Labour must also back PR - and fast. That must be one of their new policies.
They only get to implement that if they win an election though! (Even if they do so as part of a coalition, that suggests they're within touching distance of being able to do so alone.) And if they can get a FPTP majority then they can actually implement their policies as they wish, rather than bending as a coalition requires.
It's a mistake to think Labour as we know it would be perpetually in government under PR, and most likely Labour would fracture into several parties in a PR system! (There's some fancy political science behind why PR supports more parties than FPTP, and Labour's internal coalition from working-class socialism to the "brahmins" would clearly be ripe for rupturing when there's a system both could compete independently in. FPTP enforces sticking together because you get punished if you try breaking out on your own.)
Perhaps that is exactly what needs to happen.
I didn't ever predict a Labour split or crisis in 2015 - but I can honestly see one now.
I'm genuinely devastated about this - but I promised I wouldn't run away so here I am.
My thoughts are these:
Corbyn should have resigned in 2017 on a high and Starmer should have taken over. He could have forged a coalition of some kind in Parliament for what he wanted, a second referendum.
But since that didn't happen, Labour's biggest errors have been Brexit and Corbyn. No surprises there of course.
But I have to be honest and conclude there are no easy answers here.
I think it's absolutely indisputable that a better leader like Starmer would have done a lot better in Southern England than Corbyn.
But in the North? A more pro-Remain, pro second referendum leader? I cannot see it.
So therefore I have to conclude, this result was probably inevitable. Perhaps a HP was possible under a better leader - but I can't see a Labour victory.
So for me that leaves this:
Corbynism is over, it's done.
The entirety of Corbyn's team must go immediately.
The next leader has to be somebody either not related to Corbyn or not a true believer. Again that leaves Starmer. But the concern with him is that he's very "London" and not especially charismatic. Not at all convinced he's going to win back those Northern seats.
The next leader needs an actually decent PR team and preferably should understand how the media works. Sometimes you have to play the game.
I genuinely believe that a soft-left manifesto, promising to deal with climate change, action on tuition fees, fixing the railways, sorting out austerity and housing, can win. But that's as radical as Labour can go, the electorate don't want more. And Labour needs to accept that.
Really there are no easy answers. But the one saving grace as even Johnson acknowledged, is that these new voters are temporary at present. He has a lot to do to keep them - and if Labour is actually decent again, I passionately believe they'll come back.
So I'm sorry to all the people I've let down by backing Corbyn. I hold my hands up, I also hold my hands up for calling the election wrong as I promised I would.
All the best to you all.
Oh, CHB, we've all been there. My first GE was 1992, I was convinced that Kinnock had it won.
Far from my first GE - but I too was convinced Kinnock had won and had pink champagne on ice, ready to toast the brave new socialist dawn.....went to bed with NOC, Tories largest party, and woke up to Tory Maj. went downhill from there...but that's life!
The question is who will lead the Labour party back to this more moderate vision? It's hard to see at the moment. You seem quite clear eyed about it all but I fear many Labour members will want the comfort blanket of another hard left leader.
In many ways it is good that Corbyn stays on a while, it will give Labourites the time to process this shellacking and consider that a more moderate leader might be a wise choice.
He should have stuck to his guns and backed Leave. That would have been less terrible - but ultimately he was screwed from the moment he didn't go after 2017.
Labour would have been in Government by now had he gone then.
Real change they said, well they were right. It's just five more years of the Tories. This result is just absolutely crazy for Labour - and it's difficult to see how they come back. Of course they will, Blair did. But it took a long time.
Labour stayed in the fence regarding Brexit. THE key question is why they had to Go neutral and the Tories didn’t. The reason the Tories could back Leave and yet retain Remain cores was because fear of Corbyn kept their remain voters loyal.
That was the advantage won this election. Whichever way Labour jumped, the disappointed side had somewhere safe to go. That’s the difference. My staying neutral, Corbyn could not attack the Tory position. This was how Corbyn lost it,
But let's face it, ultimately that's because he was the leader. I do not think Starmer would have won this election - but it's conceivable with the disastrous LD performance how he could have won much of the South.
A leader with a clear policy could have won this election, Defeat was far from inevitable, The SNP prove this.
