If that's a roundabout way of making out that labour have done well historically, it really doesn't work.
next labour leader
- Thread starter sun_tzu
- Start date
If that's a roundabout way of making out that labour have done well historically, it really doesn't work.
Seems like yesterday to me sun, I supported Denis Healey over him at the time! Then again I don't remember yesterday very well either!
Your posts are knee-jerk mate, you're confusing politics with supporting a football team.
aye - the Falklands helped the wicked witch on that one but labour shot them self in the foot by electing foot
Part of me thinks it would be a laugh if it were to happen... then I realise it's actually quite important for your party not to be a laughing stock. Ah well, que sera sera.
What does that even mean?
A bit easy to say that, immigration is a huge concern, and Labour's history and policy failed to appeal to the voting public in that sense. Most voters think Farage is a massive bell end and don't think he's 'normal'.
The scare-mongering about immigration played a part but I suspect the majority of the 4 million who voted UKIP were people who probably would have voted Labour 20 years ago but experienced 13 years of Labour government where their lot didn't improve much and rethought things. It's no coincidence that UKIP did impressively well in Labour strongholds - people who are badly off were understandably especially disgusted by the recent political scandals (expenses etc.)
On your last point I totally agree with you, but I suspect most UKIP voters wouldn't. His un-politician-like demeanor and his lines about 'the political class' won him a lot of votes.
I want a genuine opposition. We've had this debate before about Kendall but honestly (I'm echoing Owen Jones here I know) what is even the point of Labour existing if they start supporting cutting child benefit for third children, etc etc.
You'd definitely have that, but opposition would be the limit of it unfortunately. I'd go as far as to say wilfully losing for the sake of feeling better about the party you vote for is as bad as egging on the Tories to do more, it amounts to the same thing.
What about Atlee? He won it with a landslide back in 1945.
1. I don't think it's wilfully losing. Perhaps I'm still young and naive but I don't think right wing policies are all that Britain can or will vote for
2. I don't think Labour can win the next election by position themselves slightly to the left of the Tories. If people want a more individualistic society, with an ever smaller state and ever greater privatisation they will vote for that. Not the same policies from a party with no history of implementing them. Also by positioning themselves thusly Labour will continue to shed votes to the Greens and to UKIP (having said that it's hard to predict what UKIP will be in 5 years time. I imagine they will lose the referendum but take the result as encouragement to continue their fight)
3. Labour is probably going to lose anyway. Might as well lose whilst actively fighting the austerity lie.
When was the last time a non centre party won an election full stop?
Yeah, I was looking at longevity. Looking at the institutions and legal frameworks labour have set up, that have lasted, would have been better, but just seemed like too much hard work!
As for Atlee, he simply hasn't been given the status he deserves for me. Britain, and even the world considering the empire, would have been a different, and poorer, place without him.
I just hope it wasn't nine weeks ago. We shall see.
Labour in 1945, they were proper socialist back then as well.
Yeah, incredible he hasn't been remembered more highly. The fact we only remember churchill getting beat by him, and have Boris going on Jonathan Ross claiming he invented the NHS (when it was neither him or Atlee), it was actually Bevan!!!
The fact that government like Cameron's can be widely seen as centrist whilst Ed Miliband's Labour were seen as left-wing is quite astonishing really. Since Thatcher came to power the media has done a brilliant job of normalising hard-right positions whilst marking anything left of centre as utterly ludicrous.
What Labour need is a leader who has traditional Labour views whilst having the grit to challenge the media at every turn. A figure with a similar vision to Miliband but much more personality and gravitas would have had a real shot in the last election.
Atlee was the focal point of a much wider socialist movement that had been building for 50 years and built on many other people's work, rather than being a visionary himself. He was a radical certainly, but others were to credit for the ideas behind the welfare state.
Besides his legacy was rather diminished for losing such a huge majority so quickly.
Fair points, but he was the leader, and successive governments, conservative or not, carried on with many of the things started under him, empire policy, the nhs etc.
As much as Labour aren’t going to win an election with Corbyn, does anyone believe that any of the current crop have even the slightest chance? Labour need a 50 seat swing, despite the fact that we’ve arguably got the least inspiring bunch of candidates that we’re ever likely to see.
I know that a non-centre Labour party hasn’t won an election for decades, but honestly, I can’t see a Blairite party winning either. The Blair era is over – it’s almost a dirty association within Labour despite his success.
At least Corbyn knows what he believes in. The other three are all incredibly wishy-washy and don’t seem to know what they stand for. Corbyn may lose, but he’ll at least offer something different and fresh. He’ll also potentially claw back some of the Scottish vote a bit.
I know that a non-centre Labour party hasn’t won an election for decades, but honestly, I can’t see a Blairite party winning either. The Blair era is over – it’s almost a dirty association within Labour despite his success.
At least Corbyn knows what he believes in. The other three are all incredibly wishy-washy and don’t seem to know what they stand for. Corbyn may lose, but he’ll at least offer something different and fresh. He’ll also potentially claw back some of the Scottish vote a bit.
Not sure why people seem to think this is the lowest Labour can sink in electoral terms. They could fall back into the mid 20s in the popular vote, the Tories could win back a lot of those they lost to UKIP and then you've not only got a Tory government, you've got one with a crushing majority that really can pass anything they want. And that would take Labour possibly 10 or 15 years more to get back from. And they'd probably have to be even more right wing to appear electable against a Tory party who would've successful shifted the centre-ground to the right as Thatcher did. I'd like the candidate to can at least make some inroads and perhaps deny the Tories another majority, rather than lose comprehensively and screw the party over for the foreseeable.
