Tbf this was in the 2017 manifesto. I don't think they mentioned the Barker report but all the particular points you've brought were there.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
And we still have the outcome of the consultation to come:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/02/labour-consults-on-plan-for-major-nhs-restructuring
And this on housing and health is interesting:
https://labour.org.uk/press/labour-set-plans-healthy-homes-zones-mark-70th-anniversary-nhs/
I won't mention that Bevan messed up the house building programme in the Attlee Government which led to Labour losing the election
https://labour.org.uk/press/labour-set-plans-healthy-homes-zones-mark-70th-anniversary-nhs/
I won't mention that Bevan messed up the house building programme in the Attlee Government which led to Labour losing the election
Blair was mostly just interested in foreign policy as time went on. Brown did a lot of the economic legwork.
Milliband's plan of a joining up care for the elderly with the NHS was a great idea and a great shame it never happened. It's the consequence of pretending public perception of someone's electability doesn't matter. I've much more time for Milliband than I do Corbyn but in his own way he was spectacularly ill-suited for the leadership position and that was obvious to everyone fairly quickly.
Had he recognised his own short comings before it harmed the party then maybe we would now have a Labour govt of which he'd be a part, implementing that right now. He was also keen on tackling the energy companies. Ironically Milliband's manifesto in many ways seemed much more radical than Corbyn's plan for govt, which primarily seems to be about renationalising the railways.
Had he recognised his own short comings before it harmed the party then maybe we would now have a Labour govt of which he'd be a part, implementing that right now. He was also keen on tackling the energy companies. Ironically Milliband's manifesto in many ways seemed much more radical than Corbyn's plan for govt, which primarily seems to be about renationalising the railways.
Again, part of the problem was that there weren't really any other viable alternatives. David Miliband has sort of become deified as this great leader Labour never had as a consequence of his brother surprisingly beating him, but he's an absolute damp squib who'd have struggled to connect with the public and who'd have struggled to move the party forward. Burnham might have been alright but clearly wasn't popular (as exemplified in the 2010 vote) and the other options besides that were Abbott and Balls.
Ed's problem wasn't so much him I don't think and more the way he marketed himself. He tried to appear as this competent and calm Blair/Cameron clone when in reality he should've played up his quirkiness to audiences, tried to use his sense of humour more often etc. But like Corbyn and Brown before him he's faced the problem of far greater media scrutiny and baseless criticism than Blair ever did, cause Blair had Murdoch on his side.
Since Ed lost the election and has just resorted to being himself, he actually comes across as being a lot more likeable. He shows a decent sense of humour and is a bit self deprecating... it makes him far more relatable. He would have stood a much better chance of winning if he was actually coached less... it's a shame.
Not sure he was ever really leadership material. He's a geeky ideas man that would have been a huge asset to the party in government but never suited to be the leader. He was young, energetic and bursting with great ideas but that's never alone enough. If you don't transmit well you stand little chance. He was never 'TV ready'. I know we can say it's a shame things have to be like that but admitting it is and getting someone capable of ousting the Tories has always been the lesser of two evils to my mind than pretending it isn't and watching them celebrate their 8th anniversary, and counting, in power.
Labour have only ever achieved power by occupying the centre ground and therefore needs a leader who can appeal to small c conservatives as much as not alienate the far left too much. If Miliband was a better communicator he could have stood a chance. But he wasn't so he didn't and here we are.
In 40 years only one person who wasn't a Tory has won a general election. Nevermind all the bullshit, look at who it was and you'll see just where Labour needs to position itself, and to whom it has to appeal to, in order to win.
Last edited:
Times change mate... attitudes change.
This hypothesis that future generations grow up to think and act the same way as those before them is a bit of a stretch.
Attitudes do change but since he left the party has steadily moved more to the left and alienated what was often called 'middle England' it won under those years and lost 3 consecutive general elections. You have 18 years of Tory rule before him, 3 successive election defeats after him. I don't see how that's a great endorsement for the idea that times have moved on to the point that appealing to the centre should no longer be a pressing concern for a Labour party seeking to regain power.
Even Thatcher as extreme as she appears now, appealed to the centre far more than Kinnock and Foot did at the time. Major, Blair, Cameron and May all appealed to that same demographic as much as or more than their opponents at the time. There is zero evidence to substantiate the people have 'moved on' from electing the most centrist option at the elections aside from wishful thinking.
Blairs elections got 42%, 40% and 35% vote shares, it's not really a trend you want to continue. Brown got 29%, Ed 30% and Corbyn 40%, that very much is a trend you want to continue.