A clear Remain policy would have won this? The Lib Dems did terribly for a start. Perhaps you can argue that's FPTP.
A clear Leave policy might have worked - but I can't see any of the alternate Labour leaders from 2017 having gone for that.
Corbyn showed zero leadership on Brexit from day one. He ceded the whole territory to Boris. He could not dismantle the bullshit that was and is "get Brexit done". My not choosing a direction he caused this. He was boxed into a Hobsons choice and ultimately even got that wrong by trying to triangulate a binary issue.
This is nothing less than a complete failure of leadership and fear from someone who only his true believers thought could be PM.
Good to hear your thoughts CHB. Don't give up fighting for what you believe in. I think what you say about the soft-left manifesto, tuition fees, fixing (but not necessarily nationalising) the railways, housing etc are the path back for Labour. Whether that is in 2024 or not I do not know. But it is the way back.
In many ways it is good that Corbyn stays on a while, it will give Labourites the time to process this shellacking and consider that a more moderate leader might be a wise choice.
My fear is that they won't - but there must be people like me out there. And we must not forget that in 2016 40% of the membership voted against Corbyn.
I think there are elements of Brexit absolutely that caused this destruction, so the Labour response isn't entirely wrong. But they don't seem to have figured out that that Brexit policy was under the watch of Corbyn.
He should have stuck to his guns and backed Leave. That would have been less terrible - but ultimately he was screwed from the moment he didn't go after 2017.
Labour would have been in Government by now had he gone then.
Real change they said, well they were right. It's just five more years of the Tories. This result is just absolutely crazy for Labour - and it's difficult to see how they come back. Of course they will, Blair did. But it took a long time.
Labour stayed in the fence regarding Brexit. THE key question is why they had to Go neutral and the Tories didn’t. The reason the Tories could back Leave and yet retain Remain cores was because fear of Corbyn kept their remain voters loyal.
That was the advantage won this election. Whichever way Labour jumped, the disappointed side had somewhere safe to go. That’s the difference. My staying neutral, Corbyn could not attack the Tory position. This was how Corbyn lost it,
But let's face it, ultimately that's because he was the leader. I do not think Starmer would have won this election - but it's conceivable with the disastrous LD performance how he could have won much of the South.
A leader with a clear policy could have won this election, Defeat was far from inevitable, The SNP prove this.
A clear Remain policy would have won this? The Lib Dems did terribly for a start. Perhaps you can argue that's FPTP.
A clear Leave policy might have worked - but I can't see any of the alternate Labour leaders from 2017 having gone for that.
You'll get nowhere with tinkering. Labour is fucked to its core and needs to start over with some appreciation of what kind party is sustainable in 21stC GB. The country needs a proper opposition.
For me the perception is that a lot of Labour voters leant their votes to the Tories. I think Labour can win those votes back (and it must be said that despite everything, Labour has 10 million very loyal voters who will seemingly vote for anything) and be in Government again - but they must dump Corbyn.
We do need to bear in mind that Labour have lost 4 elections under 3 leaders. Brown's New Labour, Miliband's soft Leftism and Corbynite Marxism have all failed. They have tried different ideologies already.
The problem for Labour is the same as it was when choosing Miliband over Balls or Corbyn over Cooper. Sober, sensible Social Democracy looks very tired and unappealing compared to the sugar rush of Populism of left and right.
Labour must also back PR - and fast. That must be one of their new policies.
They only get to implement that if they win an election though! (Even if they do so as part of a coalition, that suggests they're within touching distance of being able to do so alone.) And if they can get a FPTP majority then they can actually implement their policies as they wish, rather than bending as a coalition requires.
It's a mistake to think Labour as we know it would be perpetually in government under PR, and most likely Labour would fracture into several parties in a PR system! (There's some fancy political science behind why PR supports more parties than FPTP, and Labour's internal coalition from working-class socialism to the "brahmins" would clearly be ripe for rupturing when there's a system both could compete independently in. FPTP enforces sticking together because you get punished if you try breaking out on your own.)
There's a Catch 22 here. You only get to introduce PR if you win FPTP and why change a winning system?
Labour must also back PR - and fast. That must be one of their new policies.
They only get to implement that if they win an election though! (Even if they do so as part of a coalition, that suggests they're within touching distance of being able to do so alone.) And if they can get a FPTP majority then they can actually implement their policies as they wish, rather than bending as a coalition requires.
