What is the point of labour ?

[Detournement]

20 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

How you gonna build a mass movement for this weak sauce? 

There's not going to be any mass movement of any kind in the UK. We are an extremely atomised society.

All the left can do is be in position to offer an alternative at a moment of extreme crisis or opportunity. That's what happened in 2015 and crisises will coming on a regular basis from now on. 

 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Of course centrists view of this is "why won't these people just accept defeat?".

[Gordon EF]

1 hour ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

 

 

Well clearly there's a large part of that. The big problem for Labour over the last few years is that the left and the centre have viewed it as a fight against each other where really the only way they both win is by moderating each other. But then, if we had a proper electoral system, Labour wouldn't be one party and the way they do that would be getting enough votes between them to form a governing coalition rather than trying to decide every 4/5 years whether they're going to be a genuine alternative to the Tories or Tory-lite.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

37 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

If we had a proper electoral system, Labour wouldn't be one party and the way they do that would be getting enough votes between them to form a governing coalition

That's the real nub of it.

It's also seen on the right where the Tory party was embroiled in a long civil war over Europe that would otherwise have led to them splitting into a pro-business and an anti-foreigner party

 

 

 

Edited November 3, 2020 by topcat(The most tip top)

[GordonS]

9 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

Leftists realise that a centre-right party usually leads to the electorate abandoning it and eventually voting in a Thatcher or Johnson type alternative.

You're calling them centre-right because that's where they appear compared to you. But compared to the UK electorate, they are centre-left.

8 hours ago, JagsCG said:

Not all leftists would agree with that, and you could say the exact same about some people from the centre. 

 

6 hours ago, Henderson to deliver ..... said:

Change leftists to the right wing of the Labour party and you've cracked it.

 

4 hours ago, Gordon EF said:

It's not really that simple though is it? If every person left of Tony Blair in the UK just accepted this Blairite idea that Labour can never be elected unless they straddle the centre line, you're essentially giving up on the idea that any genuinely left of centre policies will ever be implemented and the Overton window in the UK has a permanent blockade so our perpetual choice is between centre-right and centre.

Of course centrists view of this is "why won't these people just accept defeat?".

The idea that it's worth making the poor suffer like f**k to maybe, theoretically shift the electorate to the left, ignores the realities of what actually happened under Blair. I was in as low an income family as you could get then, and that election was transformative for us. Minimum wage, new deal for lone parents, new deal for young people, working families tax credit, childcare vouchers, massive extension in employment protection, massive spending programme on schools and hospitals, huge increase in health spending, Sure Start, Human Rights Act, devolution, wiping out housing debt... I could go on all day. Are they not "genuinely left of centre" policies? 

None of it excuses the war crimes and I totally agree that New Labour conceding the public argument on economics and immigration did nothing to prevent a of bad stuff to develop. But the idea that it would be better to have the Tories strikes me as one that surely comes from privilege. Under Blair the proportion of children living in absolute poverty fell by a third - not nearly enough, but better than fucking foodbanks and a government actively opposed to feeding hungry children.

Bottom line is, in actual policy terms that's as far left as the English electorate are going.

[Granny Danger]

10 minutes ago, GordonS said:

You're calling them centre-right because that's where they appear compared to you. But compared to the UK electorate, they are centre-left.

 

I’m glad you used U.K. and not Scotland.  I think the Scottish perspective is different, that’s why we need out.

[Gordon EF]

3 minutes ago, GordonS said:

The idea that it's worth making the poor suffer like f**k to maybe, theoretically shift the electorate to the left, ignores the realities of what actually happened under Blair. I was in as low an income family as you could get then, and that election was transformative for us. Minimum wage, new deal for lone parents, new deal for young people, working families tax credit, childcare vouchers, massive extension in employment protection, massive spending programme on schools and hospitals, huge increase in health spending, Sure Start, Human Rights Act, devolution, wiping out housing debt... I could go on all day. Are they not "genuinely left of centre" policies? 

None of it excuses the war crimes and I totally agree that New Labour conceding the public argument on economics and immigration did nothing to prevent a of bad stuff to develop. But the idea that it would be better to have the Tories strikes me as one that surely comes from privilege. Under Blair the proportion of children living in absolute poverty fell by a third - not nearly enough, but better than fucking foodbanks and a government actively opposed to feeding hungry children.