That's not true at all. Thatcher was regarded as extreme by many even within her party and changed what the centre-ground was by implementing drastic tax cuts. In that sense she's probably the most significant leader the country has had alongside Attlee in the past century when it comes to implementing change. Your assumption here is that the 'centre' remains static - that's blatantly not true. The idea of a welfare state would've been seen as batshit insane a few decades before it was introduced.
Eh...voting percentages aren't always the best way to look at it as it can depend on how third parties etc are doing. May's current government drastically improved their vote share last year but did demonstrably worse than they did in 2015. Although yes, last year's result was an indicator of a positive trend, and certainly Blair's final election win was with an incredibly poor total that was lucky to get him a majority.
It's a good measure of the popular will and voting patterns.
It isn't absolute though. As I say May is horrendously unpopular but by a measure of voting share alone is the most successful politician the country has had since Blair. I don't think anyone would arguably that's genuinely the case. The collapse of the Lib Dems (and their respectable totals from 97-10) are important to consider. Although again, do agree with your general point that the trend was an upward one for Labour in the last election.
Okay, but, is there a popular politician out there? Is there anyone who wouldn't be mostly hated the second they're leading a political party? Are Boris, or Mogg or whoever the tories put in next going to be popular? Is anyone who replaces Corbyn for labour going to be at all popular?
Labour leaders are going to be liked by their base, hated by the everyone else, same for the tories. And the third party leaders will go relatively unnoticed.
Moved to the left and increased their vote share by 10% at the last GE you mean? Yeah, yeah... you will tell me they still lost, and I don't disagree. Although where is the evidence that they would have done better if they'd gone more centrist?
I feel like the country is fairly divided at the moment... and this idea that one party could just change tack and suddenly run away into some unassailable lead is very unconvincing. Where's the evidence? Although I would like to see Labour come out against Brexit or at least in favour of a people's vote (just because I think it's the right thing to do).
If I was a Conservative however, I would be very concerned about the future of the party... failure to attract younger voters and a millennial generation that have largely been left behind by them and their policies? Very choppy waters ahead for them I would say.
The average millennial isn't expected to inherit anything until they're about 60 so they're uber fecked with that generation.
Although one demographic change does favour the tories, low birthrates. The decrease, especially seen around the late 90s-early 00s means there won't be as many new voters coming into the fold as usual. Britain managed to avoid a demographic catastrophe with lots of EU members, especially from Poland and Eastern Europe coming in around the mid 00s-late 10s, but a low enough number of those have applied for citizenship that they won't have an impact in general elections.
This is absolutely true. Young people always vote Labour, but the extent to which they're voting Labour is increasing with each election. The Tories have always been able to appeal to voters by implementing policies which they argue will help those same voters obtain capital - with home-owning becoming increasingly difficult they're going to be faced with a generation of people who for the most part don't see the benefit of their policies at all unless they adapt in a way which will involve them adapting a lot of their core beliefs. Which is why I think the mantra that 'the most centrist option always wins' fails to take into account a lot of the significant social changes we're seeing within the country currently. The number of working people who actually benefit from Tory economic policy is shrinking rapidly, and it's starting to show. For all the complaints that Corbyn only appeals to students and young people who don't know enough about the real world etc, it's pensioners who're currently keeping the Tories afloat.
People tend to move to the right as they get older. I don't necessarily see anything about the chant or rallies in the field that I think will make a long-term difference to that. Surely it's down to any competent leader to try and win those votes not endorse a strategy that maybe in 20 years time they'll be fewer of the 50+ voters of today around with a fingers crossed that the old adage outlined in my first sentence somehow doesn't play out.
People tend to move right as they get older and tend to be more likely to vote.
The challenge then seems obvious. Sadly many seem to think the answer of the challenge is to argue "vote share" matters and that a 179 majority win is pretty much the same as losing an election 20 years later because the vote share broke down to pretty much the same. Or membership figures. Or event attendance. Or anything else that literally means absolutely feck all when it comes down to it.
People tend to move right as they get older and tend to be more likely to vote.
The challenge then seems obvious. Sadly many seem to think the answer of the challenge is to argue "vote share" matters and that a 179 majority win is pretty much the same as losing an election 20 years later because the vote share broke down to pretty much the same. Or membership figures. Or event attendance. Or anything else that literally means absolutely feck all when it comes down to it.
Last edited:
People in previous generations moved to the right because of their personal circumstances led them to do so. They became wealthier, owned homes etc. We're a product of our environment.
You seriously believe the same thing will happen to younger generations at the moment on a similar scale to what it has in the past? People who have grown up under austerity, slow wage growth and high house prices? You'd have to be incredibly out of touch to think this is likely.
But what is considered 'right-wing' also changes. Someone who was pro-gay rights but anti-gay marriage was a liberal 50 years ago and yet would be considered conservative now. Going further back, the idea of conservatives supporting a full welfare state would've been laughable and yet it became the norm post-Attlee.