It's a mistake to think Labour as we know it would be perpetually in government under PR, and most likely Labour would fracture into several parties in a PR system! (There's some fancy political science behind why PR supports more parties than FPTP, and Labour's internal coalition from working-class socialism to the "brahmins" would clearly be ripe for rupturing when there's a system both could compete independently in. FPTP enforces sticking together because you get punished if you try breaking out on your own.)
There's a Catch 22 here. You only get to introduce PR if you win FPTP and why change a winning system?
Let's be realistic, Labour isn't going to be winning a majority anytime soon. Not with the SNP cleaning up in Scotland again (to be fair I did predict that!),
One thing that people often don't take into account is how those student loan payments affect your ability to buy a house. Your net income is significantly reduced especially at higher incomes and that makes it harder for people to buy houses in affluent areas such as London as you say.
I said last night (and in 2017) that Corbynism feels like a middle class youth rebellion and I think tuition fees and housing unaffordability (in areas where young graduates gravitate to) is a huge part of it.
I liked that post at the time, didn't have a chance to write a reply to it but yeah - at that dinner party in Camden Town (hosted at a very posh flat mind you, not some post-student hovel) a common complaint is how they'd have to do the ghastly unthinkable thing of buying a house outside of London if they were to obtain property at all!
How you take that, whether you class it as fair or not, partly depends what your counterfactual is. "The fact they're having to pay those graduate contributions, hence in a higher income band, tells you they've almost certainly benefited financially from their education - so compared to not having gone to uni, they're better off, and better positioned to buy a house or whatever else they want to do, despite the fees, so it's fair enough" versus "compared to a system without fees, having to repay your student loan limits your housing options - it's unfair that young people have to do that when older people do not". At the dinner party, option 2 was preferred. Unsurprisingly. Of course scrapping fees doesn't really make tuition free, just changes who picks up the tab to wider society - yet the financial benefits of university education, if they exist (depends highly on course chosen and how much work the student puts in!) accrue very much to the individual. You could argue the toss on "fairness" forever. My basic point is that those who feel it is really deeply vote-changingly unfair tend to already be in the left-wing column anyway, in the bracket (middle-class graduate but not asset-rich) you identify.
Incidentally, and to flip the parties around, Boris could really do with crushing the NIMBYs in his party.
For me the perception is that a lot of Labour voters leant their votes to the Tories. I think Labour can win those votes back (and it must be said that despite everything, Labour has 10 million very loyal voters who will seemingly vote for anything) and be in Government again - but they must dump Corbyn.
Johnson made the comment that the Tories had been leant a lot of votes - but you are right, the Corbyn cancer needs to be excised in toto from the Labour body politic. But then the tricky part - who are they for? 1) The young, metropolitan graduate Europhile Brahmin class, 2) The older socially conservative fewer educational qualifications blue collar class or 3) The public sector client class - whose views are probably somewhere between the two?
We do need to bear in mind that Labour have lost 4 elections under 3 leaders. Brown's New Labour, Miliband's soft Leftism and Corbynite Marxism have all failed. They have tried different ideologies already.
The problem for Labour is the same as it was when choosing Miliband over Balls or Corbyn over Cooper. Sober, sensible Social Democracy looks very tired and unappealing compared to the sugar rush of Populism of left and right.
Lid Dems and USA Dems have a similar problem.
LibDems need to elect a new leader not the next PM.
Corbyn showed zero leadership on Brexit from day one. He ceded the whole territory to Boris. He could not dismantle the bullshit that was and is "get Brexit done". My not choosing a direction he caused this. He was boxed into a Hobsons choice and ultimately even got that wrong by trying to triangulate a binary issue.
This is nothing less than a complete failure of leadership and fear from someone who only his true believers thought could be PM.
That can be overstated. The politics and presentation were shockingly bad but the basic position, renegotiate and then decide whether or not to remain neutral in a referendum was perfectly defensible. It was the position of Wilson and more pertinently it was the position of the Conservative government led by David Cameron. It was defensible but not defended.
Labour must also back PR - and fast. That must be one of their new policies.
