What is the point of labour ?

[doulikefish]

Scottish branch ppb...who advises these clowns?

 

[NotThePars]

Scottish branch ppb...who advises these clowns?
 

Ian Murray and Jackie Baillie

[SANTAN]

25 minutes ago, doulikefish said:

Scottish branch ppb...who advises these clowns?

 

What's your issue? 

[Gordon EF]

26 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

What's your issue? 

Possibly that the people Labour need to get to vote for them are very much not the same people who're going to get a stauner over a union flag in the background. And therefore, given that it was an undoubtedly deliberate choice, it's a moronic one.

[SANTAN]

4 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

Possibly that the people Labour need to get to vote for them are very much not the same people who're going to get a stauner over a union flag in the background. And therefore, given that it was an undoubtedly deliberate choice, it's a moronic one.

The people Labour need to get to vote for them also don't act like a vampire reacting to sunlight when they see a Union Jack, the only ones that do already have their mind made up on certain issues..

They're a party opposed to Independence, they lost voters by being flippant on this issue, good to see they've picked the winning side this time round by the looks of it. 

Edited February 2, 2021 by Stormzy

[Gordon EF]

6 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

The people Labour need to get to vote for them also don't act like a vampire reacting to sunlight when they see a Union Jack, the only ones that do already have their mind made up on certain issues..

They're a party opposed to Independence, they lost voters by being flippant on this issue, good to see they've picked the winning side this time round by the looks of it. 

Correct. The people they need to win back probably don't like the 'game of flags' very much and so the smart choice would have been not to deliberately put a big flag in the background.

The more politics becomes about the constitution, the harder Labour lose because they'll never out-unionist the Tories and they'll never out-nationalist the SNP. Labour should be making this more about the constitution is a strange hill to die on.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Gordon EF

[SANTAN]

6 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

Correct. The people they need to win back probably don't like the 'game of flags' very much and so the smart choice would have been not to deliberately put a big flag in the background.

The more politics becomes about the constitution, the harder Labour lose because they'll never out-unionist the Tories and they'll never out-nationalist the SNP. Labour should be making this more about the constitution is a strange hill to die on.

I think it's appropriate with the imagery Keir wants to portray and I don't think it will lose him any votes, I'm sure you'd agree it's not much of an issue to begin with.

I'm not dying on any hill over anything here, I personally believe Labour suffered from being on the fence from 2014 and are now consciously pitching their tent in the Unionists camp, they'll not try and out Tory Tories but instead probably push the more devo stuff and try and win back votes from people who didn't like Corbyn/Brexit etc..

[Gordon EF]

13 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

I think it's appropriate with the imagery Keir wants to portray and I don't think it will lose him any votes, I'm sure you'd agree it's not much of an issue to begin with.

I'm not dying on any hill over anything here, I personally believe Labour suffered from being on the fence from 2014 and are now consciously pitching their tent in the Unionists camp, they'll not try and out Tory Tories but instead probably push the more devo stuff and try and win back votes from people who didn't like Corbyn/Brexit etc..

I don't think it will lose them any votes but Labour are basically at rock bottom. It's not about not losing votes, it's about winning them.

Labour were nowhere near the fence in 2014. They were solidly on the unionist side. Their problem is that they had the most split voter base to begin with.

Somebody put up a nice little graphic of where voters sit on the independence and left/right axes. Labour's problem for the past decade has been that they've constantly positioned themselves in an area of the grid where there's a much smaller number of voters and they've been squeezed from all sides. If they just continue doing the same thing, they've going to keep getting the same result.

The problem with their devolution stuff is that it's vague, weak and nobody really believes they mean it. It is so transparently a sop to tempt back soft Yessers so the only people it appeals to are people who also only view it as a sop to hold back independence. And there just aren't many people in that position and they're basically all Duncan Hothersalls who already vote Labour.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Gordon EF

[SANTAN]

18 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

I don't think it will lose them any votes but Labour are basically at rock bottom. It's not about not losing votes, it's about winning them.

Labour were nowhere near the fence in 2014. They were solidly on the unionist side. Their problem is that they had the most split voter base to begin with.

Somebody put up a nice little graphic of where voters sit on the independence and left/right axes. Labour's problem for the past decade has been that they've constantly positioned themselves in an area of the grid where there's a much smaller number of voters and they've been squeezed from all sides. If they just continue doing the same thing, they've going to keep getting the same result.

The problem with their devolution stuff is that it's vague, weak and nobody really believes they mean it. It is so transparently a sop to tempt back soft Yessers so the only people it appeals to are people who also only view it as a sop to hold back independence. And there just aren't many people in that position and they're basically all Duncan Hothersalls who already vote Labour.

I don't think having a Union Jack will stop them winning any votes they could have won tbf. 

Labour party members definitely jumped on the fence around 2014, perhaps it was following the vote but they weren't outright against the idea which imo is not a strong enough stance for a Unionist party. I agree regarding the issues they have with their base and I agree regarding the devolution stuff but I think it's apparant that the party is shifting closer towards that than anything else. 

