No they wouldn't. Not even close. Starmer would have been hammered, just like Corbyn was. It was a single issue election and Labour were on the wrong side of it. The manifestos were completely irrelevant. I don't even think the Tories had one. It was just a blank page with "Get Brexit Done" on it.
Is it worth joining the Labour Party?
- Thread starter Colin Warnek
- Start date
mercury_redstone7
Well-known member
"I can't remember Politics or Sociology ever being subjects at school"
The subject and the exam was called Humanities which was GCE level. It encompassed everything from war -political spectrum, social aspects taboo subjects (abortion) Eugenics, Philosophy it was about opening your eyes to what's lurking out there.
I quite enjoyed it, especially the monthly soapbox.
Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
There's not enough of this taught at school.
Rofesleg
Well-known member
When was that? It wasn't a subject I had in late 70s / early 80s. Unless it traumatised me so I've blanked it out.
Maybe our Religious Education was supposed to cover it- but that was a very Catholic lesson.
My granddaughter had a subject which was something like Humanities, but was just a couple of years ago. And in Scotland.
mercury_redstone7
Well-known member
It was for me and I went to a Catholic school, I studied it 1975 to 1978 chose it through options, I dropped History as it was boring the pants off me, English monarchy finished me off
. I had RE lessons but we rarely did anything but yatter anything but religion, and there wasn't an exam for it at that time.I had the thinking at the time that we were heavily indoctrinated in primary school and learnt of other religions in primary too, so there was little need.
BobUpnDown
Well-known member
Unfortunately I believe both major parties #1 priority is - them - getting in power, over looking to serve the broad interests of the electorate.. though Labour, imho, have a more social conscience & aim to improve the fortunes of the many more than the few..
However they'd vote to keep FPtP as it benefits them, so couldn't join a party that fundamentally opposes broader democracy..
However they'd vote to keep FPtP as it benefits them, so couldn't join a party that fundamentally opposes broader democracy..
Laughing
Well-known member
It was a single issue election because Corbyn allowed that to happen. I don't recal a single chart showing increase in NHS waiting times, for example. Corbyn allowed a single issue election.
Way too passive.
mercury_redstone7
Well-known member
He wanted Brexit to happen himself, he was a much use as an ashtray on a motorbike. I`m now convinced like many other Labour MP`s over time he was another Establishment British Intelligence plant.
Brexit completely dominated politics for 5 years. All the charts in the world on NHS waiting times or whatever wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference.
Laughing
Well-known member
Well we will never know because Corbyn allowed himself to be manipulated. The country was in an awful state in 2019 and this was never really mentioned by Labour.
As I said he was too passive, and that ignores his ridiculous position on brexit.
Andy_W
Well-known member
Ok well I disagree with both of those, and my bet is ~400 seats.
Tories were terrible in the 2000's too, yet they still won three times and got Hard Brexit over the line with relative ease.
At least the Tories sort of can claim an excuse of some sort for being bad over the last few years with Covid, Energy Crisis and resulting inflation etc, and loads still seem to let them off with that as a full excuse.
ThePrisoner
Well-known member
The priorities for nationalisation should be water and energy.
Andy_W
Well-known member
Some on here are saying Corbyn/ Labour had no chance in 2019, because of Brexit, but they helped dig that hole themselves, it was the "red wall" which tipped the balance to leave.
Corbyn and his cabinet were in charge of Labour at the most critical time in the lead up to the Brexit vote, he was a terrible selection choice for this reason alone. His/ Labours weak campaigning, and lack of positivity to the EU in the "red wall" easily contributed enough single handily to have been enough to swing the vote the other way, which dug him a massive hole.
Then couple that with brexit being pretty much a "right" vote, when Labour were fielding a side which was marketed as unrealistically left (versus the UK voting population), it certainly didn't help.
The 2019 massacre was as much down to the loss of the brexit vote, as it was the Tories "get brexit done", he effectively massively contributed to his own problem, he was a cause, brexit was an effect, 2019 was a result.
