I was taking about this part of you're postSeen a lot of people clamouring for new wars recently? I seem to remember a million or so people coming out on the streets against Iraq. Bit of a difference to WW1 when the public were war hungry and women were handing out white feathers to anyone who didn’t sign up to fight for king and country.
hopefully make the stupid bastards who give the orders think twice before doing it again.
Again wouldn't disagree with you here just that being deeply misguided(Vandalizing a war memorial)isn't enough for jail time or forced free labour(community service).War memorials don’t stop wars, but they do remind people all over that when wars come it’s not just some stranger who dies, it’s the people from your town or village or neighbourhood who leave and don’t return. That isn’t always enough to stop politicians being cnuts, but it does help prevent the public from being swept up by the propaganda.
Straight after wars they’re needed as a way for families to handle their loss, and later they’re needed to fill in people’s memory of why war is a shitty idea in the first place. Anyone who is defacing war memorials with some idea in their mind that they’re protesting against the system is deeply misguided.
Remind me what version of Labour last won a majority?
I mean this is just a tragic response.
this will happen no matter what because of FPTP which the labour party is happy to maintain, if you want to end the eternal tory rule keir ain't gonna do itAll that we seem to be achieving by wanting to start with a hard left government is continual failure, and when that means the Tories repeatedly returning to power that seems like the real tragedy to me.
Is it though? Really? Because I’d love a very progressive left wing government, but what I’m not seeing is the British public actually voting for one.
The British are naturally fairly conservative, and if we want a real shift to the left it’s going to have to come through iteration. Vote in a centre-left government and after they show they work well, move more to the left in subsequent terms.
All that we seem to be achieving by wanting to start with a hard left government is continual failure, and when that means the Tories repeatedly returning to power that seems like the real tragedy to me.
Remind me what version of Labour last won a majority?
Was the Blair government that lost 48 seats in 2005 hard left? Was the Brown government in 2010 that lost 97 seats hard left? Was the Miliband opposition that lost a further 26 seats hard left? The mental gymnastics required to deduce from this rot that set in under Blair and the 2019 result (while 2017 is continually disregarded as it’s impossible to reconcile with this narrative) that the electorate has merely rejected the hard left is impressive and it’s the kind of logic I’d expect to read in the Daily Mail.
I love the way you talk about the Blair government losing seats and some supposed rot that set in, when they were the only ones in modern memory who actually won big in the first place. Do you actually know the Labour results of the election BEFORE New Labour came along? Blair didn’t ruin Labour, he saved it from exactly the kind of perpetual Tory misrule we’re experiencing now. Whether Starmer can replicate is questionable because he doesn’t have Blair’s charisma and ability to generate hope, but let’s not pretend that a move further left is going to suddenly save us because the evidence just isn’t there to support it.
I love the way you talk about the Blair government losing seats and some supposed rot that set in, when they were the only ones in modern memory who actually won big in the first place. Do you actually know the Labour results of the election BEFORE New Labour came along? Blair didn’t ruin Labour, he saved it from exactly the kind of perpetual Tory misrule we’re experiencing now. Whether Starmer can replicate is questionable because he doesn’t have Blair’s charisma and ability to generate hope, but let’s not pretend that a move further left is going to suddenly save us because the evidence just isn’t there to support it.
When John Smith (much more left-leaning than Blair) died in 1994 Labour were polling 20% ahead of the Tories. Are you aware of that? Blair did very well at the time, no one disputes that, but much like Corbyn was a useful asset in 2017 and a disastrous one only two years later, things change in politics very quickly. It’s like a football club saying we need to return to the tactics of the bloke who won a cup almost 20 years ago, with no regard for how much the game itself has changed. And when did I say Labour needs to turn even more leftwards? I never claimed that, or denied that Starmer in some aspects should move to a more centrist position. But I’m fed up of the lazy and ahistorical narrative that ‘hard-left failed so we simply need to go back to a time before 2015 to win elections again’
Thank goodness Blair came along and saved it from that.When John Smith (much more left-leaning than Blair) died in 1994 Labour were polling 20% ahead of the Tories. Are you aware of that?
