See, this is where explaining what FoM means has failed. People who never leave Yorkshire have still benefited from FoM…
Indeed, but until you get people believing it, it’s not a vote winner.
Here's a plan:
Since we have such a range of opinion on the current effectiveness of SKS, why don't all you potential Labour voters come up with some interim success criteria, so he can be measured against them pending a GE (surely the only real test). Opinion polls might be one (though short term pain might be necessary for some things). Column inches, PMQs, other interventions, policy changes, that sort of thing. You could have a monthly scorecard. That might help with the circular arguments that have plagued both this and the Corbyn threads.
Indeed, but until you get people believing it, it’s not a vote winner.
While politicians have to follow public sentiment to a certain extent they also have a responsibility to shape it.
Indeed, but until you get people believing it, it’s not a vote winner.
I agree.
While politicians have to follow public sentiment to a certain extent they also have a responsibility to shape it.
And the politicians in government have the best tools to do that.
And the politicians in government have the best tools to do that.
What do you mean by tools?
They set the agenda for the country. The opposition only get to stand and watch.
You want an example? There is currently a very expensive government advertising campaign telling the country how great it is that EU workers must have a sponsor to come here to work. Check out the ads… they really aren’t aimed at employers at all.
An opposite example? Blair's cringeworthy "Cool Britannia"... how we all laughed... but it installed the idea in the public consciousness that trade isn't just making widgets... having musicians, artists, film makers, computer game makers taking their creative output into the world was very real job creating economic activity.
having musicians, artists, film makers, computer game makers taking their creative output into the world was very real job creating economic activity.
Indeed.
And these are the very people now finding themselves on the receiving end of the Brexit culture war being waged by the right wing zealots in the Tory governemnt, determined to take us back to the 1950's.
All these people are now being lumped in as the 'metropolitan liberal elite' and Labour finds itself in the same pickle as with FoM and Brexit. If it stands up and defends us (and god knows we need it at the moment!) then it fits right into the Tory narrative and the right wing attack dogs in the press then go on the offensive.
It seems to me that the Labour party has settled on the idea that all these people will vote for them anyway (they will) and any they need to get the red wall seats back who are more conservative and reactionary
It seems to me that the Labour party has settled on the idea that all these people will vote for them anyway (they will)
I think that's a very dangerous assumption.
But I'm not in England so maybe things are completely different there.
They are.
But I’m not in England so maybe things are completely different there.
Aye, living up here it's quite difficult to align what Labour are doing in comparison with the currently leaderless branch office. I don't know anyone locally who would openly admit to being a Labour supporter, they seem to have alienated pretty much the full demographic.
In Scotland there is a very different set of issues. When labour lost power in Holyrood they retreated to the back benches and did nothing but complain - " its our ball and we don't want you to play with it"
they introduced the Bain principle which is to state anything the SNP do or propose is bad regardless of its merits. this led to the ridiculous situation where scottish labour would argue against the SNP doing something that was actually london labour policy to do
then they stood alongside the tories in "better together" and told a pack of lies
then we had the Labour / tory non aggression pact and also labour teaming up with tories to prevent the biggest party on some councils which was the SNP gaining power
the scots electorate have become more sophisticated in its understanding of the political process due to PR and the independence debate and thus saw thru this utter nonsense from Labour
All this while there was not a fag paper between the SNP and Labour on most issues
thats the main roots of the collapse of labour in Scotland
But I’m not in England so maybe things are completely different there.
There's one enormous difference... you have a choice. If I lived in Scotland I'd be voting SNP, no question.
In the North of England we look with envy to the north of the border. We live in a 2 party state. One party complacently takes our votes for granted, the other one hates us.
Its a great state of affairs that has led directly to the last election result. If you live in any of the 'Red Wall' seats then you're not going to mustering much enthusiasm to vote for either of them.
If I lived in Scotland I’d be voting SNP, no question.
Same here.
