Let's Get Political!

[Reg Smeeton]

Labour's whole problem is their entirely inward-looking selection process, and indeed membership. The people who are sufficiently committed to sign up are typically some way to the left of the population. If they simply think the figurehead was wrong and select someone close to the Momentum wing of the party again, they'll have learnt nothing and will spend another decade arguing among themselves in the wilderness. Like the Tories, a lot of popular centrists were disenfranchised or kicked out under Corbyn - the current political landscape is crying out for a sensible centre-left alternative to emphasise and counterbalance the Tories' lurch to the right.

Labour's problem is simply the population you mention has shifted more firmly to the right in recent years. Meaning significant numbers who can affect a FPTP election system. Tories have had an internal battle inside what should have been the life span of Cameron's 2015 government, to get themselves out to right to meet these people.

At that election (2015) you could buy a Labour Party mug celebrating the manifesto pledge to control immigration...



Made no difference in terms of winning an election, and if you're going to have a political party which relies on mass membership, then those members want to feel that they're putting in their time for something worthwhile.

Where we're at atm is the question of how much further to the right can the Tories move?  Johnson sole interest was in becoming PM and then staying PM..... he'll want an easy life, and it may well be that he can tack back to the centre and produce a BRINO Norway type deal which prevents completely tanking the economy.

Set against that are the Britannia Unchained headbangers in his cabinet and the ERG loons. For those who voted for Tories here is their view of our people....

“The British are among the worst idlers in the world. We work among the lowest hours, we retire early and our productivity is poor. Whereas Indian children aspire to be doctors or businessmen, the British are more interested in football and pop music.”

Their aim is to strip out any pro worker legislation and turn England into a kind of slightly up market Bangladeshi sweat shop  low tax economy backed up by draconian laws

[Abrahammer]

Labour's whole problem is their entirely inward-looking selection process, and indeed membership. The people who are sufficiently committed to sign up are typically some way to the left of the population. If they simply think the figurehead was wrong and select someone close to the Momentum wing of the party again, they'll have learnt nothing and will spend another decade arguing among themselves in the wilderness. Like the Tories, a lot of popular centrists were disenfranchised or kicked out under Corbyn - the current political landscape is crying out for a sensible centre-left alternative to emphasise and counterbalance the Tories' lurch to the right.

Given Long-Bailey is being positioned as the front runner, it seems lessons may well not have be learnt.

Not surprising at all though

Move back to the centralist-left and you have a shot of winning your core vote back, not a hard concept to grasp

[pauld]

Their aim is to strip out any pro worker legislation and turn England into a kind of slightly up market Bangladeshi sweat shop  low tax economy backed up by draconian laws

According to Steve Bannon, Trump's white nationalist guru, the idea is to make us "Singapore on Thames". He should know, he pretty much wrote Johson/Cummings' playbook

[pauld]

Move back to the centralist-left and you have a shot of winning your core vote back, not a hard concept to grasp

Not sure its at all cut and dried that the northern/midlands core vote defected because Labour wasn't "centralist" enough. The damage was done there in the very centrist Blair years as they saw a Labour govt abandon them to pander to the new southern middle class supporters that New Labour was built on. That core vote was just waiting for a political home. Brexit gave it to them. Labour, both left and centrist, failed to notice that. If Labour continues to argue as centrist vs hard left, they'll continue to fail.

[Flashheart]

But fair play to the BBC for continuing their role during the campaign of simply being an uncritical mouthpiece for the Johnson project.

I saw somebody say the other day somewhere that Johnson will have to start keeping his promises because he will now be under scrutiny from the press.

Oh, how I laughed. Or cried. One of the two.

[horlock07]

Not sure its at all cut and dried that the northern/midlands core vote defected because Labour wasn't "centralist" enough. The damage was done there in the very centrist Blair years as they saw a Labour govt abandon them to pander to the new southern middle class supporters that New Labour was built on. That core vote was just waiting for a political home. Brexit gave it to them. Labour, both left and centrist, failed to notice that. If Labour continues to argue as centrist vs hard left, they'll continue to fail.

On a more fundamental level, I am not sure that the 'core vote' actually exists for Labour anymore.

The Tories are lucky as their core vote tends to be of a certain demographic/economic profile as its major driving force, complemented by floating voters depending on matters determinateb on each election. Labour is possibly more problematical and unless the party reacts to change (as Blair did) I fear they will struggle and need to catch up with the times.

For example knowing places up here where I have lived worked, Workington historically was heavy industrial all union men, offset (as many Cumbrian seats are) with a rural area which was/is heavily Tory dominated by farmers. Now the industry has gone, there is a lot of white collar work associated with Sellafield and the lower echelons of the population (in economic terms) have basically been left behind and thus resentment has formed which has been cleverly manipulated by the media to be directed towards immigrants etc as being the problem rather than the government who has been in power for the lst 10 years. Ditto the above for both Copeland (same employer changes) and Barrow where the shipyard is still there, but much more technological rather than heavy industry on the whole (Labour further affected here by the Trident issue).

This trend seems to continue across the north, Unless their is a realisation that we are campaigning in 2019 not 1919 Labour just have lost it, 500k members means jack shit in an election - its less than the votes the Greens got.

