What is the point of Labour ?

[GAD]

9 minutes ago, Detournement said:

The time to support a second referendum was never. Supporting it earlier when it had no chance of suceeding would have been even more disastrous. Siding with Blair and Campbell against a democratic result is about the stupidest thing you can do. 

As far as the manifesto goes anything which isn't neoliberal and isn't in the manifesto would get blocked by the HoL so they have no choice but to pack it.

As for 1997 back then there was no climate crisis, no NHS trusts, no Academy chains of schools and capitalism wasn't in crisis due to spiralling debt levels quite yet. Things are far more complex now.

How could it have been any more disastrous? I don't know if you noticed but Labour just got rejected on a scale not seen for decades. If you don't want to back a second referendum then fine, don't, but months and months of umming and ahhing whilst the country grinds to a halt, before finally settling on some halfway fudge that means you are going to drag the whole thing out even longer? Now that's the stupidist fucking thing you can do. Well done Jeremy.

 

14 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

I think you're right about policies like broadband.

I'm happy to believe that it's a great policy that would be quite transformative (I certainly don't know enough about it) - but nobody really wants it. It could be one of those important things that folk don't really understand.

Do shit like that once you win, but work out a better message ahead of time.

Yeah, agree, I think it's probably a good policy as well that would help a lot of people, but iy just seemed to drop from nowhere, and it wasn't really what the election was about. It's not really a time of crisis policy, if you know what I mean.

[GNU_Linux]

I think you're right about policies like broadband.

I'm happy to believe that it's a great policy that would be quite transformative (I certainly don't know enough about it) - but nobody really wants it. It could be one of those important things that folk don't really understand.

Do shit like that once you win, but work out a better message ahead of time.

I think in time internet access will come to be seen as a basic right as without access to the internet ones access to information is limited & would be restricted heavily in accessing the labour market due to how both are heavily online centric in modern times & will continue to increase in centricity.

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, pandarilla said:

I think you're right about policies like broadband.

I'm happy to believe that it's a great policy that would be quite transformative (I certainly don't know enough about it) - but nobody really wants it. It could be one of those important things that folk don't really understand.

Do shit like that once you win, but work out a better message ahead of time.

Most people already have decent not very expensive broadband, so the big gainers in out of the way places would be relatively few. And with fast and cheap satellite broadband arriving in the next few years the ten year project would likely become redundant.

Edited December 14, 2019 by welshbairn

[Stellaboz]

Corbyn's manifesto could have been written 40 years ago apart from the free broadband offer - hence the reason it was there.
Brexit is a red herring.  An absolutely massive red herring.

Will need that to feed Aw c**t for a while once the food imports run low.

[pandarilla]

Most people already have decent not very expensive broadband, so the big gainers in out of the way places would be relatively few. And with fast and cheap satellite broadband arriving in the next few years the ten year project would likely become redundant.

I'm no expert here but did someone on here not point out that there's no way this would be obsolete for a long time (not 10 years).

Either way, ultimately brexit fucked labour over. There was no way solution to it for them but they didn't bite the bullet and stay consistent. They allowed their debate to be public, and the party eventually reached a bit of a fudge. Although their policy was clear, they tried to sit on the fence throughout and paid the price.

I'm still not sure the alternative was straightforward though - but it had to be more decisive and clearer from the off-set.

Anyone thinking this defeat could have been avoided if they had a blairite set of policies is deluded. It was their brexit stance that killed them in England.

[Fullerene]

9 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

I'm no expert here but did someone on here not point out that there's no way this would be obsolete for a long time (not 10 years).

Either way, ultimately brexit fucked labour over. There was no way solution to it for them but they didn't bite the bullet and stay consistent. They allowed their debate to be public, and the party eventually reached a bit of a fudge. Although their policy was clear, they tried to sit on the fence throughout and paid the price.

I'm still not sure the alternative was straightforward though - but it had to be more decisive and clearer from the off-set.

Anyone thinking this defeat could have been avoided if they had a blairite set of policies is deluded. It was their brexit stance that killed them in England.

The difference between Blair isn't just about policies.  It is about being someone who looks the part, can argue his point convincingly, presents policies that seemed to be properly thought out and you can actually imagine in the role of prime minister.

It was the constant amateurism of Corbyn that was utterly frustrating.

[pandarilla]

The difference between Blair isn't just about policies.  It is about being someone who looks the part, can argue his point convincingly, presents policies that seemed to be properly thought out and you can actually imagine in the role of prime minister.
It was the constant amateurism of Corbyn that was utterly frustrating.

True.

But that's fluff. It shouldn't matter but it does. Style over substance.

I think if Corbyn had a Bernie Sanders like personality that clearly connects better (or even a younger, left wing Blair type) - they still would've lost if brexit had been handled the same way.

[ICTJohnboy]

6 minutes ago, Fullerene said:

The difference between Blair isn't just about policies.  It is about being someone who looks the part, can argue his point convincingly, presents policies that seemed to be properly thought out and you can actually imagine in the role of prime minister.

It was the constant amateurism of Corbyn that was utterly frustrating.

 

He did much better than anyone expected him to do in 2017 and there were many indications that young voters liked him and his policies.

As others on here have said it was Brexit that fucked him up this time - completely.

[NotThePars]

We’ll see what happens with Sanders but it’s noticeable that the mud isn’t sticking to him in the same way as his team goes on the attack instead of attempting to compromise with bad faith merchants. His campaign still looks anti-establishment whereas Corbyn’s pivoting to a second referendum and likely Remain made him in the eyes of many the party of the establishment. I doubt loads of people care that Johnson repeatedly flouts norms and breaks the law if it gets them Brexit.

[pandarilla]

We’ll see what happens with Sanders but it’s noticeable that the mud isn’t sticking to him in the same way as his team goes on the attack instead of attempting to compromise with bad faith merchants. His campaign still looks anti-establishment whereas Corbyn’s pivoting to a second referendum and likely Remain made him in the eyes of many the party of the establishment. I doubt loads of people care that Johnson repeatedly flouts norms and breaks the law if it gets them Brexit.

Do you not think they were offering a radical plan to change the country though?

It clearly was, and I don't think that should be binned because of the result.

[Fullerene]

7 minutes ago, ICTJohnboy said:

 

He did much better than anyone expected him to do in 2017 and there were many indications that young voters liked him and his policies.

As others on here have said it was Brexit that fucked him up this time - completely.

Yes Brexit did it for him.  If only he had figured that out 3 years ago and been full on Remain he might have convinced enough Labour voters to have swayed that result.

Instead he was in two minds about it - and thus so were Labour voters.

By the time he decided he would support Remain it was too late.  A lot of people who are entirely Leave still think the result should be honoured.

If only.

[vikingTON]

5 hours ago, NotThePars said:

 

Brexit and leadership seem to be the main issues that cropped up time and time again. The problem with the leadership is that the media have vilified every leader for like the past forty years outwith Blair who made a deal with the devil and stored up much of the problems that burst out on Thursday.

 

Erm no, the right wing press also monstered Blair in opposition; it simply didn't have as much effect because the leader in question wasn't an utterly useless mumbleclown. There's just no evidence that the press plays a significant contribution in creating weaknesses in a candidate: it only amplifies existing flaws and/or piggybacks on already established opinion. 

Edited December 14, 2019 by vikingTON

[pandarilla]

Erm no, the right wing press also monstered Blair in opposition; it simply didn't have as much effect because the leader in question wasn't an utterly useless mumbleclown. There's just no evidence that the press plays a significant contribution in creating weaknesses in a candidate: it only amplifies existing flaws and/or piggybacks on already established opinion. 

He literally got the backing of the sun, and in the 90s that still mattered.

 

I'm not defending Corbyn as an inspiring leader, not at all.

 

But the difference between how the media treated him and Blair is world's apart. That stuff has an impact.

 

[ICTJohnboy]

6 minutes ago, Fullerene said:

Yes Brexit did it for him.  If only he had figured that out 3 years ago and been full on Remain he might have convinced enough Labour voters to have swayed that result.

Instead he was in two minds about it - and thus so were Labour voters.

By the time he decided he would support Remain it was too late.  A lot of people who are entirely Leave still think the result should be honoured.

If only.

 

Think he would have needed to have been full on Leave to placate traditional labour heartland areas,  but then 95% of his party were hell bent on remaining. He was in an impossible situation.

[pandarilla]

 
Think he would have needed to have been full on Leave to placate traditional labour heartland areas,  but then 95% of his party were hell bent on remaining. He was in an impossible situation.

But whatever the call it had to be much earlier, and much clearer.

A very simple soft brexit plan was probably the best option. Loads of MPs would've fucked off to the chuka party but the election might've turned out a wee bit differently.

[NotThePars]

Do you not think they were offering a radical plan to change the country though?

It clearly was, and I don't think that should be binned because of the result.

Who were?

[pandarilla]

Who were?

Labour. This is the Labour thread.

I asked you earlier but you didn't answer.

You seem to not think labour were offering a radically different vision. I can't understand how anyone can't acknowledge that point.

[Detournement]

2 hours ago, NotThePars said:

We’ll see what happens with Sanders but it’s noticeable that the mud isn’t sticking to him in the same way as his team goes on the attack instead of attempting to compromise with bad faith merchants. His campaign still looks anti-establishment whereas Corbyn’s pivoting to a second referendum and likely Remain made him in the eyes of many the party of the establishment. I doubt loads of people care that Johnson repeatedly flouts norms and breaks the law if it gets them Brexit.

There are actual standards in American journalism though. There are completely different rules about sourcing stories over there. We are widely recognised as having the world's worst press.

 

[NotThePars]

Labour. This is the Labour thread.

I asked you earlier but you didn't answer.

You seem to not think labour were offering a radically different vision. I can't understand how anyone can't acknowledge that point.

Naw I meant with Brexit. I don’t think it was difficult for the Tories and Farage to paint Labour as ignoring the referendum result and therefore representing establishment interests in their pivot to a second vote. There’s a dozen reasons why 2017 wasn’t repeated that I can’t be gassed trying to articulate but one of them appears to be that. 2017 was supposed to be a Brexit election and wasn’t. 2019 ended up being that election and the Tories have a thumping majority.

[Sir Tarmo Kink]

It’s funny that the undemocratic leader (Corbyn) failed massively.