If you live in any of the ‘Red Wall’ seats then you’re not going to mustering much enthusiasm to vote for either of them.
Which is exactly why labour need to break out of it's blind addiction to failed 20th century economics and politics. Something which you repeatedly dismiss as '6th form'.
Good luck getting the ‘Red Wall’ voters to put their cross next to the kind of green revolutionary deal that you’re proposing, and the ‘let’s just print loads of money’ economics.
Whether we like it of not, a large chunk of those voters are what I’d call socially and fiscally conservative and what you’ve referred to repeatedly in the past as a bunch of thick racists 😂
That’s why they all deserted the party in droves when they took one look at Jeremy Corbyn and his Islington town hall sensibilities, which they all regarded as the embodiment of ‘6th form’ politics. Far too socially liberal and economically naive.
There’s no redemption for Labour in that direction. The more liberal, metropolitan populations of the cities are very receptive to that, but they all vote Labour anyway. But there aren’t enough of them to win a majority
What Labour need to do to win power is not to scare the horses, then start taming the wilder capitalist excesses, almost by stealth, if necessary
What was that blokes name who recognised that? You know the one? Won 3 elections on the bounce?
What was that blokes name who recognised that? You know the one? Won 3 elections on the bounce?
John Smith
If only, TJ
If only he’d got to be PM? Agreed.
There is a lot of mythologising about Blair.
I'm not mythologising him at all. On a personal level I can't stand the bloke. And like pretty much everyone esel I think Iraq was a disaster.
But I'm also respecting the fact that he understood the electorate and what was required to win elections. And I'm not blind to his acchievemenst as so many seem to be almost as a matter of faith. I find the willful failure of those on the left to acknowledge what he did to be both churlish and more importantly, completely self-defeating
There is a lot of mythologising about Blair.
Probably because for most of us, he is the only Labour leader to win an election to become PM in our adult lives. I never voted for him… but ignoring how he spoke to the voters, and framed policies to present to them, is no longer wise. He shouldn’t be copied, shouldn’t be revered, but also shouldn’t be treated as if everything he, and the only Labour governments many of us have known, got everything wrong.
Binners - I am afraid you are if you cannot see how he hollowed out the party. He capitalised on John smiths hard work and once he got his control of the party lost votes and support as he moved it ever to the right ending as a centre right party.
With his fascination for focus groups he became a follower not a leader.
He disenfranchised most of the membership
The good stuff done under his leadership was only because he had to as he did not have total control of policy so had to enact policies from the membership
What single good thing did he do in his second and third terms?
He capitalised on John smiths hard work
Of course he did. And said so himself. Blair and Brown owed everything to Smith.
The good stuff done under his leadership was only because he had to
Nah, that’s just blind faith (or whatever the opposite is) you’re showing there.
He shouldn’t be copied, shouldn’t be revered
I'm not suggesting he should. The one essential value he had, which has been woefully absent from the Labour party for years now is pragmatism. That went well and truly out of the window with the election of Jeremy Corbyn, replaced with an almost cult-like idealogical purity which was never ever going to win an election
I think that Starmer is a pragmatist too. He is prepared to look at what the electorate think and move and compromise as a result. Its the only way labour are ever going to see government again, yet when he does this there are the predictable howls from the idealogical purists who regard any compromise as betrayal, despite their 'purity' being repeatedly rejected by the elctorate, the last time in the most decisive way imaginable
He disenfranchised most of the membership
And the membership have spent the last five years disenfranchising the electorate
The good stuff done under his leadership was only because he had to
Sorry mate but thats rubbish. Blair knew exactly what he wanted to do. He also knew he had to do it almost by stealth when neccessary. The left have never forgiven him for it.
What single good thing did he do in his second and third terms?
We've been through this countless times. I'm not listing everything again. Failure to acknowledge what he acieved is just churlish and I'd once again ask his critics to imagine a Britain if those 13 years had been under Tory rule.
