Next UK Labour Leader - post Brexit

[WhiteRoseKillie]

16 minutes ago, WaffenThinMint said:

I'm reading the above in a mixture of disbelief and despair. If this is truly what a lot of those in the pro-Corbyn camp are thinking - something akin to the nonsense the Covenanters came out with about being a united people believing in Sound Doctrine being more important than winning battles (shortly before Cromwell destroyed them at Dunbar) - then we may as well all stick as much money on the Tories winning the next two general elections before the odds plunge any further - it will make for a tidy enough sum to part-offset the shrinking of our spending power in the decade to come whilst the Labourites obsess over ideological purity & to buggery with winning elections.

If you want to fight against inequality and discrimination, build a better society and hopefully leave the world a slightly better place for your kids and grand-kids, your party needs to start winning elections again - period. No power, no changes. How else do you think changes are going to happen without winning elections? Protest marches? Strikes? Hasn't worked so far, has it?

Don't get me wrong, I despised Tony Blair & the careerists he brought with him (although Labour are kidding themselves if they're trying to pretend they weren't the party of the arch-careerist as much as the Tories since the Butskellism era). But there's nothing noble about watching your country ruined for the sake of purity of dogma.

No Party needs to win elections - a coalition of shared ideology could do that, though. And Labour had a chance to do that last year, in concert with the SNP and other "progressive" parties. But no, they were too big and important for that. Had Milliband joined forces, even just with Sturgeon's party, and expressed a clear anti-Tory agenda, Dave and his minions would have been out on their arses. Instead, "Red"() Ed positioned Labour so closely to what the Tories were spouting that the only beneficiaries were UKIP. As has become a depressingly regular occurrence, if you offer the electorate the choice of two Tory Parties, they'll vote for the real one.

The time has never been better to rouse the electorate from their torpor - almost every policy the Tories have implemented in the last six years is easily challengeable, simply on the grounds of unfairness, inequality and plain discrimination. Yet the PLP, rather than unite behind their democratically elected leader and show these scum up for what they are, prefer to fight like cats in a sack to protect their personal interests.

Nobody's talking about retaining the "purity of dogma" here - simply that the pursuit of power for it's own sake will never end well. One only has to look at the Blair Years for proof of this.

For years we have been told how good things are "for Business". Well, fúck Business. I want what's good for people, and that means eradicating the need for foodbanks, social housing where rent is re-invested into local Government and not increasing private property portfolios, any profits made in banking benefit this country, not the Caymans and Luxembourg, and public services are just that. It does not mean spending billions on Nuclear weapons or one fúcking train line when the network needs a logical expansion.

How will we pay for all that? Tax, of course. I'll happily pay more if, firstly, it is used properly and, secondly, if those who can pay more do pay more.

We hear a lot of talk about the 1% and the 99%, or whatever figures are current. Well, if that 99% stopped dancing to the 1%'s tune, we could make a difference. On many occasions, I have told my employer "No" when asked to do something illegal, unsafe or inappropriate, I have taken Industrial action including going on strike, and I'm still employed - because we do still have some rights protected in law. The longer we listen to this "good for Business" shite, the fewer and weaker these protections become. If the masses don't unite and throw these fúckers out, then we're going to end up as the expendable indutrial units they'd like us to be. At least I can hold my head up, knowing I did what I could. How many will be able to say that? Can you?

[BerwickMad]

What utter drivel. Did what you could? You're going to do f**k all other than preach from the margins and that does absolutely nothing for the poor in society. The vast majority of people in the country politically are around the centre and you need to realise this. It might make you feel warm inside, but don't delude yourself into thinking you're helping anyone standing by your political views and not attempting to reach out in the slightest to anyone.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

23 minutes ago, BerwickMad said:

What utter drivel. Did what you could? You're going to do f**k all other than preach from the margins and that does absolutely nothing for the poor in society. The vast majority of people in the country politically are around the centre and you need to realise this. It might make you feel warm inside, but don't delude yourself into thinking you're helping anyone standing by your political views and not attempting to reach out in the slightest to anyone.

