welshbairn Posted February 28, 2020 Share Posted February 28, 2020 11 minutes ago, NotThePars said: Fairly certain this won’t happen. There’s far more crossover between Starmer and Nandy’s preferences than there is with either of they two and RLB. Draw your own conclusions as to why that is. Not positive about how the voting system works, but would second preference votes only come into play for the candidate coming third, and if it was LB her second preference votes would more likely go to Nandy than Starmer? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted February 28, 2020 Share Posted February 28, 2020 The manifesto had some good policies in it, sure. But think back to 1997 (bear with me). Labour's best weapon at that time was a card with 5 key policies on it: Now, for any of you (like me) old enough to remember 1997, the key issues of that election were large class sizes, youth crime and long waiting lists. In the news all the time. Every day. Three of these pledges addressed that, and the others were a "don't spook middle England" exercise. Like it or not, if you spook the (naturally conservative) middle England you will lose. Anyway, my point is this. The best election campaigns have kept it really simple. This pledge card didn't mention all what was in the manifesto (devolution, minimum wage, the social chapter and all that stuff). The really socialist ideas were there if anyone wanted to look. There was a manifesto, sure - but 99% of the electorate will never read a manifesto. So this pledge card was there and handed out across the country. 5 ideas, 5 talking points, simple and reassuring. Now look at 2019. Labour's manifesto - over 100 pages long - what were the key points? Well, Labour never bothered defining them and so let everyone else do it for them. It came down to - for most people - tax the rich, nationalise everything, free broadband, convoluted Brexit stuff. There was nothing simple here. The Tories went the other way and campaigned on 3 words. Their manifesto, by contrast, is a bit empty. I don't agree with Richard Burgon that the next election needs to keep every single policy in there (yes, he said this). Labour needs to strip it down. Stick to some important, attractive policies and keep the rest back for the future. And don't spook the horses or they'll bolt back to the Tories, every time. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted February 28, 2020 Share Posted February 28, 2020 It's not 1997 anymore the world is far more complex. The three big issues now are climate change, inequality and the entire system of health and social care (which is made more complex by private providers and trusts). There is no comparison. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted February 28, 2020 Share Posted February 28, 2020 52 minutes ago, Detournement said: It's not 1997 anymore the world is far more complex. The three big issues now are climate change, inequality and the entire system of health and social care (which is made more complex by private providers and trusts). There is no comparison. I wasn't saying that this is 1997 - my point was about campaigning. I wouldn't agree with what you say otherwise though. The world is not far more complex than 20 years ago. Different, yes, but in many ways the same. Inequality is not new, privatisation of health care is not new. Climate change was abstract in 97, now people can see it. They accept it is well up the agenda 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Sanchez Posted February 28, 2020 Share Posted February 28, 2020 5 hours ago, NotThePars said: At least if Starmer wins and Baillie takes the deputy leadership up here it will make advocating for the party to abandon its kamikaze unionism more of a laugh as the rank and file in Slab know in their guts that they’re going to get wiped out in 2021 with the insane messaging coming from the party re indyref2. Baillie? Jackie Ballie? In a position of (some) authority? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted February 28, 2020 Share Posted February 28, 2020 I wasn't saying that this is 1997 - my point was about campaigning. I wouldn't agree with what you say otherwise though. The world is not far more complex than 20 years ago. Different, yes, but in many ways the same. Inequality is not new, privatisation of health care is not new. Climate change was abstract in 97, now people can see it. They accept it is well up the agendaSo keep the detailed manifesto and carve out a 3 point strategy for the campaign.The detail has to be there - but I'd agree it was much more about the way the message was delivered. That was pretty poor.I'd still argue that brexit was a bigger factor than anything else. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted February 28, 2020 Share Posted February 28, 2020 30 minutes ago, scottsdad said: I wasn't saying that this is 1997 - my point was about campaigning. I wouldn't agree with what you say otherwise though. The world is not far more complex than 20 years ago. Different, yes, but in many ways the same. Inequality is not new, privatisation of health care is not new. Climate change was abstract in 97, now people can see it. They accept it is well up the agenda Clearly climate change presents far more complex problems now than in 1997. Also 1997 the 2012 Health Bill didn't exist nor did NHS Foundation trusts. The education system in England was all under local authority control rather than being academy chains. This has made it much more difficult to implement progressive change (which is exactly why New Labour and the Tories made those changes). The degree of complexity is far greater. In terms of the economy in 1997 we were still getting growth from the debt bubble and riding the expansion of emerging markets which made it easy to do things like create tax credits. We are now in a period of global stagnation which shows no sign of ending and reducing inequality is again far more difficult and cannot be done without redistribution from the wealthy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted February 28, 2020 Share Posted February 28, 2020 Baillie? Jackie Ballie? In a position of (some) authority?Mental innit. She’s positioning herself as the change candidate as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted February 28, 2020 Share Posted February 28, 2020 So keep the detailed manifesto and carve out a 3 point strategy for the campaign.The detail has to be there - but I'd agree it was much more about the way the message was delivered. That was pretty poor.I'd still argue that brexit was a bigger factor than anything else. The leadership, Milne and co, decided it was Brexit in their pre-election reflection period. Beyond Burgon who thinks everything was perfect (probably because he doesn’t have the brain power to think of anything different), they haven’t moved from what they said an hour after the exit poll.Apparently though the Brexit policy was the fault of Starmer, the nasty Blairites and the ‘right’, not the members who approved the policy at conference. The same members who are supposed to decide policy on everything, including military action. It’s so inconvenient when the members don’t do what they’re told. Corbyn and the leadership were the main problem as anyone who doesn’t have their head in the sand knows. Even if we are to delude ourselves into thinking it was just Brexit, that was the fault of the leadership too. The half arsed effort in 2016 which contributed to losing the referendum in the first place and the dithering ever since. There was barely a message from Labour on Europe to get behind. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted February 28, 2020 Share Posted February 28, 2020 The shadow cabinet members who effectively helped Roland Rudd, Campbell and Mandelson set up what amounted to a non parliamentary party in People's Vote which dominated the news cycle for much of 2019 definitely deserve the blame. Thornberry and Starmer didn't go as far as the likes of David "Brexiteers are worse than Nazis" Lammy or Andrew "Don't vote Labour if you support Leave" Adonis. However they did still undermine the party massively by supporting an organisation which was clearly created to undermine Labour. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thane of Cawdor Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 Just voted online in the Labour leadership election. I have a vote as a member of an affiliated union. Much more inclusive than when I applied to actually join the party years ago in a north-east of England constituency only to be told: "We're full up". Anyway, dutifully read through the candidates' statements. Long-Bailey - more of the same and calling for endorsement whether we live in Blyth or Brixton. Despite her shamefully excluding the people of Bangor (both places} and Brigadoon she was nominated by both Dundee CLPs and also Angus and the Mearns (readers of Lewis Grassic Gibbon, no doubt}. Nandy's statement was eloquent and heartfelt and she does come over as a thoroughly decent person. I think she was endorsed by the NUM whilst Lavery nominated Long-Bailey, and this after the union buying him a house - ungrateful b*****d. Starmer's statement implied keeping most of the good stuff from the last manifesto but having it championed by an electable leader. Starmer's MP nominations included those of Doughty and Hardy (going for the staunch vote); Timms (going for the less staunch vote); and Slaughter (going for the psychopath vote). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 If Starmer wins it will be New Labour the sequel within a few months. All the good stuff from the manifesto will be ditched ASAP for neoliberal shite. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 20 minutes ago, Thane of Cawdor said: Just voted online in the Labour leadership election. Did you get a 2nd preference vote, or 1,2,3, or just the one vote? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thane of Cawdor Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 36 minutes ago, welshbairn said: Did you get a 2nd preference vote, or 1,2,3, or just the one vote? 2nd preference. Am I a second-class citizen? No need to answer that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 Can’t work out Sweeney man. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted March 6, 2020 Share Posted March 6, 2020 Long Bailey and the Corbyn machine getting desperate now. Refusing ballots for new members (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/05/labour-faces-claims-members-yet-to-receive-leadership-ballots) who don't support RLB. Then all the donations bollocks. Then the "He has no policies" line on Neil. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted March 6, 2020 Share Posted March 6, 2020 1 hour ago, scottsdad said: Long Bailey and the Corbyn machine getting desperate now. Refusing ballots for new members (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/mar/05/labour-faces-claims-members-yet-to-receive-leadership-ballots) who don't support RLB. Then all the donations bollocks. Then the "He has no policies" line on Neil. You seem to be interpreting the imprecise language in that article exactly the way the Guardian hopes it will be interpreted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted March 6, 2020 Share Posted March 6, 2020 1 hour ago, Granny Danger said: You seem to be interpreting the imprecise language in that article exactly the way the Guardian hopes it will be interpreted. Quote It’s a small sample, but our phone-banking data is showing 80% of those who haven’t had their ballot paper joined either pre-2015 or post-2019 general election The Corbyn surge of 2015 folk are all in, everyone else not so much. Dirty tricks in politics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted March 6, 2020 Share Posted March 6, 2020 13 minutes ago, scottsdad said: The Corbyn surge of 2015 folk are all in, everyone else not so much. Dirty tricks in politics. “who are being subjected to a verification process that involves checking their address against the electoral roll.” Doesn't seem unreasonable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted March 6, 2020 Share Posted March 6, 2020 Just now, Granny Danger said: “who are being subjected to a verification process that involves checking their address against the electoral roll.” Doesn't seem unreasonable. Much like Republicans in the US checking the driving licenses and proof of addresses of black voters 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.