Well... you don't have to imagine it. We're living it
I quite agree on the pragmatism which is why I am a Starmer fan. I think he is doing an excellent job bar the huge blunder of voting for the deal and imposing a 3 line whip
Blimey! We appear to be in complete agreement Uncle Jezza. I think that as Brexit unravels, as its already doing, the decision to vote with the government is going to seriously hamper Labour. The party should have abstained en masse, leaving the Torys in complete ownership of the mess they created.
Other than that, I think he's doing a great job of restoring the party's cerdibility after the disaster of Corbynism
In Blairs first term is where almost all the good stuff came in - thats when he did not have total control of policy. Once he did what did he do? What good stuff came in the second and third terms?
The party should have abstained en masse, leaving the Torys in complete ownership of the mess they created.
It was an empty gesture to try and avoid being seen as the “remain” party… I wish Starmer had let Labour MPs avoid the vote entirely… but his signalling makes perfect sense as regards targeting key English seats.
In Blairs first term is where almost all the good stuff came in
I agree.
The one essential value he had, which has been woefully absent from the Labour party for years now is pragmatism.
Even though brexit and the 2019 election clearly demonstrate that the last thing voters want is sensible 'pragmatic' politics. Quite the opposite in fact, they recognise that in the wake of 2008, and almost certainly in the wake of covid, business as usual as you advocate is a completely bankrupt and failed policy. Where labour failed on 2019 policy (putting the personality politics aside) was that they attempted to justify their spending plans within the narrow parameters of pre-2008 tax and spend economics rather than the new paradigm of zero or negative base interest rates and QE.
I think that Starmer is a pragmatist too.
I hope not otherwise he'll be a miserable failure. Boris and the tories are way ahead of him, and they realise that the old rules are redundant, and they're using the new economic reality to enrich their friends like they could only have dreamed of 20 years ago. Starmer needs to drag himself into the 2020s very quickly otherwise he'll be left behind preaching 20th century prudence while everyone else goes on a spending spree.
Blair knew exactly what he wanted to do. He also knew he had to do it almost by stealth when neccessary.
So stealthy no one noticed at the time and still struggle to find with the benefit of hindsight. He really was an expert at doing nothing.
but his signalling makes perfect sense as regards targeting key English seats.
I can completely understand why he did it. He wants to move on and alienate as few voters as possible. Lets be honest, the Brexit argument was lost for ever in December 2019. I hate that fact, but it is what it is.
The priority has to be restoring labour as a credible government-in-waiting. If you look at the absolutely woeful state of the party left by Corbyn - 26 points adrift in the polls, in a failed political backwater - then the direction of travel is all good. Specific policy pledges can wait until we're not in the middle of a pandemic. Its not like time is an issue. Its nearly four years until the next election
and almost certainly in the wake of covid, business as usual as you advocate is a completely bankrupt and failed policy.
And when did I advocate that? You're seriously suggesting I'm advocating the continuation of the policies of this governemnt? Give your head a wobble, mate
So stealthy no one noticed at the time and still struggle to find with the benefit of hindsight. He really was an expert at doing nothing.
Utter and complete cobblers
We've been through this countless times
You’re seriously suggesting I’m advocating the continuation of the policies of this governemnt?
No I mean the economic system and policies which Blair and Brown adhered to which were no different to the tories at the time. You know, matching tory spending plans, promising not to raise taxes, putting arbitrary limits on deficits and debt, alllowing the Bank of England to 'independently' set monetary policy. All that has changed, it's gone, yet you seem to want to go back to it for some bizarre reason. If we did that the country would be bankrupt and the economy would collapse. Stamer and Dodds need to get up to speed and start making the case that money is not the problem, the problem is who it goes to, and they should easily be able to make the case that the people at large should benefit rather than financial institutions and private shareholders.
But thats what they're doing.