[Gordon EF]

9 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

I don't think having a Union Jack will stop them winning any votes they could have won tbf. 

No. I don't think this alone will be the reason anyone decides to not vote Labour when they otherwise would have. i imagine there's a fair number of savvier Labour members rolling their eyes at the fact that they just seem not to 'get' what one of their major problems has been though.

Metaphorically wrapping yourself in the union flag (or even just allowing yourself to be portrayed that way) is electoral poison for Labour in Scotland. This incident isn't fatal but it suggests Labour really haven't learned that lesson.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Gordon EF

[NotThePars]

I'm not dying on any hill over anything here, I personally believe Labour suffered from being on the fence from 2014 and are now consciously pitching their tent in the Unionists camp, they'll not try and out Tory Tories but instead probably push the more devo stuff and try and win back votes from people who didn't like Corbyn/Brexit etc..

Labour were obliterated by Better Together more than anything else in the 2010s. Like people want it to be Corbyn, Brexit* or a specific policy on the constitution cause those are easy fixes but Scottish Labour’s problems begin in the 80s and culminate in 2015. I don’t think there’s any way back for them especially when you have, as Anderson wrote, the SNP so evidently profiting from the public rebuke of New Labour and a corresponding Scottish Labour Party who’ve spent a substantial part of the life of the Scottish Parliament controlled by Blairite (or Blairite era) politicians. If Sarwar wins then you have that faction firmly back in control again.

*The Brexit thing is a little confusing given Leonard’s party came out in favour of a second referendum in lines with the Scottish Parliament and ahead of the UK wide party taking a similar, if less committed, position.

[NotThePars]

Somebody put up a nice little graphic of where voters sit on the independence and left/right axes. Labour's problem for the past decade has been that they've constantly positioned themselves in an area of the grid where there's a much smaller number of voters and they've been squeezed from all sides. If they just continue doing the same thing, they've going to keep getting the same result.
The problem with their devolution stuff is that it's vague, weak and nobody really believes they mean it. It is so transparently a sop to tempt back soft Yessers so the only people it appeals to are people who also only view it as a sop to hold back independence. And there just aren't many people in that position and they're basically all Duncan Hothersalls who already vote Labour.

What might actually work in their favour if Sarwar wins is that faction are far more willing to cater to Tory voters in a way that Leonard and co (especially under Corbyn) chafed at doing. There’s a few Labour members, politicians and prospective candidates who said they agreed with the more leftward drift of 2015-2019 but countered with that they feel the only voters they can chase now are Tory ones. If Sarwar and co gets in then you have a more natural centre-right cohort dictating policy.

And aye nobody cares about Labour’s federalism proposals lol. I’ve watched Sweeney try and explain it on Twitter loads of times and it’s just apparent it’s too little too late and too contingent on a wave of changing political conditions across the UK that are just not going to happen. I don’t doubt the sincerity of some of the people who argue loudest for it but it’s so obviously just a means of shutting down the momentum of independence for the party’s heads.

[SANTAN]

6 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

 

Labour were obliterated by Better Together more than anything else in the 2010s. Like people want it to be Corbyn, Brexit* or a specific policy on the constitution cause those are easy fixes but Scottish Labour’s problems begin in the 80s and culminate in 2015. I don’t think there’s any way back for them especially when you have, as Anderson wrote, the SNP so evidently profiting from the public rebuke of New Labour and a corresponding Scottish Labour Party who’ve spent a substantial part of the life of the Scottish Parliament controlled by Blairite (or Blairite era) politicians. If Sarwar wins then you have that faction firmly back in control again.

*The Brexit thing is a little confusing given Leonard’s party came out in favour of a second referendum in lines with the Scottish Parliament and ahead of the UK wide party taking a similar, if less committed, position.

 

I don't think there is much of a chance left for Labour anyway and haven't claimed there is, I was merely responding to the idea that Keir posing with a UJ is a disaster. 

Personally my mother has been Labour all her life (not Scottish) and she voted Tory at the last elections for the first time in her life because she dislikes Corbyn and also despite wanting to rejoin the EU she said she'd rather remain in the UK than leave both the EU and the UK. For me as a Unionist that has never voted Tory until the last election I was in a similar position where I voted Tory due to the Indy issue where as if there was a strong Unionist Scottish Labour or even a good Lib Dem candidate like my area used to have then I'd have voted for them and again - conscious this is anecdotal pish - I know a fair few people that have similar politics as in wouldn't call themselves Tories but want to remain in the Union and will vote for them so long as they are the only competent party where I live. Sadly my mother has said she'll probably vote Labour again this time as I suspect her beef was more to do with Corbyn than Indy so that's practically a vote for SNP. 

So there are 2 voters Scottish Labour can go after if they manage to keep all the plates spinning at once (I'm doubtful) you've got to start somewhere...

[Gordon EF]

7 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

I don't think there is much of a chance left for Labour anyway and haven't claimed there is, I was merely responding to the idea that Keir posing with a UJ is a disaster. 

