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.”

The last thing Labour needs is another fiscal rule https://t.co/VzaJSy4otr Fiscal rules may have worked in 1997 but we are in a vert different era. Now they are just a political admission of accepting neoliberal thinking. And that will be disastrous for Labour, yet again.

— Richard Murphy (@RichardJMurphy) January 13, 2021

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.

You doubt that’s where Starmer is heading? I think it’s pretty clear that’s the direction labour are going,

Daz … absolutely nobody is suggesting that what we need is some microwave reheated Blairism. It was applicable and neccessasry in 1997. The world couldn’t be more different now. We’ve effectively had a right-wing coup, facilitated by the left, for a start

And it is not ‘pretty clear’ where Starmer is going at all.

What we are saying is that some pragmatism is required and the left needs to let go of some of its hobby-horses that completely repel most voters

You seem to be like a lot on the left where nothing short of the overthrowing of capitalism will and the establihment of some mad money-press economy will suffice

Here’s the news:

NOBODY WILL VOTE FOR THAT! NOBODY!!

In a country as (small c) conservative as the UK, nobody is interested in ‘to the baracades!’ nonsense. Nobody apart from a small band of nutters want a revolution. The level of most peoples political activism is tutting over a Daily Express headline.

Corbyn tested it to destruction. Starmer is trying to repair the damage from that absolutely disasterous experiment. Yet you think that throwing at the electorate something even more extreme than grandads will yield an electoral majority

Mate, much as I love you, and I know that deep down you’ve missed waiting at the top of hills for me this year, you’re absolutely off your napper!

You seem to be like a lot on the left where nothing short of the overthrowing of capitalism will and the establihment of some mad money-press economy will suffice

Where have I suggested overthrowing capitalism? I’m not talking about showering people with printed money either. If I had to pick one policy/strategy this would be it: Use MMT based economics to provide a job guarantee provided  by the govt and make them green community based jobs to combat climate change as part of a green new deal. That’s it. Full employment in a capitalist system using economics which already exists focused on fighting climate change and eliminating poverty. If a labour govt can’t aim for that then there’s not much point in them.

Well there is a point to them, isn’t there?

Namely the absolutely enormous yawning chasm between the politics we have at present and the one you’re advocating

If we can get us on the way towards the latter and further away from the former then that’s progress.

If you printed your proposal out and stood on it as a manifesto, you’d lose your deposit in most seats. As the Green Party demonstrates at every general election.

A massive amount of people in this country couldn’t give a shit about ending poverty or combatting climate change, what they actually want is a BMW X6 with a private number plate, a month in the Bahamas and to bring back hanging

NOBODY WILL VOTE FOR THAT! NOBODY!!

Well said indeed sir.

I am Labour to the core but like most decent working people I despise lefty do-gooder types and anyone who spouts socialist six form claptrap. Anyone with a half brain cell realises that Lady Thatcher and Sir Winston were the greatest leaders we ever had.

What we need is our own Farage. A smasher, a warrior. Somebody to defend our great nation from the lefties, from hordes of immigrants and Asian rape gangs. Somebody who loves our monarchy, who supports our brave boys and defends white culture.

That champion is Sir Kee Kee Starmer KCB!!!

Lets get our country back!!!

I think that probably sounded clever to you. Are you pleased with your effort?

**** me, even by STW standards, that’s boak worthy.

Namely the absolutely enormous yawning chasm between the politics we have at present and the one you’re advocating

The politics I’m advocating is neither extreme or particularly radical. The fact that you think it is only confirms how far towards the right we’ve travelled. Actually that policy aim I just mentioned isn’t too different from what Biden is proposing in the US. If you’re right then does that mean the UK is now further right than the US? Should we just accept that?

If we can get us on the way towards the latter and further away from the former then that’s progress.

So the sum total of labour amitions is to be slightly better than the tories? And we all wonder why labour never win.

A massive amount of people in this country couldn’t give a shit about ending poverty or combatting climate change

I couldn’t disagree more. Those who have the luxury of worrying about it care very much about climate change. Those who are under 30 care about it more than anything else. Those who are struggling with other issues want to see politicians listening to them too. The issues of poverty and climate change are not mutually exclusive, and the solutions are the same. But first labour need to grow a pair and start making the case for the alternative.

But first labour need to grow a pair and start making the case for the alternative.

That is almost exactly what I said about FoM but you said that it was a 100% sure-fire way to lose the election.

I’m interested in why you think they should be championing a major change in economic direction but not FoM.

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’).

I have been arguing for years for a one term national unity government of labour and lib dems to institute proper constitutional reform including PR

If labour and lib dems and greens each stood aside in 50 seats for the other then they would easily gain a huge majority. Enact proper PR reform and sort out the lords via a constitutional convention and we would never have a tory government again

The politics I’m advocating is neither extreme or particularly radical

You do remember the last election, right?

