We can agree to disagree on the pledges, Covid was the main thing in the news for 2 years, changed the entire political complex, and the recovery from it became priority 1, and will cause problems for a decade. Then Ukraine came after this. Pledges were replaced by a manifesto when they won, and that will change too, as things change, like it should.
The pledges were about direction of travel. Nationalising the Water Industry, for example, just means the £billions we pump into a set of private businesses goes towards maintaining the water infrastructure etc. rather than filling off-shore accounts of shareholders. Neither Covid nor Ukraine make that something that can't be done or shouldn't be a priority.
That thread I quoted doesn't back you up, there was very little support for Starmer, other than the likes of myself, who most argued against, but I was proven right. There were plenty of other similar threads too, but they calmed down when Labour took over the lead.
There was plenty of support for Starmer for people that are now not as keen - there wasn't a set of lines drawn that haven't moved since. As has been pointed out elsewhere you were proven wrong then and you're wrong now.
The centre of the UK voters is not politically in the centre, it's skewed to the right and in favour of people who vote in what they are told (by the right media) is their own self interest above all else.
You're confusing two different concepts. The centre of the UK voters IS politically in the centre, by definition. The political centre is mobile and 'follows' the Overton Window.
The centre of the political compass (or left-right line if you prefer although that's not particularly useful) remains in place - as that's based on ideology rather than party names etc. Which is why people are calling Labour out as a right-of-centre party in it's current guise.
If you lose one on the left, but gain one from the centre who was going to vote Tories/ Right you're still up. If it takes losing one on the left to tip that balance then it needs to be done as keeping the 1 on the left and the other guy voting Tory ends in a Tory win.
This only works with a known finite number of votes. We know that turnout is never 100% so there are always more votes available if the policy is enough to get a non-voter out. Losing your traditional voting-base is political suicide - even if it does work in the very short term. Where are Labour getting their replacement votes from next time? How much further to the right are they going to have to go to pick up extra votes from the Tories?
The voting base on the perceived "far left" is nowhere near the size of the voting base on the "far right", this is the problem most on the "far left" don't seem to grasp, the far right grasp it though, which is why they will love Corbyn's dilution of Labour. For example Corbyn and the Greens combined would lose to reform by ~2:1 I think, at the minute. Long term this will change though.
But this is irrelevant. If the only end-goal is keeping Reform out then it stands to reason that the left need to work together. Labour are the ones working against that.
Corbyn picked his cabinet, and he was the leader, if he couldn't keep them on board, what does that say?
It says that Corbyn understood he had to keep the 'broad church' whilst the centrists worked behind the scenes to sabotage his efforts. What else is there to say - the people responsible have written books about it.
Of course Corbyn needed credibility with Remainers, he was meant to be on the remain side, as remaining in the EU was by far the best outcome for the red wall. I don't think many remainers voted leave because of Corbyn, but there will have been some, lots of people are idiots. I reckon if he'd actually been a solid Remainer or someone else more pro-EU was in charge they would have moved 1% of votes, or got a few more voters to tip this balance. Tories also contributed to this problem too though.
I disagree. Corbyn wasn't front-and-centre of the official Remain campaign for many reasons. Most of them were to prevent him claiming any credit when the predicted Remain vote sailed home. It's disingenuous, at best, to now pin the defeat on him.
It's not always the wrong person at the wrong time. Blair was the right person, Brown was the right person etc. Brown was going to lose that election no matter what happened because of the recession being pinned on him. Milliband was always going to lose as the Tories had only had 5 years, and loads gave them a pass as they had a recession to deal with, and they also promised a referendum which loads of fools clearly wanted. Corbyn was the wrong person for 2015 onwards though, he had the least votes from MP's, only barely made it onto the ballot, then the members took over and put him in. I'd have preferred Burnham in hindsight, but wasn't a member then so didn't vote.
He had the most votes from the membership. The PLP should have recognised that and run with it instead of deciding they knew better and that the country could do with another decade of right-wing decimation. Corbyn was exactly the right person. The centrists should have left the party if they weren't happy - exactly as Starmer has told the left to do now that they've retaken control.