There's also the fact that the number of young people voting Labour is increasing. They always vote Labour, but the extent to which they are is increasing. Some of them will shift to the right as they age - nevertheless there's nothing to suggest they will magically fall in line with the usual number of elderly people who vote Tory. Especially when they won't be benefited from the Tory party in the same way older generations who obtained vast amounts of capital were.
You're viewing politics and the 'left' and 'right' here as something static and unchanging, which doesn't really work. The 'left' now is very different to what it was a long time ago; that someone like David Cameron could be perceived as a 'moderate' conservative in spite of his Thatcherite agenda demonstrated how politics had shifted to the right domestically. Unless the Tories rectify the current divide and lack of opportunities for young people to become successful today, they won't win them over to the extent they did with previous generations.
They tried again, bless them.
He knows he'll never be part of the negotiations and will just blame the Tories when it all goes wrong. Which is fair enough if he had a sensible plan of his own which he doesn't and though he may fool a chunk of the British public he can't fool the rest any more than the Tories can.
This from Stephen Bush in the New Stateman is a long, insightful, and throroughly depressing read:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/08/labour-party-split-inevitable-corbyn-MPs
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/08/labour-party-split-inevitable-corbyn-MPs
Corbyn and his little minions are really weird. Toe-curling cringeworthy weird.
I thought I had seen it all with the Obama love-in. At least Obama was genuinely cool so it was somewhat understandable.
I thought I had seen it all with the Obama love-in. At least Obama was genuinely cool so it was somewhat understandable.
In my CLP our membership increased from 650 in 2016 to 860 now. But that is a net increase. It includes 200 people who have left. That's the same around the country.
That's a very interesting read. And a good oversight of why any split would likely be doomed. You've got groupings of people who vaguely share the same political views but who don't really have any overarching ideology except a general commitment to social democracy that they can coalesce around. The extent to which the party has changed within three years though is remarkable.
While I'm by no means a fan of the moderates/centrists, I do think there's potentially a worry for the party that a lot of sudden changes in key positions could lead to a lot of incompetent people holding power within the party behind the scenes without being particularly qualified to do so. Similar could happen with MP's if deselections start happening.
I don't want to see a split. I'm of the 'ride it out' school of thought.
As it stands the left will be in control of the party for the foreseeable future. As is demonstrated by a lot of the changes behind the scenes. The membership doesn't really have any appetite for a shift towards centrism again and younger generations will continue to demand more radical solutions to problems like housing etc as time goes on.
I think there's no doubt any group splitting off would find it extremely difficult in terms of numbers, finance, organisation and agreeing policies, but the longest journey starts off with a single step and all that.
The biggest boost a new party could have would probably be Labour gaining power and being a disaster, in which case I'd rather see an alternative for people other than the Tories, so the sooner that starts the better.
I don't think that's necessarily true. I'm not convinced a significant portion of the hardcore Corbyn supporters won't leave after his tenure ends. I don't see that much commitment to the party or cause as so much commitment to the idea of him leading it. Tortured analogy perhaps but if you get into football just because you like a player and don't have a particular affinity to any club then once that player leaves your interest in that club is likely to dwindle.
Especially seeing as so many of them seemingly didn't have much time for the Labour party pre-Corbyn I'd bet there'd be a lot that won't have much of an affinity for it after. Things like control of the NEC would be potentially problematic but the moderates have always tolerated the left more than visa versa under Labour's broad church. It's only really been the last couple of years where it's been insisted that anyone not in complete agreement with the leadership shouldn't have a place in the party.
Especially seeing as so many of them seemingly didn't have much time for the Labour party pre-Corbyn I'd bet there'd be a lot that won't have much of an affinity for it after. Things like control of the NEC would be potentially problematic but the moderates have always tolerated the left more than visa versa under Labour's broad church. It's only really been the last couple of years where it's been insisted that anyone not in complete agreement with the leadership shouldn't have a place in the party.
It's politics meets a Tumblr page. And it's all style over substance, ironically the one thing they try to sell him as not being. Ignore the lack of policies, direction, the splits, the utterly incoherent Brexit position.....AND LOOK AT THE CROWDS!!!
Were there similar doubts when Macron made the move in France?
I think we all know your thoughts on Corbyn by now Oscie! Whilst I agree with many of your opinions of Corbyn the man, I don't agree he's essential to the far left, if he were run over by a bus tomorrow his supporters would switch seamlessly to the next loon, I mean next candidate with a strong history of far left beliefs.
How do you mean?
You could be right but it is very culty. I know they get upset at that phrase but let's face it - it is. Cults don't shift that easily from one person to another. Fully expect the Church of Jeremy Corbyn and the Latterday Members to be formed soon after he departs.