They only get to implement that if they win an election though! (Even if they do so as part of a coalition, that suggests they're within touching distance of being able to do so alone.) And if they can get a FPTP majority then they can actually implement their policies as they wish, rather than bending as a coalition requires.
It's a mistake to think Labour as we know it would be perpetually in government under PR, and most likely Labour would fracture into several parties in a PR system! (There's some fancy political science behind why PR supports more parties than FPTP, and Labour's internal coalition from working-class socialism to the "brahmins" would clearly be ripe for rupturing when there's a system both could compete independently in. FPTP enforces sticking together because you get punished if you try breaking out on your own.)
There's a Catch 22 here. You only get to introduce PR if you win FPTP and why change a winning system?
Yes, that was my point, could have been more succinctly put sorry! Or half my point. The other half of my point was (a) you wouldn't end up in power all the time anyway, you can't look at FPTP vote shares and assume they'll just be replicated in a new system, (b) it would mean introducing a system you're almost certain will cause your party to split into two or more of socialists, social democrats, green-left, centrists - if not now, then soon enough.
Why did Labour do so badly in the North and Midlands? I'm no expert, but I was surprised by the anger felt against MPs by some here. It wasn't caused by their lies - that's expected of politicians. Few think BoJo is particularly trustworthy. The problem was the contempt both verbally and by their actions from some of the Remainers. Lying is expected, but real contempt isn't.
Labour took the decision to align with their members in London and to tell their old-time supporters they were morons. But to do so openly is unforgivable.
Labour will come again once Corbyn goes. They will pay perhaps more than lip-service to their natural voters then.
We do need to bear in mind that Labour have lost 4 elections under 3 leaders. Brown's New Labour, Miliband's soft Leftism and Corbynite Marxism have all failed. They have tried different ideologies already.
The problem for Labour is the same as it was when choosing Miliband over Balls or Corbyn over Cooper. Sober, sensible Social Democracy looks very tired and unappealing compared to the sugar rush of Populism of left and right.
Lid Dems and USA Dems have a similar problem.
Brown, Miliband and Corbyn were all rubbish leaders. Corbynite Marxism is a rubbish ideology.
It is wrong to write off the other two ideologies because of the above. However New Labour was a movement of and for its time. Trying to blandly copycat it now would be wrong.
Imo Labour need to work out how they can get to 350 seats, where are those coming from? Scotland? Post industrial towns? Rural? South? Any of those are going to be challenging and they probably need more than one of them. Daunting.
Pick a leader to appeal to those areas, not just someone popular within the party.
Pick two or three clear and deliverable policies that will help the lives of people in those constituencies. Focus on those, fine to be radical on these but dont over promise or be radical throughout.
Actively recruit and promote older members to ensure they dont get smashed in the part of the electorate with the highest turnout.
Corbyn showed zero leadership on Brexit from day one. He ceded the whole territory to Boris. He could not dismantle the bullshit that was and is "get Brexit done". My not choosing a direction he caused this. He was boxed into a Hobsons choice and ultimately even got that wrong by trying to triangulate a binary issue.
This is nothing less than a complete failure of leadership and fear from someone who only his true believers thought could be PM.
That can be overstated. The politics and presentation were shockingly bad but the basic position, renegotiate and then decide whether or not to remain neutral in a referendum was perfectly defensible. It was the position of Wilson and more pertinently it was the position of the Conservative government led by David Cameron. It was defensible but not defended.
The subtext was, we'll agree a deal that is so close to Remain that it isn't worth having, and then even Brexiters would vote "in" in the ensuing Referendum. So the policy was Remain really, only less honest
Labour must also back PR - and fast. That must be one of their new policies.
They only get to implement that if they win an election though! (Even if they do so as part of a coalition, that suggests they're within touching distance of being able to do so alone.) And if they can get a FPTP majority then they can actually implement their policies as they wish, rather than bending as a coalition requires.
It's a mistake to think Labour as we know it would be perpetually in government under PR, and most likely Labour would fracture into several parties in a PR system! (There's some fancy political science behind why PR supports more parties than FPTP, and Labour's internal coalition from working-class socialism to the "brahmins" would clearly be ripe for rupturing when there's a system both could compete independently in. FPTP enforces sticking together because you get punished if you try breaking out on your own.)
There's a Catch 22 here. You only get to introduce PR if you win FPTP and why change a winning system?