Add to the equation the influence that people like McCluskey wield in Labour and offset that by the fact that many of the floating voters Labour need are not union members and are possibly suspicious of unions motives (I am an ex union steward/rep and wouldn't trust most leaders any further than the politicians, its become a gravy train to Westminster exactly the same as the think tank route for the ambitious Tory!)

Until the penny drops that to actually achieve anything one needs power they are piddling in the wind.

[horlock07]

The nonsense of the BBC reporting that Johnson will amend his Withdrawal Bill to make an extension to trade negotiations "illegal". Any law made by parliament can be repealed or amended by parliament later. This amendment is a political gesture, nothing more, nothing less. But fair play to the BBC for continuing their role during the campaign of simply being an uncritical mouthpiece for the Johnson project. I presume they hope it will save them from the axe. It won't

Parliament can only repeal if a vote to repeal passes, Tory candidates had to sign up to show their ideological purity on Brexit prior to the election, QED there will be no majority to repeal, and it only needs to stand until December 31st next year anyway as we will be out by then.

The one interesting thing is them showing their hand this early, as it gives a lot of time for organising a resistance to this within the population.

On a similar vein, the whole NHS/Trump thing is interesting, we can only flog it off the the septics (despite the fact that successive governments have been doing it for years anyway) if the US want it as part of a trade deal, any trade deal done in 9 months is unlikely and going to be crappy to say the least and come November next year there is a possibility that we may be negotiating with a Democrat President.

[Red Frog]

I didn't think there should be any particular surprise about this move to "keep no-deal on the table", as they like to say, as if it's some strategic masterstroke. The mistake they make is to think that holding a gun to our own head will in any way intimidate the Europeans, who will play their usual game of running the clock down till the last minute, just like they did last time. Everyone knows that Johnson's amendment to the May deal was for presentation purposes only.

Brexit negotiators are like kids trying to play poker. When it gets close to the wire, just look how far the little UK will bend over to get some sort, almost any sort, of deal. And that's just Europe. Wait till the US get their turn...

[horlock07]

I didn't think there should be any particular surprise about this move to "keep no-deal on the table", as they like to say, as if it's some strategic masterstroke. The mistake they make is to think that holding a gun to our own head will in any way intimidate the Europeans, who will play their usual game of running the clock down till the last minute, just like they did last time. Everyone knows that Johnson's amendment to the May deal was for presentation purposes only.

Brexit negotiators are like kids trying to play poker. When it gets close to the wire, just look how far the little UK will bend over to get some sort, almost any sort, of deal. And that's just Europe. Wait till the US get their turn...

I think the problem is going to be negotiation is a two way process, we present what we want, the EU respond with what they want and we eventually meet somewhere in  the middle (assuming both sides start from a realistic pov), however, whilst the EU position has been fairly static since July 2016, as we as a nation still don't have a bloody clue what we want (bar a fuelled 747 cargo, a unicorn fluffy toy and a blue passport) the whole process is flawed from day 1.

The moderates in the Tory party have on the whole been seen off so not sure where there is scope to reign in the whim s of the ERG?

[horlock07]

Hmmmm, they could at least try....



BTW is Lindsay Hoyle the luckiest MP in parliament.

[pauld]

BTW is Lindsay Hoyle the luckiest MP in parliament.

Or just sensed which way the wind was blowing?

[pauld]

Hancock still trying to insist that there will be  50,000 more nurses even though they're only recruiting 31,000 because the other 19,000 are ones they will aim to retain so that will mean they are also "more". By his logic, if we do manage to retain Doyle in January we will then have 2 of him. It's insulting how stupid the govt think the public are.

And that's quite aside from the fact that they'll get nowhere near either of these targets and hope that gets quietly buried once they've garnered all the nice headlines from "50,000 more nurses"

[Reg Smeeton]

It's insulting how stupid the govt think the public are.

 H L Mencken said this some years back....

  "No-one has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”

[horlock07]

Hancock still trying to insist that there will be  50,000 more nurses even though they're only recruiting 31,000 because the other 19,000 are ones they will aim to retain so that will mean they are also "more". By his logic, if we do manage to retain Doyle in January we will then have 2 of him. It's insulting how stupid the govt think the public are.

And that's quite aside from the fact that they'll get nowhere near either of these targets and hope that gets quietly buried once they've garnered all the nice headlines from "50,000 more nurses"

Does that mean now that Mancock has been retained as Health Secretary, we now have two of them?

[Bob's Orange]

Hancock still trying to insist that there will be  50,000 more nurses even though they're only recruiting 31,000 because the other 19,000 are ones they will aim to retain so that will mean they are also "more". By his logic, if we do manage to retain Doyle in January we will then have 2 of him. It's insulting how stupid the govt think the public are.

And that's quite aside from the fact that they'll get nowhere near either of these targets and hope that gets quietly buried once they've garnered all the nice headlines from "50,000 more nurses"

I never really understood why the conservatives did that - why not just say that they are recruiting 31k new nurses and will aim to retain 19k that would otherwise be lost?

I get that recruiting 50k new nurses sounds way better but surely people would see through those blatant lies? Wouldn't they?