A long read on Labour

boromike85 said:
I've had the argument a hundred times that there are 2 options for labour. One is long and difficult but ultimately much more rewarding, the other is a cop out:
1. Be a left wing party. Deliver genuine progressive change.
2. Be a centrist party. Take the easy win. Carry on as is, implementing capitalist policies.

What is the point of winning if you're only going to do what the opposition wants anyway?
Click to expand...

Or you could say be a 1) and never get into power thereby handing the keys of government to the idiots currently in situ.

There is a 3)

Be a party that appeals to voters across the political divide taking into consideration the wishes of the whole party and also ensure there is genuine progressive change.
 
hopesoboro said:
Never read the article. You're questioning of Long-Bailey
'promoting' anti semitism tells me you've never been anywhere near Labour Party meeting.
Click to expand...
No I am not a member of the labour party, not sure what that has to do with my Long-Bailey comment though.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
If the sacking of RLB was a small indication of the direction Keir Starmer is taking the Labour Party, Starmer's capitulation and groveling apology to those who took part in the Panorama stitch up is conclusive. In a case that QC Martin Forde - the man charged with handling the investigation into the leaked Labour report - said was eminently winnable, Starmer apologises, hands out huge compensation from members subs, and totally undermines the investigation.

Whilst I will never vote Conservative, Keir Starmer has a lot to do to convince me that he is little more than a Tory imposter.
Click to expand...
The proof of the pudding will be in the Labour election manifesto. I don't think Labours manifesto was the problem per-se. It was too long and promised too much, but people didn't vote for labour for 2 reasons, brexit position and a dislike of Corbyn, who to be fair came across as a little feckless, and I am a Corbyn supporter. The first manifest under Starmer will tell us a lot about his politics and how left of center he actually is.
 
It was a dilemma for Labour/Corbyn and their support of lack of support for the outcome of the Brexit referendum.
I live in an area that has many ex mining communities that overwhelmingly supported Brexit - Those people were left feeling let down by Labour.
 
Zoophonic said:
Or you could say be a 1) and never get into power thereby handing the keys of government to the idiots currently in situ.

There is a 3)

Be a party that appeals to voters across the political divide taking into consideration the wishes of the whole party and also ensure there is genuine progressive change.
Click to expand...

It isn't possible. Go for 1 and convince people that your policies are better for more people. It should be easy because it's true.

If you go for your option you are really option 2 with a hint of 1 instead of 1 with a hint of 2. It means the left wing policies never get implemented. All that happens is you end up with Labour stamped Tory policies.

The country appears to be about 30% left, 40% right and 30% floaters. The 30% floaters seem to vote right by default but will vote left if given a reason. The left have to work harder for their votes. Giving up and just appeasing the right means the 30% on the left never get to see the policies they want.

You say you lose more and the tories get in but winning and implementing their policies is worse. They don't even have to be in power to win. It very rarely happens the other way round but in recent times with a lot of real left wing momentum we have seen the Tories having to implement left wing policies to remain in power. That is how you can score some points even when in opposition.
 
boromike85 said:
It isn't possible. Go for 1 and convince people that your policies are better for more people. It should be easy because it's true.

If you go for your option you are really option 2 with a hint of 1 instead of 1 with a hint of 2. It means the left wing policies never get implemented. All that happens is you end up with Labour stamped Tory policies.

The country appears to be about 30% left, 40% right and 30% floaters. The 30% floaters seem to vote right by default but will vote left if given a reason. The left have to work harder for their votes. Giving up and just appeasing the right means the 30% on the left never get to see the policies they want.

You say you lose more and the tories get in but winning and implementing their policies is worse. They don't even have to be in power to win. It very rarely happens the other way round but in recent times with a lot of real left wing momentum we have seen the Tories having to implement left wing policies to remain in power. That is how you can score some points even when in opposition.
Click to expand...
This is why I am uncomfortable with the 'anyone but Conservatives/Johnson argument for voting Labour promoted by some on here.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
This is why I am uncomfortable with the 'anyone but Conservatives/Johnson argument for voting Labour promoted by some on here.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying, but, ignoring left v right, you should be voting for the manifesto that best reflects your ideology and/or is best for your set of circumstances. If you ignore the left v right argument and vote on policy alone, you end up with something, assuming your side wins, of course.

You would hope that "tory lite" is a bit better than full fat tory, assuming that is your political leaning.
 
I understand what you say but personally hate the label “ Tory lite”. There is no such thing in my book. You are either a Tory or not and there’s no blurred lines on ideology.
 
kuepper said:
View attachment 5107
Click to expand...
I recently read Andrew Adonis "Ernest Bevin - Labour`s Churchill" about the man who was Minister of Labour in the Wartime coalition government. He was born in poverty and had the courage of his convictions to live by his principles and never waiver in the face of adversity. He, like Nye Bevan was a politicians whose colours were clearly identifiable nailed to the mast.(y)
Its available from all good bookshops online.
Bevin.jpg
 
I have had this argument on here too many times. Blair was more to the left than Corbyn.

Full employment
Massive increase in public spend.
Maximize the tax take
Good Friday agreement

Corbyn could only dream about it.
 
Same_as_before said:
I have had this argument on here too many times. Blair was more to the left than Corbyn.

Full employment
Massive increase in public spend.
Maximize the tax take
Good Friday agreement

Corbyn could only dream about it.
Click to expand...
Your head is supposed to be above your shoulders on top of your neck.
 
Go on tell me one thing where Corbyn helped the poor.
Increased employment. Taxes the rich to the highest take ever.

Opened new hospitals and schools, renewed schools after Tory cuts.

Name one
 
Same_as_before said:
Go on tell me one thing where Corbyn helped the poor.
Increased employment. Taxes the rich to the highest take ever.

Opened new hospitals and schools, renewed schools after Tory cuts.

Name one
Click to expand...
Why don't you tell us when Corbyn was in power, because we must have missed it.
 
Corbyns policies would help those of us unable to buy a house. Blair did not create the UKs housing crisis. But he did nothing at all to help us. Nothing for renters. All the while housing prices going up and up and up on his watch. That's social mobility dead right there.
 
I read the article, was already familiar with most of the content and broadly agreed with it. The author, Daniel Finn, is in desperate need of a good editor, however. Even card-carrying Corbynites must have been saying 'get on with it, man' before the end. What's the point of documenting the minutiae of British politics for a largely US audience who'll have little interest in the detail?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top