Yes, that was my point, could have been more succinctly put sorry! Or half my point. The other half of my point was (a) you wouldn't end up in power all the time anyway, you can't look at FPTP vote shares and assume they'll just be replicated in a new system, (b) it would mean introducing a system you're almost certain will cause your party to split into two or more of socialists, social democrats, green-left, centrists - if not now, then soon enough.
Thats the thing. It's not just a change to limit your changes of getting into power, it's a change to completely give up 'sole' power forever.
We do need to bear in mind that Labour have lost 4 elections under 3 leaders. Brown's New Labour, Miliband's soft Leftism and Corbynite Marxism have all failed. They have tried different ideologies already.
I do think (as might be implied by the rest of your post) that different ideologies can catch light or not, depending on the time/place/circumstances! The country needs (or at least laps up) different messages in the golden years versus the turbulent ones. Reheated Blairism would likely have failed in 2010 and 2015 as well. Doesn't mean you need to scratch off all four ideologies as "fundamentally failed, don't try that one again". But what's the right one to pick to be in tune with the mood and needs of the nation at the next election? Much trickier question, and the correct answer isn't necessarily going to be the one that any of the Labour players (the MPs, unions, thinktankwonkos, membership/selectorate) are going to feel most comfortable with selecting.
Corbyn showed zero leadership on Brexit from day one. He ceded the whole territory to Boris. He could not dismantle the bullshit that was and is "get Brexit done". My not choosing a direction he caused this. He was boxed into a Hobsons choice and ultimately even got that wrong by trying to triangulate a binary issue.
This is nothing less than a complete failure of leadership and fear from someone who only his true believers thought could be PM.
That can be overstated. The politics and presentation were shockingly bad but the basic position, renegotiate and then decide whether or not to remain neutral in a referendum was perfectly defensible. It was the position of Wilson and more pertinently it was the position of the Conservative government led by David Cameron. It was defensible but not defended.
I never once heard a Labour politician say it was similar to Cameron's position. It was an easy reply to a difficult position to explain.
Why did Labour do so badly in the North and Midlands? I'm no expert, but I was surprised by the anger felt against MPs by some here. It wasn't caused by their lies - that's expected of politicians. Few think BoJo is particularly trustworthy. The problem was the contempt both verbally and by their actions from some of the Remainers. Lying is expected, but real contempt isn't.
Labour took the decision to align with their members in London and to tell their old-time supporters they were morons. But to do so openly is unforgivable.
Labour will come again once Corbyn goes. They will pay perhaps more than lip-service to their natural voters then.
it all goes back to Mandelson's poison "they have nowhere else to go."
Labour must also back PR - and fast. That must be one of their new policies.
They only get to implement that if they win an election though! (Even if they do so as part of a coalition, that suggests they're within touching distance of being able to do so alone.) And if they can get a FPTP majority then they can actually implement their policies as they wish, rather than bending as a coalition requires.
It's a mistake to think Labour as we know it would be perpetually in government under PR, and most likely Labour would fracture into several parties in a PR system! (There's some fancy political science behind why PR supports more parties than FPTP, and Labour's internal coalition from working-class socialism to the "brahmins" would clearly be ripe for rupturing when there's a system both could compete independently in. FPTP enforces sticking together because you get punished if you try breaking out on your own.)
There's a Catch 22 here. You only get to introduce PR if you win FPTP and why change a winning system?
Let's be realistic, Labour isn't going to be winning a majority anytime soon. Not with the SNP cleaning up in Scotland again (to be fair I did predict that!),
I'm not Labour but, given that perspective, I think Labour's first priority is Scotland. The Independence debate is going to make this election look like a tea party. It has to find some way of stopping that or at least slowing it down. For what it's worth, I reckon that helping to push BREXIT though asap so that the Scots are definitely looking at rejoining rather than staying in, looks a viable strategy.
It's nonsense though, unless anyone really did believe -- as oppose to claim to believe -- that Corbyn in Downing Street would lead to a new Kristallnacht or even to the sort of physical and sometimes armed assaults of Jews that have been seen recently in France, Germany and the United States.
Labour must also back PR - and fast. That must be one of their new policies.