As I've said before though, it wasn't so much Corbyn's policies which was the problem (I don't think I had a problem with any of them in principle), they were what I would have expected for any Labour government at that time, but the problem was Corbyn himself, for many reasons.
Labour now, with Corbyn, Starmer or anyone would have to have majorly different policies compared to 2015, as the situation since and now has been extreme, anyone on any side of the political spectrum has to accept this. There's a lot more rebuilding to do before there can be much talk of anything drastic. This is why I think some of the nationalisation talk now, maybe a bad idea, I'm not sure where the money is meant to come from to buy and sort out rail and water etc. I can understand the UK energy thing, it makes the most sense by far, but it's going to be expensive when debt and interest is high, but it will pay back long term, no doubt about that. We're an island, we need control of our own energy, specifically wind, no point whatsoever paying someone else for our own wind, and there's enough expertise in the UK now to go it alone on that.
It's hypothetical, but had Starmer or someone a lot more visibly pro-eu, and with some tactical ability been in from 2015 onwards, then we would probably never have left in the first place, so the massacre in 2019 would not have happened. Sure, they may still have lost the 2017 election, but there wouldn't have been another election in 2019, and Labour would have likely been in since 2022. The hole would be 3 years less deep, to some degree, but the hole would still have got deeper as the economics of post covid and the war have been though, just like they're going to be tough for the next term too.
Corbyn and his cabinet were in charge of Labour at the most critical time in the lead up to the Brexit vote, he was a terrible selection choice for this reason alone. His/ Labours weak campaigning, and lack of positivity to the EU in the "red wall" easily contributed enough single handily to have been enough to swing the vote the other way, which dug him a massive hole.
Then couple that with brexit being pretty much a "right" vote, when Labour were fielding a side which was marketed as unrealistically left (versus the UK voting population), it certainly didn't help.
The 2019 massacre was as much down to the loss of the brexit vote, as it was the Tories "get brexit done", he effectively massively contributed to his own problem, he was a cause, brexit was an effect, 2019 was a result.
As I've said before though, it wasn't so much Corbyn's policies which was the problem (I don't think I had a problem with any of them in principle), they were what I would have expected for any Labour government at that time, but the problem was Corbyn himself, for many reasons.
Labour now, with Corbyn, Starmer or anyone would have to have majorly different policies compared to 2015, as the situation since and now has been extreme, anyone on any side of the political spectrum has to accept this. There's a lot more rebuilding to do before there can be much talk of anything drastic. This is why I think some of the nationalisation talk now, maybe a bad idea, I'm not sure where the money is meant to come from to buy and sort out rail and water etc. I can understand the UK energy thing, it makes the most sense by far, but it's going to be expensive when debt and interest is high, but it will pay back long term, no doubt about that. We're an island, we need control of our own energy, specifically wind, no point whatsoever paying someone else for our own wind, and there's enough expertise in the UK now to go it alone on that.
It's hypothetical, but had Starmer or someone a lot more visibly pro-eu, and with some tactical ability been in from 2015 onwards, then we would probably never have left in the first place, so the massacre in 2019 would not have happened. Sure, they may still have lost the 2017 election, but there wouldn't have been another election in 2019, and Labour would have likely been in since 2022. The hole would be 3 years less deep, to some degree, but the hole would still have got deeper as the economics of post covid and the war have been though, just like they're going to be tough for the next term too.
Capybara
Well-known member
So Corbyn's to blame for us leaving the EU now is he? What nonsense. It was Cameron's weakness in calling the referendum in the first place and then the campaign to stay in was run entirely by Cameron and Osborne who deliberately sidelined Labour as much as they could. Now, I left the Labour Party post-referendum when Corbyn was leader because I was unhappy with the party's position on Brexit then, but I'm not having it that Corbyn was responsible for the referendum loss.
