What is the point of labour ?

[Dunning1874]

1 minute ago, Henderson to deliver ..... said:

[G51]

3 minutes ago, flyingscot said:

I would think it's a bit of a stretch to say there was almost no difference between the Labour governments of 1997-2010 and the Tory eras that preceded it. 

I love it when people memoryhole what New Labour actually said and did, and think it was some kind of golden era of progressive politics.

It was anything but. For a start, the only reason New Labour ever became a thing was the capitalist classes gave it their blessing.

Remember the war on Iraq, ASBO culture, "humanitarian bombing" in Yugoslavia, overseeing the "light touch" regulatory approach that led to the 2008 crash, the highest level of income inequality since World War II by 2010... shall I go on?

[Wee-Bey]

Whilst the decline of Labour obviously goes deeper than Corbyn or Starmer, the actual brass neck of people who have literally campaigned every day on the slogan 'under new management' blaming it on the previous leadership.

[NotThePars]

10 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said:

I think people who live in English shiteholes are finally realising that they have been voting for Labour all their live and they still live in shiteholes.

I (and many others tbf!) said on here and elsewhere that the Labour councils were one of the biggest detriments to the party. Everyone has a story about corrupt and shite Labour councils and they contain people that are somehow even worse on balance than the PLP

5 minutes ago, Michael W said:

I think they have - identity. As much as many people (and let's be honest here, they are mainly middle class #FBPE types) would like to think it wasn't so, it is a very powerful feeling, especially in nationality terms. If it wasn't, it would be nowhere near as easy to weaponise by politicians. 

People have never been entrenched as much as they are now in their own viewpoint. The SNP is the party of Scottish independence and people who want that identify with it and therefore give the SNP almost unconditional backing. The Tories have latched onto this with Brexit, are the party of Brexit and they are starting to reap the rewards of this from places that backed Brexit but historically had never backed the Conservative party. They would be foolish in electoral terms not to use this to their advantage. The strategy is of course foolish for different reasons, which I doubt politicians that earn themselves a fixed contract every five years really care about. 

The constitution is ultimately the red line in the sand. 

 

 

1 minute ago, G51 said:

Every Tory seat won is another swing voter waking up in Scotland and realising that the only way to deliver progressive policies is to break up the union.

There is nothing else that can be done about it. Labours moved to the left, moved to the soft left, moved to the centre, and it's now going to try and move to the right.

Nothing has worked. Nothing will work. England just simply loves voting Tory. Adores it. Cannot get enough of it. No matter what they do, they will be returned to the seat of power because there are powerful classes that demand it.

The modern day has known only Tory governments and Blair governments, and there was almost no difference between the two. Effectively forty years of Tory rule. England is a one-party state, and whether unionists realise it or not, that is their biggest problem for the next referendum.

 

A troll reductive take which I think has some validity is that over the last decade British people have largely chosen flegs but luckily our flag based nationalist party is at least socially progressive and not a complete disaster economically so the gap in the electorates continue to widen. 

*White Rose Killie voice* Ultimately Labour 2015-2019 attempted to try and develop a politics which eschewed that and while there were millions ofpeople who opposed that there was also nearly as many millions at one point who supported it and yet it was opposed by the entire apparatus of the British state and many prominent members (now and former) of the Labour Party who decided that a nativist party filled with corrupt gangsters that would've been at home in post-Soviet Russia was the preferable option and now those people internally in Labour have control of the party and have f**k all to offer. Good luck to them. I'm going to sit back and continue pissing myself laughing at Sir Keir getting flung about like a wet tracksuit by a man who can't even brush his hair in the morning and no marks like *Googles* Annaliese Dodds and Lisa Nandy continue to apologise for the party having the temerity to actually develop a comprehensive program of government that wasn't proofread by the commentariat before it was published.

[GordonS]

15 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

Because, as the numbers show, there were always 15K or more right wing votes in Hartlepool. That hasn't changed, what's changed is Labour's vote collapsing without switching to the Tories en masse and that evidently can't be because the electorate doesn't think Labour are right wing enough, when they got more votes when they were further left than they are now.

I'm not disputing that the rightward drift of the English electorate exists or that Corbyn was for the most part a blithering incompetent, but in this case both of those things clearly aren't the defining factor.

There wasn't always 15k right wing votes - as late as 2005 the Tories + UKIP only got 5,000. The electorate has changed, and at the same time Labour have had four poor leaders in a row, and before that one who fatally undermined the party's strategic position.

One of the stories in Hartlepool and similar constituencies that's been overlook is turnout. In 1992 it was 76%, falling to 66% for Blair's landslide, then 56% and it has stayed in the low 50s ever since. Last night it was 43%for a hotly-contested by-election. Some former Labour voters have gone over to the right but many more have stopped voting - and obviously, many will have passed away in that time too.

[SANTAN]

16 minutes ago, Henderson to deliver ..... said:

Absolutely miles off here pal. Of course Corbyn has to shoulder the blame for the election defeat, but there were sitting Labour MP's in the media on a weekly basis telling voters that Labour were the most racist organisation ever, and that they should vote for the Tories. These MP's were then rewarded with peerages and cushy jobs with gambling firms, weapons manufacturers and pay day loan companies. But Corbyn was the one doing all the serious sabotaging ?

Your second point makes zero sense. The party have already purged the left. There are no 'radical lefties' left in the party. They were told they were scum and not wanted, but it's also their fault for not voting for Starmer and trying to bring him down in some 'delicious irony' ?

I'd say his leadership and personality did more damage than the plotters and was the bigger factor in the "Brexit election" disaster, that's just my opinion though. 

They do still exist though, Burgeon and RLB have lots of online support as do some of the younger southern MPs who gained seats due to support of Corbyn. I fully see why the NIP and similar Twitter type pundits and commentators are sniping at Keir and Labour especially considering they were booted out but I think the argument that they're spending more time attacking the wrong target is applicable like it was when the Labour plotters were doing the same under Corbyn. Both sides seem more focussed on squabbling with each other than they do in overcoming the Conservatives and delivering a more left leaning style of government. 

[G51]

6 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

I think it's more to do with the fact that for the first time in history, social values in much of England (not all) are directly aligned with the social values of the Tory party. 

The catalyst being immigration, but there are other factors at play. 

Labour are still stumbling around believing that 'the working class' still exists and that people will vote for them because they have a blue collar occupation, rather than face the fact that these blue collar workers are voting according to social values and not because of any class loyalty. 

 

Social values are a very minor factor. People vote for what is good for their wallets. The North of England is full of retiree homeowners, and voting Tory is a good financial deal for them. A high percentage of blue collar workers in the North are still homeowners because the house prices are so cheap.

The precariat these days are the people spending £2000 a month on renting a studio apartment in Hammersmith, with no prospect of ever having financial stability. Labour has to focus on winning more city seats first.

[Granny Danger]

Listening to bits and pieces on the radio when I was out and about just now.

Apparently it’s all Corbyn’s fault; Keith (the invisible man) Starmer getting a free ride.

[invergowrie arab]

They're going to follow Scottish Labour by doubling down on the flag shagging aren't they?

[NotThePars]

1 minute ago, Stormzy said:

I'd say his leadership and personality did more damage than the plotters and was the bigger factor in the "Brexit election" disaster, that's just my opinion though. 

They do still exist though, Burgeon and RLB have lots of online support as do some of the younger southern MPs who gained seats due to support of Corbyn. I fully see why the NIP and similar Twitter type pundits and commentators are sniping at Keir and Labour especially considering they were booted out but I think the argument that they're spending more time attacking the wrong target is applicable like it was when the Labour plotters were doing the same under Corbyn. Both sides seem more focussed on squabbling with each other than they do in overcoming the Conservatives and delivering a more left leaning style of government. 

If you don't have any understanding of the relative power each side holds then sure. The Labour leftists are currently sniping on Twitter and to their own membership within Momentum with the occasional amplification by the BBC with the qualification that "the left are currently saying this" while Laura K provides some contextualisation for why they should be dismissed.

The Labour plotters held significant positions within the party to divert funding and members away from seats that they didn't believe should be prioritised. At the same time you had party bureaucracy and members of the PLP who spent every day briefing against Corbyn and the rest of the leadership openly bragging that they were texting journalists during party meetings and actively doing their bit to craft the narrative for nearly the entirety of Corbyn's leadership.

At the same time on the day Corbyn won you had members of the Shadow Cabinet resigning and announcing their intention to oppose him. You had a leadership challenge within 12 months of him winning and coordinated PLP campaigns to force him out. You had a Deputy Leader and party grandees who loved going on TV and to the papers and contradicting party policy if it didn't suit them. You had "Lord" Adonis saying Labour was a party only for Remainers for example. Unless I'm mistaken every member of the SCG has stayed on and worked with the leadership to the point of taking slaggings off those who have left the party. 

There isn't a comparison here. 

And again, ultimately the blame for this does lie with Corbyn and McDonnell. They bent over backwards to accommodate these people and let them stay in the tent pissing on everything. We can blame the wreckers only so much when the leadership doesn't do anything to fling them out. 

[Wee-Bey]

It's a fucking low bar though, 'we were slightly better than Thatcher, were we not ?'

