyn and some of his closet aids were “wealthy” as well, and, before they were in position, sabotaged Labour and its previous leaders “at every turn”.
Absolutely desperate. Is that really the best you can come up with?
The people who are crippling Labour are the “centrists” who are determined to stop Labour offering a radical alternative to the Tories.
Do the voters actually want a radical alternative to the tories. What if people are happy with the tories? (which they seem to have been for best part of 70 years)
You need to at least try and provide what people want rather than just assume they all want what you do.
So; what was your point again?
Oh, I see, you meant a different set of wealthy elites, So your problem isn't so much that many people in the Labour party are wealthy beyond the dreams of most folk, but that the wealthy elites you don't like, are wealthier than another group of very wealthy people.
Glad we've established that.
Oh, I see, you meant a different set of wealthy elites, sorry, as you were.
Do you really believe that those union leaders, or Corbyn, Murray and Milne, are even in the same league as the trio I mentioned, in terms of absolute wealth and further political influence? Nowhere near. Again; absolute desperation from the right.
So your problem isn’t so much that many people in the Labour party are wealthy beyond the dreams of most folk, but that the wealthy elites you don’t like, are wealthier than another group of very wealthy people.
It's how those people use that wealth. And beyond mere wealth, how influential they are. And it's laughable that you attempted to compare the salaries of those union leaders, with the wealth owned by the likes of Blair, Mandelson, Hodge etc. You really have no idea of what I'm talking about, have you? That's pretty obvious.
Ask yourself… if you were a member of some shadowy rich and influential cabal, hell bent on having governments bend to your will, and sabotaging democracy for your own evil ends, why on earth would you bother with the labour party
What the hell are you on about binners? Have you lost the plot? Who's talking about "some shadowy rich and influential cabal"?
I'm talking about right-wing Labour politicians such as Mandelson :
Although presumably the Guardian, a newspaper that you apparently greatly admire, was lying. All part of some great conspiracy.
Or perhaps Peter Mandelson was lying?
Or perhaps both the Guardian and Peter Mandelson were lying?
Maybe it's a very big conspiracy.
The point is that when Blair was in the left were attacking him, voting against him (see Corbyn for big offender) but then when Corbyn was in the right were attacking him.
They need to stop attacking each other and just get on with it. A party is always a compromise and it ultimately needs to work that out quickly and quietly.
I thought he might lend some gravitas, professionalism and credibility to the party
How's it going?
before they were in position, sabotaged Labour and its previous leaders “at every turn”.
Did they? Its rather telling if you look at those times Corbyn voted against the Labour government which way the tories were voting.
And it’s laughable that you attempted to compare the salaries of those union leaders, with the wealth owned by the likes of Blair, Mandelson, Hodge etc
Er, I think you'll find it was you who's compared their wealth, not me. I've just pointed out that there are very wealthy people in the Labour party who have influence.
RMT union general Sec. Mick Cash paid £137,349.
He's no longer the general secretary and the RMT isn't affiliated to the Labour Party.
Worse still, those salaries are from 2017 (the most up to date I could find)
Did they?
Well, one of them was a core member of another party, so yes, he absolutely was not working to help Labour and its leaders. As for Corbyn himself, he's always openly rebelled against the party leadership for his long political career, with a short break while he was leader.
I'm not denying that a big part of Labour's problem is people described here as "the right" and "centrists" fighting against those being called "the left" and undermining Labour's reputation in the process... it's the idea that the battle is one sided, and legitimate on one side but not the other, that I'm questioning. The fight for ideas and control in the party will never end... that's a given, but it's the endless focus on it, rather than outwardly working together to get into government and provide the UK with a (yes, compromised) executive that works better for us than a succession of Conservative ones that is letting people (especially those that are far from "wealthy") down.
'Give them what they want' was apparently a frequently used phrase in the Blair household. Not unlike having focus groups of first-time Tory voters to influence policy (defence, identity, nationhood, blah blah). What's needed are challenges to the ineptitude and corruption of the current government and a vision of a more egalitarian and progressive society but it won't happen with Starmer. Hence the flagging vote due to people not knowing what Labour stand for.
The real reason Labour is **** is because the wealthy elite of the party want it as their own political vehicle, to serve their own ends.
I think the reason Labour is ****ed is because it's actually a coalition of very different groups with only some common ground. So people want different things. And this is because FPTP demands it.
Spot on molgrips.
Sadly, theres an awful lot of truth in this
Covid-19 is probably a Chinese-Tory-Democrat conspiracy.
I'm off to Tesco's to get some bacon foil.
‘Give them what they want’ was apparently a frequently used phrase in the Blair household.