Kinnock also led by over 20 points at one point, but ended up losing to Major. Blair was a political force of nature that would've beaten anyone in that climate.When John Smith (much more left-leaning than Blair) died in 1994 Labour were polling 20% ahead of the Tories. Are you aware of that? Blair did very well at the time, no one disputes that, but much like Corbyn was a useful asset in 2017 and a disastrous one only two years later, things change in politics very quickly. It’s like a football club saying we need to return to the tactics of the bloke who won a cup almost 20 years ago, with no regard for how much the game itself has changed. And when did I say Labour needs to turn even more leftwards? I never claimed that, or denied that Starmer in some aspects should move to a more centrist position. But I’m fed up of the lazy and ahistorical narrative that ‘hard-left failed so we simply need to go back to a time before 2015 to win elections again’
Wasnt the union / left candidate at the time john Prescott... so yeah thankfully Blair was there to stop the left making them as unelectable as foot and corbyn did.Thank goodness Blair came along and saved it from that.
Sorry if you’re not saying that, but plenty are saying exactly that. As for it being like a football return to tactics of 20 years ago, I don’t think that’s a particularly apt comparison in this case. We’re talking about the voting tendencies of the British public, many of whom haven’t changed that massively in 20 years. If voting appetites have changed then great, but it’d be good to see some actual evidence of that. People keep referring back to Blair simply because that was a time when Labour went more centrist and actually won, I don’t see why that lesson isn’t still relevant today.
From a 20 point lead, absolutely.Wasnt the union / left candidate at the time john Prescott... so yeah thankfully Blair was there to stop the left making them as unelectable as foot and corbyn did.
Or do you think Prescott would have won an election by even more than blair ... I guess a youth quake or something?
Erm, the voting appetites of the public have shifted massively in the past 20 years and it’s extremely well documented. It’s exactly why Labour have been bleeding votes for almost two decades largely uninterrupted; and it’s a phenomenon not at all unique to Britain.
See for example the rise of UKIP/Brexit /Tories rightward shift/rise of SNP. There has been a monumental shift in how people vote, the importance of which it’s hard to exaggerate.
Up until the 21st century class used to be the key indicator of how someone would vote, and by some distance. Fast forward a little bit and you could find a YouGov analyst in 2017 stating that ‘class would [now] tell you little more about a person’s voting intention than looking at their horoscope or reading their palms’. Education and age are the two chief markers now, with a cultural divide at the heart of how people vote (and one Corbyn was a bad candidate to deal with in hindsight, but it’s far less to do with him being ‘hard-left’)
Kinnock also led by over 20 points at one point, but ended up losing to Major. Blair was a political force of nature that would've beaten anyone in that climate.
Lefty leaders (economics wise) can win but they first and foremost need to be seen as competent. In fact you can say that for the Tories as well, but they tend to win the tie-breaker if neither has a trusted leader (see 2017).
But then when you get to the culture war, it gets complicated. You often mention the lost Brexit constituencies, and you often point to the downward trend over time in them. Two questions - do you think Labour should try and win them back, and what do you think is necessary to do so?
I bet that running on a Blairite labour platform now would be seen as too far left by the average voter. Blair and Brown were capitalists, but they did a lot of great work in expanding support for poorer communities (not to say they were perfect on the front, obviously)
The right wing media brainwashing has destroyed any sense of compassion that people had. They think of benefits street when you discuss welfare.
The battleground for Labour when Blair replaced Smith was very favourable though. Blair went above and beyond in terms of his ability to tap into the mood of the public and deserves credit for that but it's seriously hard to argue against the idea that he could have afforded to lean more to the left without suffering much in terms of votes or seats.
As for your question, of course Labour has to try and win them back. With its displacement in Scotland the worst thing that could follow was the climax of its demise in the Midlands and the North. I should point out that I posted in here that I believed Nandy was the best candidate in the post-Corbyn race from a purely electoral perspective. Out of RLB and Starmer she seemed the best able to straddle the divide between progressive voters and the lost traditional voters. The depressing truth though is I really struggle to see how Labour reconciles winning back those voters without alienating its younger and/or more educated voters. That's why the shift from class to age/education in how people vote is so harmful to Labour. They have to appeal to voters with a huge cultural chasm between them. And I've already read about the Tories gaming 'cultural issues' such as transgender rights with samples of the public.