[SANTAN]

1 minute ago, NotThePars said:

If you don't have any understanding of the relative power each side holds then sure. The Labour leftists are currently sniping on Twitter and to their own membership within Momentum with the occasional amplification by the BBC with the qualification that "the left are currently saying this" while Laura K provides some contextualisation for why they should be dismissed.

The Labour plotters held significant positions within the party to divert funding and members away from seats that they didn't believe should be prioritised. At the same time you had party bureaucracy and members of the PLP who spent every day briefing against Corbyn and the rest of the leadership openly bragging that they were texting journalists during party meetings and actively doing their bit to craft the narrative for nearly the entirety of Corbyn's leadership.

At the same time on the day Corbyn won you had members of the Shadow Cabinet resigning and announcing their intention to oppose him. You had a leadership challenge within 12 months of him winning and coordinated PLP campaigns to force him out. You had a Deputy Leader and party grandees who loved going on TV and to the papers and contradicting party policy if it didn't suit them. You had "Lord" Adonis saying Labour was a party only for Remainers for example. Unless I'm mistaken every member of the SCG has stayed on and worked with the leadership to the point of taking slaggings off those who have left the party. 

There isn't a comparison here. 

And again, ultimately the blame for this does lie with Corbyn and McDonnell. They bent over backwards to accommodate these people and let them stay in the tent pissing on everything. We can blame the wreckers only so much when the leadership doesn't do anything to fling them out. 

There is a comparison even if it's a shit one. I'm not really arguing to what impact either one has in the grand scheme of things, I'd fully agree the old plotters caused more damage and had loads more power than the new lot who are basically just memeing them at this point. I'm just easily amused and find the infighting a bit funny. 

[flyingscot]

8 minutes ago, G51 said:

I love it when people memoryhole what New Labour actually said and did, and think it was some kind of golden era of progressive politics.

It was anything but. For a start, the only reason New Labour ever became a thing was the capitalist classes gave it their blessing.

Remember the war on Iraq, ASBO culture, "humanitarian bombing" in Yugoslavia, overseeing the "light touch" regulatory approach that led to the 2008 crash, the highest level of income inequality since World War II by 2010... shall I go on?

Nobody said it was a golden era of progressive politics and there are, righty, a lot of sticks to hit that era with- PPP comes to mind for me. There were good and bad points of the Blair era, but it was different to the Tory eras around it. I doubt devolution, minimum wage  and not to mention the increased rights and equality for LGBT people  would have been Tory policies. 

[G51]

7 minutes ago, Pato said:

Nobody's saying they were particularly awesome but like, we have a parliament because they legislated for one, and while it's been a long time since I was unemployed, my experiences back then of being on the dole were not as rubbish as family members who have had to go on it more recently.

With all due respect, having a slightly less rubbish time on the dole than some people have had recently isn't an example of New Labour being a progressive party.

They simply weren't. Whether you choose to judge them by actions or words.

[Alert Mongoose]

1 hour ago, Pato said:

Tories now = English nationalists. Most of England thinks of itself as English first, British second. Not much more to  it.

I think most of England thinks of themselves as British first. The problem lies in the fact that most of them think British=English.  I actually agree on that distinction and hope more Scottish people would think the same way then we can finally unshackle ourselves.

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

20 minutes ago, G51 said:

Social values are a very minor factor. People vote for what is good for their wallets. The North of England is full of retiree homeowners, and voting Tory is a good financial deal for them. A high percentage of blue collar workers in the North are still homeowners because the house prices are so cheap.

The precariat these days are the people spending £2000 a month on renting a studio apartment in Hammersmith, with no prospect of ever having financial stability. Labour has to focus on winning more city seats first.

I don't disagree with that, but I think you're incorrect in saying that social values are a minor factor. I believe that the right wing jingoism of the Tories now resonates with what were previously 'working class' areas....people have voted in the last couple of elections not according to economics, but according to identity. Brexit has the been the major factor, not financial status. 

I'm not sure that Labour has an answer to this. 

[GiGi]

6 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said:

I think most of England thinks of themselves as British first. The problem lies in the fact that most of them think British=English.  I actually agree on that distinction and hope more Scottish people would think the same way then we can finally unshackle ourselves.

Most of the world thinks this way. When they think of Britishness they think of posh English accents, red double deckers, hackney cabs, tea and biscuits etc. 

They don't think of marching bands in Belfast, the Highland games or whatever the Welsh get up to.

Edited May 7, 2021 by GiGi

[Alert Mongoose]

2 minutes ago, Pato said:

Not according to census data:

I think of English as London...

[G51]

 

 

 

[Monkey Tennis]

16 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said:

I think of English as London...

Where's that tiny purple island in the middle of England?

It's not Corby is it?