They only get to implement that if they win an election though! (Even if they do so as part of a coalition, that suggests they're within touching distance of being able to do so alone.) And if they can get a FPTP majority then they can actually implement their policies as they wish, rather than bending as a coalition requires.
It's a mistake to think Labour as we know it would be perpetually in government under PR, and most likely Labour would fracture into several parties in a PR system! (There's some fancy political science behind why PR supports more parties than FPTP, and Labour's internal coalition from working-class socialism to the "brahmins" would clearly be ripe for rupturing when there's a system both could compete independently in. FPTP enforces sticking together because you get punished if you try breaking out on your own.)
There's a Catch 22 here. You only get to introduce PR if you win FPTP and why change a winning system?
Let's be realistic, Labour isn't going to be winning a majority anytime soon. Not with the SNP cleaning up in Scotland again (to be fair I did predict that!),
I'm not Labour but, given that perspective, I think Labour's first priority is Scotland. The Independence debate is going to make this election look like a tea party. It has to find some way of stopping that or at least slowing it down. For what it's worth, I reckon that helping to push BREXIT though asap so that the Scots are definitely looking at rejoining rather than staying in, looks a viable strategy.
What makes Scottish independence look almost certain to me now, is how many English Brexiters want it.
We do need to bear in mind that Labour have lost 4 elections under 3 leaders. Brown's New Labour, Miliband's soft Leftism and Corbynite Marxism have all failed. They have tried different ideologies already.
The problem for Labour is the same as it was when choosing Miliband over Balls or Corbyn over Cooper. Sober, sensible Social Democracy looks very tired and unappealing compared to the sugar rush of Populism of left and right.
Lid Dems and USA Dems have a similar problem.
LibDems need to elect a new leader not the next PM.
I did vote Davey...even did a PB header on the contest.
One thing that is poisoning politics is the triumph of personality politics, of the charismatic leader, over a wider team. I prefer a decentralised system of spokespersons, able to thresh out ideas in committee rather than the cult of personality.
For an Orange Booker, I do have very strong sympathies with Anarcho-Syndacalism. Don't replace bosses, get rid of them! This is a fairly niche political position though.
Ah well, duty calls, all that paperwork won't do itself...
Corbyn showed zero leadership on Brexit from day one. He ceded the whole territory to Boris. He could not dismantle the bullshit that was and is "get Brexit done". My not choosing a direction he caused this. He was boxed into a Hobsons choice and ultimately even got that wrong by trying to triangulate a binary issue.
This is nothing less than a complete failure of leadership and fear from someone who only his true believers thought could be PM.
That can be overstated. The politics and presentation were shockingly bad but the basic position, renegotiate and then decide whether or not to remain neutral in a referendum was perfectly defensible. It was the position of Wilson and more pertinently it was the position of the Conservative government led by David Cameron. It was defensible but not defended.
I never once heard a Labour politician say it was similar to Cameron's position. It was an easy reply to a difficult position to explain.
That is what is unforgivable and inexplicable. It's not the extremism of the shadowy figures around Corbyn, it's their sheer bloody incompetence.
Labour is in the deepest political hole in its history but the early signs are that the Corbyn cult is doubling down on its efforts to dig an even bigger hole. The far left simply cannot comprehend that to win an election under FPTP a party has to be capable of representing views from across a wide political spectrum. It is also incapable of accepting any responsibility for the consequences of its own actions.
I am mulling over whether to rejoin the party, at least until the leadership question is settled.
Brown was at the tail end of 13 years in office, facing a re-energised Opposition led by a capable leader.
Corbyn (part 2) was facing a known egotistical buffoon and incompetent whose party (if we include the Coalition) had been in power for 9 years and won (again, including the Coalition) the last 3 elections.
I think unlike Thornberry last night, Labour really should not stand in the way of Brexit from here. Obviously their votes will be purely symbolic but I really think the idea they can now oppose Brexit is ridiculous.
I never think Brexit will be a good idea, I have opposed it from day one and I continue to believe it will damage the people who have just elected Tories and in time they will unfortunately see the consequences of that. But having said all that, Labour needs to accept that they now can't stop Brexit, there is no appetite for rejoin but there must be appetite for the future relationship now Brexit is "done" (it of course, isn't).