Unfortunately, your "centre" is a place where Thatcher would feel comfortable, and Bliar would think was a wee bit too constricting for his mates' earning potential.

"You're going to do fúck all...". I'm going to carry on doing what I've done all my adult life. Trying my best to be a decent person, and help others where I can. Sorry if you don't think that's a good idea. I've been getting called "idealistic" by TU colleagues for thirty plus years now - I still don't see how it's a bad thing to be.

I must be reaching out to some people, as my I've been elected to my current Branch position three times, and have been encouraged to stand for national office*. It's not about political views or labels - it's about representing the people who trust you enough to vote for you - something the Tories don't do as a definition of what they are, and something which Labour has signally failed to do for decades.

*Although I feel I may be a bit long in the tooth - our Union needs the vigour of Youth for the fights ahead. Also, I'm probably not diplomatic enough to negotiate with the Employer at that level. I know my limits.

ETA: Unfortunately, the majority of people in the country are in the dark, not the centre. Content to receive approved information, unwilling to seek out knowledge, discouraged from questioning and encouraged to accept what they're allowed to have.

[BerwickMad]

You being a decent person and helping others is fine. And aye, it's a good thing if that's what you are/do. But expecting the Labour Party to follow your principles when it would make them totally unelectable does nobody any good. The black or white 'my way or no way' attitude isn't admirable IMO. In all walks of life you need to compromise and reach out to people to progress and achieve things. That needs to be done in the Labour Party too if that party is going to help anyone, and it doesn't mean "If your no with us, you're with them!"

[jmothecat]

My worry with the all or nothing approach is that it always seems to end in nothing. When it's the future of the neglected in society, of working people who don't get a fair deal or fair pay, of the unemployed, disabled and vulnerable, of our children (I'll be selfish, my child) that we are gambling with I'll take the compromise every time because if they end up with nothing then all the moral purity in the world won't help them in the slightest.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

7 minutes ago, BerwickMad said:

You being a decent person and helping others is fine. And aye, it's a good thing if that's what you are/do. But expecting the Labour Party to follow your principles when it would make them totally unelectable does nobody any good. The black or white 'my way or no way' attitude isn't admirable IMO. In all walks of life you need to compromise and reach out to people to progress and achieve things. That needs to be done in the Labour Party too if that party is going to help anyone, and it doesn't mean "If your no with us, you're with them!"

Why does it have to make them unelectable?

Punters will vote for self-interest, nine times out of ten. So, here's a few ideas:

Mr Average, would you prefer the money you spend on a rail ticket to go to maintaining the service, or would you prefer a percentage to be siphoned off by someone who doesn't care if you get a seat or not, as long as the dividends keep coming?

Ah, Miss Council Estate, I see you are concerned about the prospect of people coming into the UK in order to deny the indigenous population access to services. Would you like to know which country manufactured and sold the weapons used to start the Civil War they're fleeing?

Excuse me, Young Office Laddie - I know you are concerned about the effect of dole scroungers on the treasury. Are you aware that in a couple of years time, if you bang in the unpaid overtime necessary to prove you're the kind of team player the company wants to promote, you'll probably be paying more UK tax than Google?

Haw, Family Man - Do you think it's a good idea that your local hospital can't attract Nurses because the pay has regressed in real terms, and so has to rely on agency staff at a massive premium - staff who are the ones who would prefer to work for the NHS, working for an agency which profits massively from basically acting as middle man?

Ask the right questions, give information, be prepared to spend time with people, listening to their concerns. THAT is what our representatives should be doing. It's not political point-scoring to identify where things are plain wrong. You may not like the idea of principle being pre-eminent, or even acknowledge that there should be a moral dimension to politics, but by Christ the Tories have left some open goals to be attacked on just that point.

Don't ask why, ask why not. And when the reason why not is that some fúcker with money might get a little less money, then I'm afraid that is no answer at all.

[WaffenThinMint]

2 hours ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

No Party needs to win elections - a coalition of shared ideology could do that, though.

And what the devil do you think a bloody political party is, but a coalition of shared ideology!