It isn't an accurate comment anyway. If you class right wing conservatism as anything that isn't left wing social democracy then maybe but that isn't reality.
They are trying to reinforce a social/class heirarchy through a commitment to free market economics. It is pretty much the definition of right wing. Our disagreement probably comes down to the definition of centre ground though which much like "world-class player" is incredibly vague and changeable.
But yeah, "centre ground":
Totally agree. This is why I'm voting for Corbyn.
You mistake all UKIP voters for potential Conservatives. There are a lot of ex-Labour UKIP voters who will not turn Conservative in the face of a Corbyn Labour Party. In fact the promise of a genuine living wage, or voting reform, etc may bring them back to the Labour Party. People voted UKIP out of fear of immigration, fear of the SNP, and Miliband's Labour didn't offer a positive alternative to the politics of fear, but a watered down version of it.
What inroads are you making if you swallow a Conservative budget?
Plus the Conservatives won a majority thanks to FTPT splitting the anti-Conservative vote in previously Lib Dem constituencies. In 2020 I predict the Lib Dem vote will be rejuvenated in those areas as voters fight back.
No, I say about 7 out of 10 of them are, which is about the polling figure. The overall point being that the tories have plenty of room to grow as Labour have plenty to fall into.
There's a whiff of the old poll tax thing with the last budget. That too was also brought in under the guise of political fairness, but in reality was straightforward income redistribution from the poor to the better-off. Lots of voters have never known a right wing tory government, and if this lot prove to be one then their support will drop dramatically.
Cooper seems to have some ingrained philosophies and morals as well, I've come to quite like her. But I'm voting for Corbyn. The alternatives are poor leadership candidates for various reasons, he'll at the very very least, attack the right-wing media hegemony in this country and shift the debate left. The others seem content to let George Osborne set the debate of British politics in the 21st century.
Corbyn would be five years of shaking a fist at the Tories, shouting "down with this sort of thing", as the Tories merrily dismantle the last remnants of the welfare state.
Yeah, I've been saying this for a long time. People's notions of "left" and "right" are incredibly skewed these days.
The other candidates would probably be silent and lend him a hand.
And people say its the right wing media that damages the Labour Party. They don't need to. Left wing ideologues do it for them.
No, they wouldn't. Labour candidates not actually knowing what they stand for and not being particularly strong in their beliefs is what is damaging the Labour party.
The problem is that the far left sees things in black and white. As seen with the various comments above - the other candidates aren't against every single Tory policy therefore they must be in favour of all of them.
The centre left/centre part of the political spectrum covers a lot of people in this country. What the other three are trying to do is find that thin thread that links those kind of voters with the more traditional Labour voter (well two of them are anyway). Its not a simple black and white position, but then it cant be, because they're trying to bridge a broad section of the political spectrum. It is, however, the only way that Labour are going to get in power and stay there.
Corbyn's position is simple and clear, for sure. Go left or gtfo. But why exactly that's a desirable position I'm not sure, since its certainly not going to put Labour in power, and therefore simply keeps the Tories in power for longer.
I don't know if this was partially directed at me but my order of preference is:
Corbyn
Cooper
Burnham
Kendall
The reason I would be particularly unhappy with Burnham or Kendall is because they concede Osbournes lie regarding austerity and overspending.
This is a black and white position: The Labour Party should not support an economically illiterate ideologically driven position motivated by a desire to shrink the state and its ability to help those in need.
I think the immigration scaremongering was more of a factor than Farage's personality (which obviously helped, don't get me wrong). Unfortunately a lot of people have rather unpleasant views about immigrants and minorities, UKIP was just a far more palatable way for them to express that than the BNP. This is what I don't get - nobody's saying Labour should copy UKIP's immigration policies and such to win back those voters and rightly so. Why then say they need to copy Tory welfare policy to win back their voters?
You don't think Corbyn could deny them a majority either? Their majority is slim, I think that a Corbyn led party being able to form a minority government is more likely than Burnham/Cooper/Kendall winning a majority so Corbyn seems like a sensible gamble to me in that regard. Maybe I'm completely wrong. I think almost everyone who supports Corbyn doesn't care at all of he has to rely on SNP.
And the Greens - A Corbyn Labour Party could feasibly engage in an electoral pact with them.
I don't really see them getting more than 3 or 4 seats so didn't mention them. if Corbyn was the labour leader their vote might even shrink.
To deny the Tories a majority you need to take votes directly from them, and the only Tories that are going to be voting for Corbyn are the ones doing it in this leadership election. And that's before you take into account all those Labour voters who don't want it to be that left wing who then go elsewhere, as happened in the 80s. And the ones that might vote Labour but don't want it propped up by the SNP, as happened this time.
Not necessarily. Previous non voters and voters of other parties can also swing key constituency's, more disillusioned Tories could vote for UKIP or abstain. Plus Corbyn is far more the type of person a floating voter would listen to and think "he's got a point" than Miliband so I imagine there are people who voted Tory last time who could be won over. Obviously genuine conservatives won't go anywhere near Corbyn. Unlikely as it is I don't think it's as clear cut as that.