Corbyn then lost a referendum and two elections. Loads of the votes he got in 2017 were from people hoping he would be able to do something for remain, that's why I voted for him and to also vote against Tories, but I knew he wouldn't win, or do anything. If we'd had someone like Blair or Starmer who knew what to do to win then it could have been different and the country might not have had so many years of right influence. Miliband or Burnham having another crack as a more convincing Remainer might have even worked. I've gone left over time (most in my circles have), I would love to enact most of Corby's policies if they were possible, but they are only possible if you win and retain power, which is what I didn't think he could do. If you don't win you get to enact zero policies, so things get worse, Starmer's turning that around, but it's going to be slow to turn.
Corbyn didn't lose a referendum - see above.
Corbyn was expected to lose by a huge margin in 2017 - this has been discussed to death. The Tories were in a strong position and the centrists had been working hard to undermine Labour's chances. The result was a massive shock.
By 2019 the internal-sabotage was perfected. Corbyn may have 'lost' both elections but there is a whole bunch of nuance you're conveniently ignoring.
Immigration was the biggest topic after the 2015 election loss when the referendum was promised, this is what led to Corbyn being leader. Immigration was by far vote leaves biggest topic, from the day Corbyn came in, and it's only got bigger.
That doesn't answer the question. You said "Labour just need to concede on that topic for now". The point I've made is that topics come and go - but only if people actively pursue them. Conceding just allows it to fester.
Do you really have to ask what "Balancing finances" is? Tax/ income = expenditure, not increasing debt, so normal/ standard inflation and growth can erode that debt away.
We do keep increasing tax, by not increasing tax thresholds as wages have been rising. I would tax more though and I say that as someone in the additional rate band, I would happily pay 5% more tax if everyone earning the same and more than me was, and I'd get more back from it I think Problem is increasing tax is an easy target for the media and right. I think wealth tax would be better optics than income tax. I think going after this is dodgy ground in this election cycle though, but they are trying to do some things with tax loopholes, non doms and inheritance tax.
Yes, I need to ask because you keep reverting back to a household budget model rather than dealing with reality. Which debt are we eroding away. Where did it come from and what do we do once it's 'eroded'? What exactly are you saying we need to balance? We don't save up tax revenue in order to spend it. That's not how the system works and hasn't for a few hundred years. The system doesn't work without debt. What new system are you proposing?
Ok, the far left were against the war from the start, like any war I suppose, but defence is necessary, as are some actions. A lot of the left even want us out of NATO, like Corbyn did/ does, that was never going to be a good idea and certainly not with Russia now. Loads will vote against Corbyn for his views on NATO, Nuclear deterrent etc.
The public generally supported action in Iraq though, and vast majority of MP's voted for it. There has been a change in heart there though, now more info has come out, and with the benefit of hindsight though. I'd have rather not went, but we'd probably still have Saddam now if we hadn't, who knows what would have happened there, but there's a very high chance it wouldn't have been good regardless. Some times there is no "win" or good choice. There's bad choices and less bad choices, and you don't know which is which till 5,10,20 years later.
It was much more than the far-left marching through London. Again, rewriting history doesn't help your argument.
I dunno, some of the left blamed the recession on Labour too, as it was letting the bankers play with fire which kind of fed into that. We would have been dragged down by the US regardless though.
And some of the left would have had a point. We weren't exactly bystanders while the international banking sector was being deregulated.
More main parties will mean votes are split, reform proved this and Corbyn will take some Labour votes (and green votes). Mad thing is Corbyn will probably kill the greens, yet he's probably not even as "green" as Starmer is.
I'm not sure this is a bad thing, though. It might even hasten a new approach with PR instead of FPTP.
Yes, you're right, Reforms massive impending **** ups won't be spun as a disaster by the press, as the press are on the right. It's different for the left, as things they don't even get wrong will get spun as a disaster as the press are on the right (this is happening now and the left and the right are buying it). This is one of the main reasons we end up with so many problems, our right wing press have massive influence, but this will wane over time.
At least we agree on something...
I’ll say it again, Ideology will never trump reality.