Good grief, it's not supposed to be hivemind where everyone thinks the same - except in the lunatic world of the extreme left and extreme right. It's supposed to be people who share certain common ideals, agreeing to disagree on the rest.

It's primarily because Labour has lost the ability to agree to disagree, that it has become as bigoted between its own members as it is bigoted towards members of other parties that they've found themselves eclipsed by those two grand old alliances - the Conservative Party and the Scottish National Party.

2 hours ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

At least I can hold my head up, knowing I did what I could. How many will be able to say that?

As has been answered sixty three years ago by Estragon in Samuel Beckett's Waiting For Godot, "Billions!"

[WhiteRoseKillie]

8 minutes ago, WaffenThinMint said:

And what the devil do you think a bloody political party is, but a coalition of shared ideology!

Good grief, it's not supposed to be hivemind where everyone thinks the same - except in the lunatic world of the extreme left and extreme right. It's supposed to be people who share certain common ideals, agreeing to disagree on the rest.

It's primarily because Labour has lost the ability to agree to disagree, that it has become as bigoted between its own members as it is bigoted towards members of other parties that they've found themselves eclipsed by those two grand old alliances - the Conservative Party and the Scottish National Party.

As has been answered sixty three years ago by Estragon in Samuel Beckett's Waiting For Godot, "Billions!"

Unfortunately, today's Labour Party is anything but.

They've been eclipsed by the Tories in recent years because, by seeking to attract a few voters in marginal consistuencies, they're simply watering down Tory policies so as not to scare off the skittish swing votes. They've been doing this for so long they can't see a lot wrong in many Tory policies, so can't bring themselves to attack them as they should.

They've been eclipsed by the SNP because - and this is important, all you "centre-left" types - if you offer the electorate a raft of policies which prioritise your people over profit or some faded idea of being a world power, and then actually back that up in Government, people will vote for you.

ETA: I'm not sure you remember Godot as well as you thought, or maybe I'm just not getting the relevance of the quote.

[Ira Gaines]

Worth noting that all of this winning elections talk is pretty funny coming from folk who are very unlikely to see their party win elections in the near future. With or without Corbyn in charge. The Labour party as it is will probably lose election after election.

[Newbornbairn]

You can't feed a family with principles.

[pandarilla]

You can't feed a family with principles.

But principles will give you the chance to feed them more than crumbs.

[Newbornbairn]

1 minute ago, pandarilla said:

 

 

But principles will give you the chance to feed them more than crumbs.

 

 

 

Ah, jam tomorrow?

[NotThePars]

The difference between the Tories and Labour (and the SNP in Scotland) is that the Tories and the SNP set the agenda in their parliaments. People know what they stand for and what they're about. You can't say the same about Labour apart from some vague platitudes and undefinable "electability". Maybe if Labour had a coherent and consistent long term vision they wouldn't be languishing miles behind in the polls.

[Arsenal till I die]

Is the 99 remark implying that Khan is an ice cream van man because he's Asian? 

[pandarilla]

Interesting discussion on this thread about ideas and the recent record of the labour party.

For me it was summed up perfectly as the chasing of a handful of floating voters in a handful of constituencies. At the same time desperately trying to keep the press happy and not rocking the boat.

This is what worked for Blair so well - for two reasons. It was relatively new, and the British public were absolutely fed up with the Tories. I could've manufactured a winning strategy in 1997 for Christ sake.

What those people fail to grasp is that politics changes, and with it the rules of politics. Obama broke the rules in the states in 2008 and whether or not you think he delivered it was an incredible victory against the status quo.

Those engaged in politics in a left wing fashion see through the bullshit. Satire has shown us how it works and like the wizard of oz it stinks behind that curtain.

Social media has allowed young people to organise in new ways. The old order of controlling the media is on its last legs. A united front against the neoliberal agenda is the only hope for labour in the current fptp system.

[Arsenal till I die]

I've posted this on MSE, might as well paste it here:

Labour won't win a general election any time soon, with any leader. I hope Corbyn wins because Smith has made no complaints about the shocking way the members have been treated.

Having said that, I am disappointed with Corbyn and to a lesser extent McDonnell. At least McDonnell talks the talk about the way the members are being treated but I've yet to see any action.

Corbyn needs to reform the party, members accused of wrong doing have to have a right to defend themselves and that includes not being stripped of voting rights until they've been found guilty. If you commit an on the spot sackable offense at work, a procedure is still followed but not in the supposed party of the workers.

Either the NEC needs to be reformed so that the members of the NEC get a vote on what the NEC does (which didn't happen with the court case) or the chair of the NEC needs to be an elected position, or the NEC needs to be scrapped and the General Secretary needs to be an elected position.

The rules need to be tightened so that there is more clarity (if it's a tweet you're told what tweet it is) and that there is less discretion (you either get expelled for previous support of a party or you don't, the decision cannot be left to people who prefer the Tories to the Greens).

It needs to be the same rules for members and M.P's. In any other organisation in the world, the higher up you go the more responsibility you have. Only in the supposed party of the workers is the opposite true.

The joining process - if they're really concerned about entryism, do away with registered supporters. Put more questions on the application form and decide whether or not to admit someone, rather than admitting people then retrospectively expelling them. Do not cancel anyone's vote when they've already made it, this clearly provides room for corruption because they voted the wrong way!

If someone challenges him on a platform of doing more to reform the party - and I believe them - I will consider supporting them over Corbyn. 

[Cream Cheese]

1 hour ago, NewBornBairn said:

You can't feed a family with principles.

If everybody gave up their principles, then everybody would be in it for themselves and everybody would be worse off as a result.

[jmothecat]

It isn't power vs principles, it's about not sticking rigidly to principles at the cost of power. Principles are necessary but to rigidly stick with them, without room for compromise doesn't work. I have sympathy with the idea that Labour should find a clear vision to represent to the electorate but it is essential that this vision actually appeals to the electorate. Consistently telling voters that they are wrong and they need to change to suit us doesn't work and this 'changing the electorate' angle is basically that but in nicer words.

Miliband's 35% strategy should be a worry to us all because it did not work. Would having an even more focused strategy really work any better? The problem with attempting to engage people who don't vote is by and large, even when part of a focused campaign, they tend to still not vote. Thinking again to Ed and his catastrophic decision to go on Russell Brand's YouTube show in order to engage these non-voting youths, which got headlines but ultimately bumped the shadow chancellor's major economic statement of the campaign off the front pages in an election we lost due to a perceived weakness on the economy.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

16 hours ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Indeed, the Party is unelectable at the moment, and it's because of those hangovers from the Government years doing what they can to hold onto their own positions rather than formulate any kind of Socialist alternative. Once those careerists are gone, the Party can work on a coherent agenda, rather than chasing a few swing voters in a few marginal seats.

 

Of course one could never accuse anyone from the AWL of being a careerist - none of them have ever worked because they are too busy living off Mummy's and Daddy's inheritances.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

3 hours ago, jmothecat said:

It isn't power vs principles, it's about not sticking rigidly to principles at the cost of power. Principles are necessary but to rigidly stick with them, without room for compromise doesn't work. I have sympathy with the idea that Labour should find a clear vision to represent to the electorate but it is essential that this vision actually appeals to the electorate. Consistently telling voters that they are wrong and they need to change to suit us doesn't work and this 'changing the electorate' angle is basically that but in nicer words.

Miliband's 35% strategy should be a worry to us all because it did not work. Would having an even more focused strategy really work any better? The problem with attempting to engage people who don't vote is by and large, even when part of a focused campaign, they tend to still not vote. Thinking again to Ed and his catastrophic decision to go on Russell Brand's YouTube show in order to engage these non-voting youths, which got headlines but ultimately bumped the shadow chancellor's major economic statement of the campaign off the front pages in an election we lost due to a perceived weakness on the economy.

They could do not no worse than learn from the SNP - from what I've seen Labour's new membership are not doing what they really need to do - get out on the doorsteps and on social media and campaign.

Labour are in complete and utter disarray - no matter who leads them.  Personally I'd rather see a split and two stronger smaller parties with a clear vision than this broad directionless church that there is just now.  It certainly is not good that there is this politcial vacuum both at a UK and Scottish level.