But I think anyone offering a simple route to Labour success, such as, just be more Blairite, just be more Tory, just be more left wing, is wrong. This a complex answer.
But I am really pissed off that Corbyn hasn't already gone, to be frank.
It's nonsense though, unless anyone really did believe -- as oppose to claim to believe -- that Corbyn in Downing Street would lead to a new Kristallnacht or even to the sort of physical and sometimes armed assaults of Jews that have been seen recently in France, Germany and the United States.
Hopefully now they've achieved their goal the nonsensical accusations that Jeremy Corbyn is anti-semitic will now cease.
It will be a shame if UK political imperatives have warped perceptions to the extent that people will start defending the indefensible actions of the Israeli government.
Why did Labour do so badly in the North and Midlands? I'm no expert, but I was surprised by the anger felt against MPs by some here. It wasn't caused by their lies - that's expected of politicians. Few think BoJo is particularly trustworthy. The problem was the contempt both verbally and by their actions from some of the Remainers. Lying is expected, but real contempt isn't.
Labour took the decision to align with their members in London and to tell their old-time supporters they were morons. But to do so openly is unforgivable.
Labour will come again once Corbyn goes. They will pay perhaps more than lip-service to their natural voters then.
Labour is in the deepest political hole in its history but the early signs are that the Corbyn cult is doubling down on its efforts to dig an even bigger hole. The far left simply cannot comprehend that to win an election under FPTP a party has to be capable of representing views from across a wide political spectrum. It is also incapable of accepting any responsibility for the consequences of its own actions.
I am mulling over whether to rejoin the party, at least until the leadership question is settled.
I am mulling whether to join for the first time, so I can vote to stop the cult from continuing. I still agree with some of their policies - but I simply will not support Corbynism carrying on.
The result in Northern Ireland is seismic. More nationalist MPs than unionists.
I think the day of a united Ireland now beckons - whether it will be all some in the north expect I'm less sure but it's their decision. I'm less clear how well an independent Scotland would fare without some a continued close relationship with the UK if they also voted for independence. I'd be very sad if the latter happened.
Labour is in the deepest political hole in its history but the early signs are that the Corbyn cult is doubling down on its efforts to dig an even bigger hole. The far left simply cannot comprehend that to win an election under FPTP a party has to be capable of representing views from across a wide political spectrum. It is also incapable of accepting any responsibility for the consequences of its own actions.
I am mulling over whether to rejoin the party, at least until the leadership question is settled.
I am mulling whether to join for the first time, so I can vote to stop the cult from continuing. I still agree with some of their policies - but I simply will not support Corbynism carrying on.
The three quid Tories can now leave, their job is done!
The result in Northern Ireland is seismic. More nationalist MPs than unionists.
I think the day of a united Ireland now beckons - whether it will be all some in the north expect I'm less sure but it's their decision. I'm less clear how well an independent Scotland would fare without some a continued close relationship with the UK if they also voted for independence. I'd be very sad if the latter happened.
I can't see how independence can not happen, to be honest. If Johnson refuses a referendum, the groundswell will just increase.
Meanwhile, many of his core supporters don't only not mind, but actively want to achieve this outcome.
Corbyn showed zero leadership on Brexit from day one. He ceded the whole territory to Boris. He could not dismantle the bullshit that was and is "get Brexit done". My not choosing a direction he caused this. He was boxed into a Hobsons choice and ultimately even got that wrong by trying to triangulate a binary issue.
This is nothing less than a complete failure of leadership and fear from someone who only his true believers thought could be PM.
That can be overstated. The politics and presentation were shockingly bad but the basic position, renegotiate and then decide whether or not to remain neutral in a referendum was perfectly defensible. It was the position of Wilson and more pertinently it was the position of the Conservative government led by David Cameron. It was defensible but not defended.
I never once heard a Labour politician say it was similar to Cameron's position. It was an easy reply to a difficult position to explain.
That is what is unforgivable and inexplicable. It's not the extremism of the shadowy figures around Corbyn, it's their sheer bloody incompetence.
Like most things in life its a mix of things, but yes bar McDonnell, virtually all the Corbynista's were various degrees of incompetent. Some to the level of incredulity as to how they ended up in the shadow cabinet in the first place. (Sadly the same applies to some of the real cabinet).