In this milieu it's harder and harder for left-wing parties not just in the UK but worldwide. I think, contrary to popular wisdom on here, you can actually afford to be even more left-wing economically than Corbyn was; the main downside is not so much that it doesn't appeal but that the media and the establishment will do their best to annihilate you, as we saw, and whether they can present themselves as sufficiently competent as you suggest. It's how you marry a popular left-wing economic platform that can appeal to both young/more educated and traditional disillusioned voters with stickier issues such as immigration, nationalism/patriotism and foreign policy. I need to do some more reading before I can have any confidence in a substantive answer to your question.
I think labour seriously has to let go of this idea that the thing standing in the way of the popularity of labours economic policies is the media.
The key distinction isn't about left or right but liberalism. Labour embraced a multiculturalism tied to immigration and globalisation under the Blair government. This proved favourable to them in London which mirrored and still mirrors this same outlook, but it's only really London that is representational of this variety of liberalism. The northern heartlands are still leftwing and would vote labour except an enormous number of northerners won't see themselves reflected in the Labour party whose move toward liberalism was started by Blair.I don’t think their appetites have changed that much at all, I think it’s the parties who changed. Labour has become more and more socially progressive while the traditional heartlands haven’t changed nearly as fast.
Lefty leaders (economics wise)
Callaghan. Everything after was New Labour which is neoliberal Labour.Remind me what version of Labour last won a majority?
Callaghan. Everything after was New Labour which is neoliberal Labour.
I'd say in its modern usage it's most often used to describe the side of a political system that favours greater egalitarianism, which isn't necessarily tied to economics. It's not really a term with a fixed historical meaning, given it arose in the French revolution and so pre-dates Marx by about 50 years.There is no such thing as being left wing "economically". The left/right distinction is entirely based on economic policy. Other things like gay rights, immigration, and so on, aren't instrinsically left or right issues but sub-issues within a liberal continuum. If you're left wing then you favour the worker via the state. If you're right wing then you favour the so called "free market", trickle-down, Friedman, give to the rich to help the poor type altruism.
Callaghan as PM was strong on pay restraint and reducing public expenditure, so it wasn't him. By your definition of Labour you would have to go back further.Callaghan. Everything after was New Labour which is neoliberal Labour.
Blair didn't win because he went to the centre, he won because he went to the right and was a better liked Conservative than Major. Even tories of the time can be quoted on the record as supporting a lot of Blair's agenda.
Good point. Which is more depressing really, though despite not winning a majority Callaghan was definitely left wing (Wilson more so).The last time (and only time other than atlee after ww2) prior to blairs three victories labour won a functioning working majority was 1966
I agree except I have a problem with its modern usage because it tends to conflate rather than distinguish. We all know left/right is an economic term (arguably from the start as those who sat to the left were in favour of emancipation), using it to describe liberalism, which moves across the spectrum, tends only to muddy the issue. For instance, many conservative governments oversaw legislation which allowed for gay marriage. That wasn't a left wing policy but a liberal one with broad support on both sides.I'd say in its modern usage it's most often used to describe the side of a political system that favours greater egalitarianism, which isn't necessarily tied to economics. It's not really a term with a fixed historical meaning, given it arose in the French revolution and so pre-dates Marx by about 50 years.
By taxation alone it probably was Callaghan but if not then Wilson.Callaghan as PM was strong on pay restraint and reducing public expenditure, so it wasn't him. By your definition of Labour you would have to go back further.
The battleground for Labour when Blair replaced Smith was very favourable though. Blair went above and beyond in terms of his ability to tap into the mood of the public and deserves credit for that but it's seriously hard to argue against the idea that he could have afforded to lean more to the left without suffering much in terms of votes or seats.
Kens a nice chap... had a couple of pints with him over the years.I listened to Kenneth Clarke on the wireless this morning.
Despite the unfortunate fact that he is a Tory, he is always worth a listen.
He was surprisingly praiseworthy of Starmer, saying that under Corbyn, Labour made it far too easy for the Tories.
But he warned them that Keir Starmer is turning Labour into an election winning party.
Now. I am sure that some will say that he is too old and out of touch.
But he has a very sharp brain and is extremely experienced in saying that the millions of voters who turned from Labour to Tory are rapidly loosing faith in Boris.