Which is sort of what democracy is. Offering people what they don't want is not really every going to work well outside of a dictatorship is it?
I can't see a Labour dictatorship anytime soon so they need to realise what Blair did.
I think the reason Labour is **** is because it’s actually a coalition of very different groups with only some common ground. So people want different things. And this is because FPTP demands it.
EDIT: It would be interesting to see, even with FPTP, what a division of the established parties' factions would be if they followed their own ideology and created their own manifestos for the electorate to decide upon. For example, lets say that the current LP split into 4 other parties - Left, Centre left, centre right, right - (not picking sides here or lines etc. and nor are my descriptions of the divisions meant to be an accurate portrayal of the LP in reality), would the pledges/manifestos/ideas actually have some influence on voters. We could, theoretical I know but I'm just hypothesising) see a parliament of MPs voted in from a wide range of different parties - perhaps even drawing away some of the current Tory voters who maybe would align more to one of the new parties as they only vote CP as its the 'closest' to best fit if not the best fit.
I would much rather see PR as the electoral method I will add, but I do not expect to see it in my lifetime.
Worse still, those salaries are from 2017
It's not a surprise that the labour party and wider movement has been used as a gravy train by all and sundry. That's why Corbyn et al were trying to turn it into a grassroots based activist party with full demcratic control of policy and governance. It's what I've been banging on about for god knows how long. It wasn't perfect, but under Corbyn the party was making progress to reorganise itself from the bottom up so that it could proplerly represent the interests of normal people and communities. That's why there was such a strong reaction from the right and those who previously had an iron grip on policy and strategy so they could exercise it in the interests of their corporate sponsors.
It’s getting to the point where the party just needs putting out of its misery. At a national level it’s a basket case that looks totally incapable of modernisation or reform. A 20th century anachronism, adrift in the 21st, with no idea what its meant to stand for
I've only been saying this for months. Glad you finally agree though. What should replace it though? If you ask me what we need is a broad-based progressive movement united around electoral reform, combating climate change, and massive devolution of power to regions/cities/communities. If there's one thing the labour party has proved it's that trying to hold together a hierarchical top-down coalition of diverse interests and then trying to keep everyone happy is impossible. The answer is to unite around some core issues, and allow communities/towns/cities/regions to do their own thing where they differ.
molgrips
Full MemberI think the reason Labour is **** is because it’s actually a coalition of very different groups with only some common ground. So people want different things. And this is because FPTP demands it.
Yup, as ever FPTP causes huge problems.
But it's not unique to Labour of course- the Tories are also extremely diverse. It's just that they are far better at working together/going along with the current group so they can have a go later. I think probably this is mostly due to one group being cynical, self-interested and dishonest and the other being idealistic and each is more convinced that they're right and that it's important that their version be heard (and, worst of all, that they can sell their idea on merit and that people it helps will vote for it)
I think the reason Labour is **** is because it’s actually a coalition of very different groups with only some common ground. So people want different things. And this is because FPTP demands it.
I concur. But getting rid of the wealthy elite right wingers, would at least allow for a more diverse range of voices to be heard. Because it's those who control the party, who dictate the direction the party has been going in for the last 20 years or more. For Labour to become relevant once more, it needs to become a party that truly represents working people, not a vehicle for neoliberal elitist ambition. By getting rid of the elite right, you'd perhaps lose some 'funding' (read: paying for political influence) from the likes of Lord Sainsburys, Alan Sugar, Richard Branson etc, but then closer affiliation with trade unions could fill at least part of that void, and give greater voice to the underrepresented. The cycle of wealth and privilege that rules out political system must be broken, if there is to be real social progression. And that can't happen the way things are.
What about getting rid of the wealthy elite left wingers? This expulsion and control obsession by people on both ‘sides’ of the party ignores the reality that while we still have FPTP a coalition of these differing views and interests are essential, because voters that could be won over by either ‘side’ are required to win the wide range of seats required to be in government. Without the Left, in key seats many voters will either stay at home or split the vote by giving their vote to other parties that can not win their seat. And if Labour is to be only of and for the Left, then there are many other seats they need that they can never hope to win.
What about
Whattaboutwhattaboutwhattabout.
It's the right wingers who've done the damage. Under their control, the party cannot be truly democratic, or representative of working people. And will therefore never offer any real alternative to the tories. Ergo, it's the right that must either step aside and abide by the wishes of the majority of the members (which they refused to do under Corbyn, who was, let's not forget, democratically elected by those members), or leave. Or failing that be forced out. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
And if Labour is to be only of and for the Left, then there are many seats they can never hope to win.