Andy_W
Well-known member
I deal with all of these things often, which people are keen on nationalising, here's my take:
Rail is in a horrendous state, but most of the problem is caused by the part which is already nationalised and has always been nationalised (Network Rail). Until NR are sorted out no rail operator stands a chance of having reasonable fares and being profitable, with reasonably paid staff and a reasonable amount of services. Ask anyone who deals with or works for NR, they will 100% agree, they're an absolute red tape inducing, cost inflating, public fleecing bandit. Another good example of how bad we are at nationalised rail is HS2, which is a public company which wastes money for fun. This is a shame as it's a 100% necessary project too, well the full version would have been anyway.
Water (well the sewerage arm) is a black hole too, infrastructure for sewerage has been bad for 20 years, and we need to split out foul and surface water sewers from being combined systems, to cuit down on pollution etc. This would be tough, starting from scratch out in the open, but doing this in towns and cities where every drain has gas, water, electric, telecom, fibre, mobile cables, cars, trains, crap roads and infrastructure over the top of it makes it a massive can of worms. This is why the water companies have been kicking the can down the road not trying to sort it out, whilst funnelling profits out the back door. The second they switch to nationalised, to sort out the issues over the next 50 years, there won't be any profits to pay out dividends, and would still be bankrupt if they charged double the bills. Water/ sewer charges are far to cheap too mind. There's ~100 years worth of old infrastructure which needs repairing or replacing, but also the problem is the capacity of trunk routes needs to be much more as we've got ~70m people, rather than ~40m, and the storms and SW are far worse. Effectively we need to upgrade capacity by ~50% at least, but if there is no room for additional capacity then the engineering becomes extremely complex and costly.
The actual water pipes are getting really old now too, but these are easier to replace than sewers.
Energy, best idea by a mile, generate our own, with onshore wind, and undercut the offshore wind we're already good at. This offshore wind already undercuts gas, so will get shot of that reliance on the middle east also. This is quite easy to do as it generally just means long cable routes through countryside's, which is extremely easy compared to most works. There's a ton of expertise in this sector UK based, could probably just buy out a couple of big contractors and a chain of sub contractors, and use that as a base, rather than starting from scratch. We're also good at Solar and BESS sites too, so no reason why we can't do this. Avoid nuclear, we're crap at it (largely due to our own red tape), and it's extremely expensive.
Andy_W
Well-known member
No, that's not really what I said or inferred.
My point is he's more than 2% to blame, which would have been enough to swing the vote the other way. That's all it would have took, 2% too change their minds. Labour could have ran their own campaign, or had more influence in the Red wall, where the vote was lost. Effectively skint people were conned into voting for self harm, in Labours "red wall" which was seemingly made of straw.
Yes, it was Cameron's problem too, and it cost him his job in the end, but half of his MP's and the far right wanted out, Labour were supposedly all in favour of remain practically. The main party always tries to side-line the opposition, it's the opposition's job to make their voice heard.
Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
You've made a good case for water being brought into the public realm, 'investors' are too short term, they want a return immediately, the board comply and re-investment doesn't happen. It's more of a black hole in private hands.
LNER proved that rail can be successful in public hands. The infrastructure does need upgrading, no doubt about that, and a government needs a strong transport minister, and also to get rid of private contractors and directly employ labour within network rail.
You can't disagree and your "bet" means nothing. The Tories are going to lose this election, 100%. Labour winning by whatever margin does not prove that Starmer has done well or will do well.
The Tories were terrible in a lot of people's opinion but there were plenty of people that supported what they were doing. There were more people that voted for Brexit than against it so that was a positive for them, not a negative.
The reasons the Tories are going to lose so heavily isn't anything to do with the factors beyond their control (COVID, energy prices). They are going to lose, heavily, because they have had parties during lockdown, scandal after scandal relating to cronyism and dodgy deals, Truss crashing the economy etc.
mercury_redstone7
Well-known member
Im busy watching the Post Office Stasi leader.
He was the wrong bloke to have in the remain camp, but I think the country had been rinsed into far right life, well half of them did. But I don't think he's entirely to blame for it happening. I agree that Cameron and his little Napoleon looking tvvat of a chancellor caused it all. Oh and the BBC political department.
Last edited: