Sir! Keir! Starmer!

Can I suggest that Labour copy whatever position the tories have on Israel and just getting **** over it.

Israel is so far down the list of things that I give a shit about and even if I did give a shit there’s nothing that I can do about it.

The tories are the enemy save all your energy to getting those bastards out of power.

That’s a somewhat bizarre take on a balanced, objective piece of largely positive analysis

This is an opinion Vs fact thing.

That’s a somewhat bizarre take on a balanced, objective piece of largely positive analysis

Rawnsley balanced and objective? That’s a joke right? Everything he’s written since 2016 has had one purpose, which is to return the blairites to power and neuter the labour party as a transformative force in politics. He’s the very epitomy of an establishment hack.

Labour will have nowhere to turn unless they put something new forward instead of being a party of beige vision.

+1. The age-old tax & spend approach won’t work this time. They’re going to need something else, and that should be the radical green new deal as Starmer has previously promised, along with some novel policies around wealth taxes, universal income, and workplace democracy. I dont hold out much hope with Dodds as shadow chancellor. From what I’ve seen so far she seems to be completely bereft of any new ideas or ambition.

transformative force in politics

Does this means a party of protest, not governance?

I think the current polling is because the public see someone who they think would make a competent PM, with a genuine social consciousness, leading a party of placard wavers and moaners. The Party needs to start looking like the next government ASAP.

Does this means a party of protest, not governance?

I think you know exactly what it means. As I’ve said many times, I’ve no interest in labour gaining power if they don’t intend to do anything with it.

leading a party of placard wavers and moaners

Would you prefer it if he led a party of apathetic, selfish, grasping ****s?

I want Labour to gain power, and fully understand that they won’t then get to do everything I want, because there is not a big enough public mandate for my personal left wing leaning policy preferences. Your attitude is permanent Tory rule. When/if Labour get into power, they will have to be a government for the majority, not just those of us that who are happy to be labelled left wing.

Since we are yet to see the sort of society that many on the left desire, it is uncertain whether their or your approach is more likely to succeed.

Who won a General Election?

Foot, Corbyn, Kinnock?

Or Blair?

Rawnsley is a liberal democrat and wants the labour party to be a right of centre party.

workplace democracy

That would be the final nail in the coffin of the economy. In my experience of the workforce getting involved in decision making it’s a power/ money grab and let someone else deal with consequences.

Would you prefer it if he led a party of apathetic, selfish, grasping ****s?

Hey, the placard wavers are my people… but vote count still matters more than the number of people on a march. And anyway, public protest is more successful when it occurs outside of, or across, political parties, I suspect. Labour now needs to be show the voters it is the obvious choice to be the next government, not just the home of protestors. If it can so while keeping a broadly left wing prospectus, that’ll do me.

That would be the final nail in the coffin of the economy.

Said like any executive who is worried their unjustifiable salary and share options are at threat. When you talk about the economy, what you reallly mean is the tiny few people at the top who really benefit from it. That’s the thing that needs to change.

When you talk about the economy, what you reallly mean is the tiny few people at the top who really benefit from it. 

No he doesn’t.

That’s the thing that needs to change.

Agreed, but it can’t change if the Labour Party make themselves unelectable.

But anyway….

Would anyone care to answer or address my question above?

Here it is again.

Who won a General Election?

Foot, Corbyn, Kinnock?

Or Blair?

Rawnsley is a liberal democrat and wants the labour party to be a right of centre party.

Rawnsley has more than two brain cells to rub together and is nowadays, therefore, anti-Tory before everything else. Pretty much like anyone else with more than two brain cells (unless they stand to benefit personally from a No Deal Brexit and the ensuing chaotic sell off of public services).

This is an opinion Vs fact thing.

given that Rawnsley’s pieces are printed under a bold 48 pt header titled OPINION, I’d say they’ve nailed their colours pretty firmly to the mast there to avoid any confusion

But anyway….

Would anyone care to answer or address my question above?

Here it is again.

Who won a General Election?

Foot, Corbyn, Kinnock?

Or Blair?

I think the problem with that assertion is that under a Blair-like government, nobody on the left could foresee any real change happening, ever. Under Foot and Corbyn there was hope.

Blair wqas elected on a fairly radical programme

Its only after he took total control of the party he moved it to the right which was after he ws elected

IIRC when he was elected the cabinet and the manifesto were under control of the party conference

Who won a General Election?

Foot, Corbyn, Kinnock?

Or Blair?

I am not good on recent history but I am going to go with Kinnock. Was I right?

Blair wqas elected on a fairly radical programme

Its only after he took total control of the party he moved it to the right which was after he ws elected

IIRC when he was elected the cabinet and the manifesto were under control of the party conference

That’s not the way I remember it (although, I do have a terrible memory). When Blair got rid of Clause 4, the writing was on the wall.

Clause 4 was before the election yes. But the initial cabinet and programme were conferences to form not his.

Clause 4 was before the election yes. But the initial cabinet and programme were conferences to form not his.

I think I see. Are you saying that Blair was elected on a fairly radical programme, not of his design, that he abandoned as soon as he could. And, that Starmer will not have to worry himself with a radical programme, right from the start? You’re not reassuring me!

Blair inherited a winning position from John Smith.