Dodds was on Newsnight this week specifically pointing out that the Tory's have spent billions propping up (certain) businesses, while largely failing to support people
The example she used was in culture, where they've given billions to the National Opera House, the Royal Shakespeare Company or whatever (mainly elite) oragnistaion to maintain the institution itself and the bricks and morter, yet all the freelancers who predominently make up the 'employees' have been cut adrift and haven't received a penny in state suport since last March
By doing this - saying that the Labour party would prioritice support for employees before capital institutions - surely shes doing exactly what you suggest?
then the direction of travel is all good. Specific policy pledges can wait
Starmer has laid out in a fair bit of detail his programme for the 4 years - a bit buggered by covid but he has completed the first parts. Next is his philosophy / vision then policy in the last year or so
But thats what they’re doing.
No, they're really not. They're still fixated with Blair-era economics.
"I am, in that case, suggesting that Anneliese Dodds is making a political error today. She is telling the electorate that Labour cannot be trusted to manage the economy unless it shackles itself to rules that the Tories demand but would not follow. That explains why Labour cannot win with such a policy, and probably will not.
And she is making the mistake of tying Labour to neoliberal thinking that is so very obviously of no relevance now, as has been proven by events since 2008."
https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1349266197204914176?s=20
But the electorate has, without exception, voted for some form of neoliberal eonomics for the last 4 decades.
It was offered an (arguably socialist) alternative to it at the last election. It delivered its verdict in the greatest rejection of a political party for 85 years, and delivered a whopping 80 seat majority to a party with the most hardline neoliberal agenda we've ever seen
I don't like that any more than you do, but if you think the electorate are in any mood to jetison neoliberal economics you're living on another planet
Yet again: we have to deal with the world as it is, not with how we'd like it to be. How many times do you want the labour party to repeat that same mistake?
You know the definition of madness, right?
Starker and his team should just say whatever the **** needs to be said to get elected. Then use their five years to do whatever the **** needs to be done to change things - nobody gives two shits about manifesto pledges, broken promises, what we can and can’t afford to do (à la “household budget” bullshit).
It was offered an (arguably socialist) alternative to it at the last election.
It really wasn't. You might like to imagine that those dangerous lefties were planning to abolish neo-liberalism, but the opposite was true. All labour did in 2019 was to say they'd spend more money and borrow to fund it, they never went anywhere near proposing fundamental changes to the system itself, and that's why the electorate didn't believe their plans were deliverable, because under that system they weren't.
Yet again: we have to deal with the world as it is, not with how we’d like it to be.
The world as it is now is an economic system where the banking system is propped up by QE, governments can spend what they like, and interest rates are zero or negative. No one voted for it, it just happened that way because post-2008, and again now after Covid, it was the only way to prevent economic collapse.
Neo-liberalism is already dead, but the tories won't admit it because it destroys their justification for austerity, and labour won't admiit it because they're scared of being branded as revolutionaries, even though the revolution has already occured.
The problem is no longer neo-liberalism, it's how the new economic reality is being used to turbo-charge inequality and the enrichment of those at the top. It's another form of monopolism, and it'll have the same destructive effects as it did in the early 20th century.
The key point has already been made, namely that Labour need to do whatever it takes to win power (even if that includes SKS painting his arse blue and singing 'Rule Britannia').
Once in power, a top priority should be the introduction of proper democracy (as opposed to the faux democracy we have now). (Never forget that the all-conquering extremist government we have now was elected by a minority.) Brown toyed with the idea of electoral reform which, if he had seen it through, would arguably have prevented the disaster of the past ten years.
The key point has already been made, namely that Labour need to do whatever it takes to win power
That's kind of my point. But what everyone assumes is the way to win (ie a return to blairite centrst conservatism) is now doomed to failure because we're in a completely different economic and political reality.
a return to blairite centrst conservatism
Who said that?
Who said that?
You doubt that's where Starmer is heading? I think it's pretty clear that's the direction labour are going, and it's very clear on here that's what many think he should do. I'll happily be proved wrong though.