Bottom line is, in actual policy terms that's as far left as the English electorate are going.

It's a fair point. I don't think many people on the left think it's better to have Tory governments than Labour governments right of their own positions. I just don't like or agree with the sort of characterisation that the more centrist wing of the Labour Party are correct when they effectively attempt to hold a gun to the head of the left of the party and say "It's us or the Tories so sit down and shut up". Or at least don't agree that's what those on the left should actually do.

[G51]

13 minutes ago, GordonS said:

You're calling them centre-right because that's where they appear compared to you. But compared to the UK electorate, they are centre-left.

Uh buddy

https://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010

[welshbairn]

2 minutes ago, G51 said:

Uh buddy

https://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010

That's got the Greens as the most Libertarian party in the UK, some mistake shirley?

[G51]

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

That's got the Greens as the most Libertarian party in the UK, some mistake shirley?

It's based on 2010.

But in any case, if you wanted proof that New Labour was a centre-right to right-wing party, you need only look at this website cataloguing what New Labour actually said and did.

http://www.whydopeoplehatenewlabour.com

Some absolutely disgusting stuff on there, and it's why leftists cannot support a Keir Starmer led Government, or we're in for more of the same.

[GiGi]

45 minutes ago, G51 said:

Uh buddy

https://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010

Just did their wee test there, pleasing result.

[GordonS]

13 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

I’m glad you used U.K. and not Scotland.  I think the Scottish perspective is different, that’s why we need out.

Labour's inability to be further left is what slowly killed them in Scotland, and probably the Union too.

13 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

It's a fair point. I don't think many people on the left think it's better to have Tory governments than Labour governments right of their own positions. I just don't like or agree with the sort of characterisation that the more centrist wing of the Labour Party are correct when they effectively attempt to hold a gun to the head of the left of the party and say "It's us or the Tories so sit down and shut up". Or at least don't agree that's what those on the left should actually do.

It's the same in every party, there are those who believe you can persuade the electorate into your way of thinking and those who believe you have to take the electorate as it is. When they can't find common ground their opponents win.

11 minutes ago, G51 said:

Uh buddy

https://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010

That's shite tbf, and pretty arbitrary.

[G51]

Just now, GordonS said:

Labour's inability to be further left is what slowly killed them in Scotland, and probably the Union too.

It's the same in every party, there are those who believe you can persuade the electorate into your way of thinking and those who believe you have to take the electorate as it is. When they can't find common ground their opponents win.

That's shite tbf, and pretty arbitrary.

Aye I noticed you swerved the website detailing New Labours statements and actions during their spell in charge though eh.

Centrists are always willing to defend New Labour until it actually gets down to the detail, when they realise that they'd have to defend positions like "Actually, Mr Blunkett was right to introduce a bill that would ban asylum seeker's children from attending state schools"

[Gordon EF]

6 minutes ago, GordonS said:

It's the same in every party, there are those who believe you can persuade the electorate into your way of thinking and those who believe you have to take the electorate as it is. When they can't find common ground their opponents win.

To some extent, yes. I don't think it's been as prominent or damaging to any political party in the UK as it has been for Labour at a UK level over the past 20 years.

[GordonS]

2 minutes ago, G51 said:

Aye I noticed you swerved the website detailing New Labours statements and actions during their spell in charge though eh.

Centrists are always willing to defend New Labour until it actually gets down to the detail, when they realise that they'd have to defend positions like "Actually, Mr Blunkett was right to introduce a bill that would ban asylum seeker's children from attending state schools"

That's bollocks, tbf. I'm not going to defend any bad stuff New Labour did and they are the reason I support independence. But I'm still going to say they're as far left as the UK electorate is going to go, and I hate it when people say they were as bad as the Tories. Actually that's fair enough on foreign policy and civil liberties, but on socio-economics they bloody well weren't.

FWIW, here's me, apparently. There's no way I'm that far left economically, many of the questions are daft, or polarised, or ambiguous. Many place issues on the left-right spectrum things that are coincidental. That thing is just a bit of fun, like the quiz in my big sister's Bounty magazine about which of the Osmond's should you marry. 

[welshbairn]

Has to be said that the worst post war defeats since WW2 were under Michael Foot and Jeremy Corbyn. I'd call myself a Democratic Socialist but you need some centrist pragmatism to gain power.