As it is, it's only representing center-right elite interests. And tell me; how well is that panning out?
You could probably benefit from listening to (apparent right wing) comedian Geoff Norcott interviewed yesterday by Nihal on Five Live
He's working class, bought up on a council estate in London who's dad was a shop steward but votes conservative. He says that like himself a lot of people from his background don't vote labour because they're sick of being patronised by lefties telling them that they apparently need liberating from their capitalist oppressors.
Most people don't feel like that at all, and so aren't responsive to ever-so-earnest Corbynite style hectoring, labelling them as victims. Much to the obvious annoyance of those on the left.
You can talk about revolution all you like. People just aren't buying it.
As Labour leader how can you combat these levels of stupid?
https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1392181951147163654
You can talk about revolution all you like.
Except no one is talking about revolution. The only people who do are those like yourself who want to paint a charicature of anyone to the left of Nick Clegg.
Not a revolution? You're talking about establishing a party that rejects the present economic model completely in favour of your as-yet-undefined one
To most people that's a revolution
Most people don’t feel like that at all, and so aren’t responsive to ever-so-earnest Corbynite style hectoring, labelling them as victims
Where is the evidence for this? It seems something more like woke which is an attack line but when asked for evidence it just gets regurgitated again.
Woke, incidentally, being a good example of the flaw in the argument about being cast as victims since for the rabid right the entire "woke" is an attempt to portray the left as oppressors victimising the poor helpless right wing.
Where is the evidence for this?
The present enormous Tory majority?
England is a conservative country. To appeal to conservative voting people you need to sell them the idea of something similar to that but somehow better. Radical change is not that.
The present enormous Tory majority?
Ah so no evidence for your specific claims then.
It is fascinating just how reliably you regurgitate whatever attack lines the tories trot out.
You’re talking about establishing a party that rejects the present economic model completely in favour of your as-yet-undefined one
1. Electorial Reform
2. Climate Change
3. Devolution
I never even mentioned economics!
England is a conservative country.
On average, but not universally.
lefties telling them that they apparently need liberating from their capitalist oppressors.
Er what?
For example, lets say that the current LP split into 4 other parties – Left, Centre left, centre right, right
They'd be in each quarter of the political compass since there is more than one axis. Going by recent leaders you'd have something like Corbyn (socialist left), Cameron (progressive right), Farage (socially conservative right) and Milliband (progressive centre-left).
What about getting rid of the wealthy elite left wingers?
On one side you have the billionaire super rich oligarchs who control the media and most of the economy, on the other you have a tiny few lefties who've inherited a bit of money or are on 6 figure salaries with a couple of properties. And you're worried about the lefty elitists???
It is fascinating just how reliably you regurgitate whatever attack lines the tories trot out.
I was merely discussing an issue that was raised by a someone who was giving his own reasons, which he shares with many of his friends and acquaintances, why someone assumed to be a traditional labour voter opts for the Tory's instead.
And I know where he's coming from. I find a lot on 'the left' incredibly patronising, sanctimonious and pious. Its really off-putting to a lot of voters.
And reading her article in the Guardian, its an opinion shared by Angela Raynor
Angela Rayner vows to reconnect Labour with working class voters
“For too long we have given off an air of talking down to people and telling people what they need or even what they should want or what they should think.”
Yes, you absolutely have! That was Corbynism, with its po-faced and utterly joyless hectoring tone, summed up in one sentence, and an attitude amply demonstrated in spades on this thread
England isHumans are a conservativecountryspecies. To appeal to conservative voting people you need to sell them the idea of something similar to that but somehow better. Radical change is not that.
Fixed, mostly.
Obviously there have been a few uprisings and rebellions here and there, but they do seem to be the exception, and I'm not sure many of them have replaced the previous boss with much of a different boss (I am not a historian, feel free to fill in some examples where the new boss was really, really, different).
1. Electorial Reform
2. Climate Change
3. DevolutionI never even mentioned economics!
How close to the green manifesto is that?
I find a lot on ‘the left’ incredibly patronising, sanctimonious and pious. Its really off-putting to a lot of voters.
Did you manage to keep a straight face while you were typing that? I mean, of all the people to accuse others of being patronising...
On one side you have the billionaire super rich oligarchs who control the media and most of the economy, on the other you have a tiny few lefties who’ve inherited a bit of money or are on 6 figure salaries with a couple of properties. And you’re worried about the lefty elitists???
Well, quite. It's true that there are lefties who earn enough to buy a woodburner, pizza oven, Orange 5, espresso machine AND a shiny EV. They'd fit in well here.
But it's idiotic to pretend that political power and influence is not highly asymmetric.