The electorate, by an absolutely enormous majority, judged an old bloke on his allotment to be a dangerously radical communist who would destroy the country

Good luck with selling your vision to them

The fact that you think it is only confirms how far towards the right we’ve travelled

It’s not about me. I’m a fully paid up, Guardian-reading, metropolitan, liberal snowflake. But I’m aware that unless you can get elected, you can’t change a bloody thing!

If you’re right then does that mean the UK is now further right than the US?

absolutely! Of course it does! As far as government is concerned. The US just voted out their right wing demagogue. We just gave ours a thumping great majority while celebrating the most divisive right wing policy this country has ever seen

That’s the electorate you need to sell your green new deal too. There’s not a cat in hells chance! They had Ed Milliband down as a Marxist

I’m interested in why you think they should be championing a major change in economic direction but not FoM.

Well firstly it’s not a major change in economic direction, because the changes in economic management and monetary poliicy have already occured, what I’m arguing for is for that to be focused on providing full employment and combatting climate change, rather than just propping up banks or reacting to crises. FoM on the other hand is a massive change to something that’s only just been implemented with a clear mandate behind it. We can either focus on the battles still to be fought, or waste time reenacting the ones that are already lost.

Tjagain, a three-way electoral pact would be excellent and I’m sure the Greens and Lib Dems would be keen, but Labour would never agree if there was even a remote chance they could win a majority. (Look what happened when opposition parties had the opportunity to form a majority government before the last election – hubris and tribalism prevailed.)

I know steelfreak – and it makes me want to bang my head against the wall. Swinson was the main holdout but labour would not move much either.

The prize is so big that its a no brainer. No tory government ever again

It was so infuriating last time tbh, the Lib Dems making so much noise about compromise and withdrawing candidates but I took a little time to look at the seats and there wasn’t a single seat they’d done it in where they were getting a worthwhile amount of seats. It was a totally empty gesture and really just saved them money, but it made headlines and gave the impression of working together. Meanwhile Labour got it in the neck for not “reciprocating” but the truth was that the Lib Dems had no shortage of seats where they lose or barely recover their deposit, Labour just didn’t, so they couldn’t do the same.

(less said about scottish labour the better on compromises…)

As long as the left-ish/centrist-ish/not-tory vote is split and we have fptp it’s a massive problem, at teh last election teh lib dems and labour polled almost exactly the same as the Tories. But of course, it’s easy to see and easy to say but not so easy for a political party to basically give up seats- and it’d be mostly one way.

Lib Dems, Geens & PC only tried to help each other… they did nothing to help Labour in any seats… but then… it was never going to be reciprocated. Why did Labour put a candidate up against Caroline Lucas? Why put a candidate up against Stephen Lloyd? Against Daisy Cooper? Against Jane Dodds? There can be no effective election pact without Labour.

Kelvin – I agree its a two way process but its still infuriating that they couldn’t do it.

Shall we start a racist RW party to take votes off the Tories?

Death Penalty Party?

What about a kick Scotland & Wales out of the UK Party?

Shall we start a racist RW party to take votes off the Tories?

Too late

its still infuriating that they couldn’t do it

Agreed. And I’ve just remembered that I was wrong about the Green Party… they did stand down their candidate in some seats to try and help the Labour candidate. My seat was one! How could I forget. Which makes it even more infuriating that Labour didn’t do likewise in a single seat in the UK to help another opposition party try and reduce the number of Tory MPs returned.

While labour believe they can still win a majority under the current system they are unlikely to enter any electoral pacts. Weirdly, Labour would need to be way down in the polls come the next GE for there to be any chance of a pact. The other problem is that AFAIK there are still many fans of FPTP on the Labour benches.

kelvin
Full Member

Why did Labour put a candidate up against Caroline Lucas?

Pretty straightforward surely? Lucas was under no threat whatsoever. Labour standing down in that seat would only change who was second from Labour to Tory, it wouldn’t gain anything. Meanwhile, it was a Labour seat til 2010 and of course they’d like it back some day.

Basically it’s a total red herring, it’s not the sort of seat you can expect parties to surrender and it’s also not the sort of seat where there’s any gain from it. There were in fact no seats in the whole UK where Labour could stand down and help the Greens to a victory.

But the whole “unite to remain” campaign was a red herring. it wasn’t about anyone helping anyone else, it was about generating headlines. Changed nothing and wasn’t supposed to. Did save a few deposits. It was pretty harmless too, to be fair- there was a small risk of it helping tories into a couple of labour seats but in the end the numbers involved were too small.

And the other candidates I mentioned…?

And, if you are a Labour politician that doesn’t value the contributions of Lucas to parliament, and think that unseating her with a no mark with a red rosette is something to pesue… you are exactly the kind of tribal politician damaging this country, in my personal opinion.

Lloyd in Eastbourne- would have made no difference.
Cooper in St Albans- would have made no difference.
Dodds in Radnorshire- would have made no difference.

Bit of a theme emerging tbh. I mean, these 4 seats that you thought worth highlighting would have been perfect candidates by the Lib Dem and Green standard of “find a seat where it’ll make no difference then make a lot of noise about it”. But that’s not what’s needed, no matter how much it impressed you in 2019.