The problem in terms of selling left-wing economic policy is that the narrative that Labour lack fiscal competence has become part of the furniture (big thank you to Liam Byrne who somehow is still sitting in a safe seat in Lancashire and has been cherry-picked for the West Midlands Mayoral Election instead of being sacked for giving the Tories an almost literal get-out-of-jail-free card), and so any announcement of an intention to tax more or spend more, regardless of how good an argument you can make for it, will play straight into their opponents' hands. Attacks on Labour have rarely involved legitimate criticism of specific points of economic policy, but sweeping attacks on whether they can be trusted to manage the public purse/run expensive services competently, and whether they're making decisions based on adherence to ideology rather than common sense. Arguments against renationalising rail rarely concentrate on how great private rail is and the benefits of competition in a free market (for obvious reasons), they concentrate on how badly 'that lot' would run a rail service, whether it would end up costing the taxpayer more than it would save and whether it's fair for all taxpayers to subsidise those who use the trains daily. Obviously the last point shows how myopic people can be, as affordable /reliable rail travel would change behaviour and have holistic benefits, but it's more difficult to sell something on a hypothetical.
That perception of fiscal incompetence is here to stay though so Labour have to face it as a reality. If you are vulnerable to accusations of financial profiligacy, your messaging should be that you're investing pragmatically (not ideologically) in a few key things that are guaranteed to deliver returns and which would have clear impacts on people's lives. Labour did this relatively well in 2017 by talking about infrastructure spending and the benefits to business, and some of Corbyn's best moments were when he hit on issues, like bus services, which were ridiculed by Westminster types but really struck a chord with normal voters.
On the flip side, 2019's messaging was the complete opposite, too many expensive policies which appealed to too few people and which came across like a ideological wishlist rather than money well spent. Free broadband is a perfect example of a time they fell into every possible trap - nationalisation is always easy to spin as an ideological solution, the proposal involved a massive cost to the taxpayer and there was perceived to be a lack of payoff for the average voter for whom broadband became a normal household bill like any other years ago.
Good points. Definitely agree in regards to the 2017 messaging v 2019 but I believe the latter was a result of internal polling which showed they were set for a battering and was done in desperation and as a bid to define the future contours of economic policy for whoever succeeded Corbyn. That’s what I heard shortly after, anyway.
And on the question of competency, I have read before that on average Labour governments have borrowed less and paid back more national debt as a % of GDP.
Kens a nice chap... had a couple of pints with him over the years.
I do wonder where the country might have been if he won the Conservative leadership instead of Cameron... almost certainly no brexit / cummings culture war
The problem in terms of selling left-wing economic policy is that the narrative that Labour lack fiscal competence has become part of the furniture (big thank you to Liam Byrne who somehow is still sitting in a safe seat in Lancashire and has been cherry-picked for the West Midlands Mayoral Election instead of being sacked for giving the Tories an almost literal get-out-of-jail-free card), and so any announcement of an intention to tax more or spend more, regardless of how good an argument you can make for it, will play straight into their opponents' hands. Attacks on Labour have rarely involved legitimate criticism of specific points of economic policy, but sweeping attacks on whether they can be trusted to manage the public purse/run expensive services competently, and whether they're making decisions based on adherence to ideology rather than common sense. Arguments against renationalising rail rarely concentrate on how great private rail is and the benefits of competition in a free market (for obvious reasons), they concentrate on how badly 'that lot' would run a rail service, whether it would end up costing the taxpayer more than it would save and whether it's fair for all taxpayers to subsidise those who use the trains daily. Obviously the last point shows how myopic people can be, as affordable /reliable rail travel would change behaviour and have holistic benefits, but it's more difficult to sell something on a hypothetical.
That perception of fiscal incompetence is here to stay though so Labour have to face it as a reality. If you are vulnerable to accusations of financial profiligacy, your messaging should be that you're investing pragmatically (not ideologically) in a few key things that are guaranteed to deliver returns and which would have clear impacts on people's lives. Labour did this relatively well in 2017 by talking about infrastructure spending and the benefits to business, and some of Corbyn's best moments were when he hit on issues, like bus services, which were ridiculed by Westminster types but really struck a chord with normal voters.
On the flip side, 2019's messaging was the complete opposite, too many expensive policies which appealed to too few people and which came across like a ideological wishlist rather than money well spent. Free broadband is a perfect example of a time they fell into every possible trap - nationalisation is always easy to spin as an ideological solution, the proposal involved a massive cost to the taxpayer and there was perceived to be a lack of payoff for the average voter for whom broadband became a normal household bill like any other years ago.