Not at all My only comment was about Blair and his move to the right

IIRC ( and I am not really sure) did Corbyn not get a role for conference in deciding policy again?

I fully expect Starmer to have a left of centre manifesto that he is comfortable with, that is properly costed and that is practical

But I do not care that much as I fully expect an independent scotland to be close after next may ( holyrood elections) and Labour are now irrelevant in scotland. Basically I have had enough of being dragged down by england with its overt corruption, its biased press and its dysfunctional parliament

Foot, Corbyn, (Kinnock)
Blair, Brown, Milliband

Corbz got a shit load of new members and loads of people voted for him. Labour was massively in debt til he revitalised the party. But he couldn’t beat May who was imo even worse than the low hanging fruit Blair picked off. He turned as many voters away as he turned on (unfortunately)

Imo Labour do need a massive reinvention. Hopefully Starmer is coming up with a plan that isn’t akin to “2 cheeks of the same backside”

@tj lots of talk of independence in Wales as well. (Finally!)

I think the problem with that assertion is that under a Blair-like government, nobody on the left could foresee any real change happening, ever.

And all that that proves is that they’re either as thick as mince or in wilful denial due to idealogical blindness

If you think that the 13 years of a Blair government would have been even remotely similar to a further 13 years of Tory rule then you’re a delusional half-wit.

It really is that simple

loum
Member

Blair inherited a winning position from John Smith.

…and John Major. I’ve said it more times than I can count in threads like this but one of Labour’s biggest problems is their own fake history. So many people totally accept “Blair made Labour electable”, when it’s just untrue, and that leads to so many other mistakes. And the anti-Blair people routinely make the same mistake, and attack Blair’s record instead of attacking the mythmaking. So we talk about leaders as Blairs or Browns or Corbyns, and the party’s mostly forgotten Smith and his legacy and his lesson. (well, apart from the “don’t drink yourself into an early grave” one)

The best answer to every Labour leadership challenge since has been to try and find another Smith. You don’t get many of those for a pound, which is a problem, but equally nobody’s really looking- it’s all seen through the lens of Blair, just as the Tories can’t stop obsessing about Mummy.

If you think that the 13 years of a Blair government would have been even remotely similar to a further 13 years of Tory rule then you’re a delusional half-wit.

It really is that simple

Well thank you very much, I always wondered.

Well said northwind – there is a huge amount of mythmaking about Blair

Anyway, seeing as he appears to be the sage of our age nowadays, this should be interesting

UPDATE: As a new poll shows British people would prefer him to be Prime Minister than Boris Johnson, Labour leader @Keir_Starmer will be appearing on @GMB tomorrow. pic.twitter.com/fxMhsO9J4R

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) June 28, 2020

Sorry, must have missed the answer to my question amongst all the “he only won because of x, y and z” and “Jezza would have won with that hand dealt him too”.

Who is the only Labour leader to win a General Election in the last forty years?

I think the problem with that assertion is that under a Blair-like government, nobody on the left could foresee any real change happening, ever.

And all that that proves is that they’re either as thick as mince or in wilful denial due to idealogical blindness

Binners, since you have a better grasp of all this – what can I expect at the end of a term, with Starmer as PM?

In policy terms, he’s already stated that he won’t be straying far from Corbyns policies.

As I and many others have said on various threads on here, the problem with Magic Grandad wasn’t the policies (give or take the odd bit of barking mad nonsense). It was the fact that he had more baggage than the cargo hold of a 747, and he was surrounded by a gang of dysfunctional incompetents (Richard Burgon FFS?!) who looked like they’d have difficulty organising a village fete, who’s whole ‘strategy’ and communications set up was a total shambles and weren’t even trusted by the vast majority of their own MPs, never mind the electorate.

That’s why I can’t get my head round the objections from the sixth form. In policy terms he’s shown no intention to change much

Maybe if he grew a beard and got dressed in the dark…

Who is the only Labour leader to win a General Election in the last forty years?

I don’t know why you keep asking. Labour has had many leaders in that period, ranging from the centre right to the left, only one of which has won. I don’t think your question proves what you think it proves: you may as well argue that Labour should’ve abandoned soft left policies after Kinnock’s three defeats.

Going back a little further reveals Tory leaders far to the left of Starmer, and in some respects, Corbyn.

Tory leaders far to the left of Corbyn?

Like who?

Tory leaders far to the left of Corbyn?

Like who?

Churchill. I’m serious: read the 1951 manifesto, in particular its commitment to mass building of council houses. Macmillan was the minister responsible.

I don’t know why you keep asking. Labour has had many leaders in that period, ranging from the centre right to the left, only one of which has won. I don’t think your question proves what you think it proves: you may as well argue that Labour should’ve abandoned soft left policies after Kinnock’s three defeats.

Going back a little further reveals Tory leaders far to the left of Starmer, and in some respects, Corbyn.

You still can’t say the name, though, eh?

He’s not candyman ffs! He ain’t coming back

You still can’t say the name, though, eh?

You usually have a better comeback, right?

It was the fact that he had more baggage than the cargo hold of a 747, and he was surrounded by a gang of dysfunctional incompetents

You do know that’s not a fact, don’t you?

As I and many others have said on various threads on here, the problem with Magic Grandad wasn’t the policies (give or take the odd bit of barking mad nonsense).

Which bits were the barking mad nonsense?