Personally my mother has been Labour all her life (not Scottish) and she voted Tory at the last elections for the first time in her life because she dislikes Corbyn and also despite wanting to rejoin the EU she said she'd rather remain in the UK than leave both the EU and the UK. For me as a Unionist that has never voted Tory until the last election I was in a similar position where I voted Tory due to the Indy issue where as if there was a strong Unionist Scottish Labour or even a good Lib Dem candidate like my area used to have then I'd have voted for them and again - conscious this is anecdotal pish - I know a fair few people that have similar politics as in wouldn't call themselves Tories but want to remain in the Union and will vote for them so long as they are the only competent party where I live. Sadly my mother has said she'll probably vote Labour again this time as I suspect her beef was more to do with Corbyn than Indy so that's practically a vote for SNP. 

So there are 2 voters Scottish Labour can go after if they manage to keep all the plates spinning at once (I'm doubtful) you've got to start somewhere...

You do represent a group of voters Labour would like back. It's just that there's a much bigger group of LAB2SNP folk and they can't win you both back at the same time.

If scrabbling with the Tories for an extremely distant second and having zero power or influence is Labour's good enough, then they should be courting your vote. If beginning to seriously challenge the SNP is their aim, they have to leave you to the Tories.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Gordon EF

[SANTAN]

4 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

You do represent a group of voters Labour would like back. It's just that there's a much bigger group of LAB2SNP folk and they can't win you both back at the same time.

If scrabbling with the Tories for an extremely distant second and having zero power or influence is Labour's good enough, then they should be courting your vote. If beginning to seriously challenge the SNP is their aim, they have to leave you to the Tories.

As I believe their strategy seems to be winning back my types of voters by being a strong centre ground Unionist party (Kinda like NTP was saying re Sarwar over Lennon) where as their goal is to win the LAB2SNP voters back by the devo offers, again I don't think this will be substantial but I believe that they believe they can win some of the softer voters round. Lennon seems more vocally supportive of this option. 

[Gordon EF]

2 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

As I believe their strategy seems to be winning back my types of voters by being a strong centre ground Unionist party (Kinda like NTP was saying re Sarwar over Lennon) where as their goal is to win the LAB2SNP voters back by the devo offers, again I don't think this will be substantial but I believe that they believe they can win some of the softer voters round. Lennon seems more vocally supportive of this option. 

I think Labour's only route back is a clear, significant, distinctive and attractive proposition for increased devolution. That's the easy bit. Figuring out what that looks like and getting everyone to agree to it is obviously the hard part.

At the moment, nobody believes Labour are even the best route to increased devolution. If Labour are only reactionary about it then (probably counter-intuitively to most folk in the party), continuing to vote SNP to force Labour onto that ground is actually the best bet for soft Yessers / devo maxers.

[NotThePars]

Aye I think it really depends on who wins between Lennon and Sarwar over where the direction will go even if I think a Lennon win doesn’t get the melt wing of the party fully on board because of the toys going out the pram again.

Sarwar wins and you see the Aberdeen councillors reintegrated back into the party. That definitely happens, imo.

Loads of the young lefty members have left anaw which is what Sarwar and co want but good luck getting people to (virtually) knock doors. If I’m getting emails asking about why I left then I know they’re struggling for activists haha.

[G51]

Imagine being a Scottish Labour politician. You see yourself scrapping with the Tories and the Lib Dems for c. 40% of the voting public. You also see the SNP regularly getting 50%+ in the polls with no one to realistically challenge them, and one of the main criticisms of them being that they're little more than a collection of technocrats but people have no valid left-wing option that supports independence, given that the Greens are very much a minority party that no one really takes seriously.

Then imagine you decide to double down on the existing strategy and keep fighting for scraps by moving closer to the centre and re-affirming your pro-Union credentials.

In a few months time, they'll turn round and wonder "How come the SNP keep getting so many votes"

 

[HTG]

I get that Labour as a matter of principle see themselves as an internationalist organisation and that from that perspective it's difficult to support something that breaks up an entity like the UK. But there doesn't seem to be much in the way of "hands across the sea" under Starmer so on a practical level that internationalist outlook doesn't translate to a hill of beans. 

What's left of Labour in Scotland is unionist almost to the core. Much of Labour's support in England voted very clearly for "Island independence" which is pretty much a declaration of English independence given that the rest of the UK gets what England votes for. 

So it's a bit of a clusterfuck for them in Scotland.

[Gordon EF]

23 minutes ago, HTG said:

I get that Labour as a matter of principle see themselves as an internationalist organisation and that from that perspective it's difficult to support something that breaks up an entity like the UK. But there doesn't seem to be much in the way of "hands across the sea" under Starmer so on a practical level that internationalist outlook doesn't translate to a hill of beans. 

There are maybe a few in Labour who genuinely think like this although I can't see a sensible reason for taking that position. Frankly, I don't believe a word coming out of the mouths of most of the folk who spout this stuff. They should just say they're a unionist. There's nothing wrong with that.