[G51]

8 minutes ago, GordonS said:

That's bollocks, tbf. I'm not going to defend any bad stuff New Labour did and they are the reason I support independence. But I'm still going to say they're as far left as the UK electorate is going to go, and I hate it when people say they were as bad as the Tories. Actually that's fair enough on foreign policy and civil liberties, but on socio-economics they bloody well weren't.

 

Tony Blair - Wanted to sell off more social housing by extending Right To Buy to housing associations, with the explicit political aim of reducing the difference between Labour and Tory policies. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/blair-backs-down-on-right-to-buy-plan-487932.html

Tony Blair - Welcomed 11 private healthcare firms into the ‘NHS family’ and promised them a stronger foothold in the health service. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/feb/16/health.politics

Tony Blair - Rejected calls for higher taxes on the wealthy, arguing that lower top rates of tax were just ‘the way the world is going’. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/blair-my-pledge-to-cut-taxes-1200487.html

Tony Blair - Introduced fit-for-work tests for disabled people who he said had to ‘justify’ why they were ‘taking money from the state’. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1421401.stm

Tony Blair - Said it was a 'waste of time and energy' taxing the very wealthy and refused to say a growing gap between rich and poor was bad. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1372220.stm

Tony Blair - Told private healthcare executives that he wanted to put the whole NHS out to tender for the private sector. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/may/14/nhs2000.politics

That's just as far as I could be arsed looking. Still feel comfortable making that argument?

[Gordon EF]

12 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Has to be said that the worst post war defeats since WW2 were under Michael Foot and Jeremy Corbyn. I'd call myself a Democratic Socialist but you need some centrist pragmatism to gain power.

Often said but not actually true. Neil Kinnock in 1987 won a smaller share of the vote and seats than Corbyn did in 2019.  Hugh Gaitskell let the  Tories get a bigger majority in 1959 than Corbyn did in 2019 (he did win a higher % of the vote but there was a much smaller % going to smaller parties then).

It also papers over the fact that Corbyn performed better in 2017 than a whole host of post-war Labour leaders including Blair himself, Gordon Brown and Ed Milliband. In 2017 Corbyn won a similar share of the vote to Tony Blair's Labour Party in 2001 and significantly more than Blair did in 2005.

 

Edited November 3, 2020 by Gordon EF

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, Gordon EF said:

Often said but not actually true. Neil Kinnock in 1987 won a smaller share of the vote and seats than Corbyn did in 2019.  Hugh Gaitskell let the  Tories get a bigger majority in 1959 than Corbyn did in 2019 (he did win a higher % of the vote but there was a much smaller % going to smaller parties then).

It also papers over the fact that Corbyn performed better in 2017 than a whole host of post-war Labour leaders including Gordon Brown and Ed Milliband and that he won a similar share of the vote to Tony Blair's Labour Party in 2001 and significantly more than Blair did in 2005.

 

That's me telt, I should really stop going to the Daily Express for my fact checking. 

[Fullerene]

6 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

Often said but not actually true. Neil Kinnock in 1987 won a smaller share of the vote and seats than Corbyn did in 2019.  Hugh Gaitskell let the  Tories get a bigger majority in 1959 than Corbyn did in 2019 (he did win a higher % of the vote but there was a much smaller % going to smaller parties then).

It also papers over the fact that Corbyn performed better in 2017 than a whole host of post-war Labour leaders including Blair himself, Gordon Brown and Ed Milliband. In 2017 Corbyn won a similar share of the vote to Tony Blair's Labour Party in 2001 and significantly more than Blair did in 2005.

I accept all of this is true and the electoral system for the UK produces some misleading results.

The big problem for Corbyn was that he was such a polarising figure.  Tony Blair won a majority not simply on the votes he got but because there were plenty of people who would never vote Labour but were not that bothered so they did not vote at all - or they voted Liberal Democrat which had the same effect.  In 1997 there was not much of a Anyone-But-Blair vote.  Obviously that changed later on.  By contrast, there was a determined Anyone-But-Corbyn vote - not so much amongst Labour voters but amongst everyone else.  For example, Liberal Democrat voters who couldn't imagine that Boris Johnson would be worse than Corbyn.

It is the same thing in the USA.  Hopefully the Anyone-But-Biden vote will be less than the Anyone-But-Clinton vote.