Corbyn showed zero leadership on Brexit from day one. He ceded the whole territory to Boris. He could not dismantle the bullshit that was and is "get Brexit done". My not choosing a direction he caused this. He was boxed into a Hobsons choice and ultimately even got that wrong by trying to triangulate a binary issue.
This is nothing less than a complete failure of leadership and fear from someone who only his true believers thought could be PM.
That can be overstated. The politics and presentation were shockingly bad but the basic position, renegotiate and then decide whether or not to remain neutral in a referendum was perfectly defensible. It was the position of Wilson and more pertinently it was the position of the Conservative government led by David Cameron. It was defensible but not defended.
I never once heard a Labour politician say it was similar to Cameron's position. It was an easy reply to a difficult position to explain.
That is what is unforgivable and inexplicable. It's not the extremism of the shadowy figures around Corbyn, it's their sheer bloody incompetence.
you should have listened to John Lansman last night, in denial.
Labour is in the deepest political hole in its history but the early signs are that the Corbyn cult is doubling down on its efforts to dig an even bigger hole. The far left simply cannot comprehend that to win an election under FPTP a party has to be capable of representing views from across a wide political spectrum. It is also incapable of accepting any responsibility for the consequences of its own actions.
I am mulling over whether to rejoin the party, at least until the leadership question is settled.
I am mulling whether to join for the first time, so I can vote to stop the cult from continuing. I still agree with some of their policies - but I simply will not support Corbynism carrying on.
It's nonsense though, unless anyone really did believe -- as oppose to claim to believe -- that Corbyn in Downing Street would lead to a new Kristallnacht or even to the sort of physical and sometimes armed assaults of Jews that have been seen recently in France, Germany and the United States.
What is this, English exceptionalism on steroids? How do you think you get to kristallnachts and pogroms and final solutions, except from a gradual start with a bit of bants about being careful with money?
You don't mean it of course. You connived at antisemitism and lost. You were called out at that the time. Don't double down by pretending that now it's all over we can all have a laugh and admit that that the warnings were just a partisan ploy. They were not.
Labour is in the deepest political hole in its history but the early signs are that the Corbyn cult is doubling down on its efforts to dig an even bigger hole. The far left simply cannot comprehend that to win an election under FPTP a party has to be capable of representing views from across a wide political spectrum. It is also incapable of accepting any responsibility for the consequences of its own actions.
I am mulling over whether to rejoin the party, at least until the leadership question is settled.
I am mulling whether to join for the first time, so I can vote to stop the cult from continuing. I still agree with some of their policies - but I simply will not support Corbynism carrying on.
Why did Labour do so badly in the North and Midlands? I'm no expert, but I was surprised by the anger felt against MPs by some here. It wasn't caused by their lies - that's expected of politicians. Few think BoJo is particularly trustworthy. The problem was the contempt both verbally and by their actions from some of the Remainers. Lying is expected, but real contempt isn't.
Labour took the decision to align with their members in London and to tell their old-time supporters they were morons. But to do so openly is unforgivable.
Labour will come again once Corbyn goes. They will pay perhaps more than lip-service to their natural voters then.
The danger is the replacement is a Corbynista.
At least it wont be Pillock....so we have Wrong-Daily to look forward to.
How much of Labour's current plight goes back to Brown and his marginalisation of lots of potential challengers?
Labour must also back PR - and fast. That must be one of their new policies.
They only get to implement that if they win an election though! (Even if they do so as part of a coalition, that suggests they're within touching distance of being able to do so alone.) And if they can get a FPTP majority then they can actually implement their policies as they wish, rather than bending as a coalition requires.
It's a mistake to think Labour as we know it would be perpetually in government under PR, and most likely Labour would fracture into several parties in a PR system! (There's some fancy political science behind why PR supports more parties than FPTP, and Labour's internal coalition from working-class socialism to the "brahmins" would clearly be ripe for rupturing when there's a system both could compete independently in. FPTP enforces sticking together because you get punished if you try breaking out on your own.)
There's a Catch 22 here. You only get to introduce PR if you win FPTP and why change a winning system?
Let's be realistic, Labour isn't going to be winning a majority anytime soon. Not with the SNP cleaning up in Scotland again (to be fair I did predict that!),
I'm not Labour but, given that perspective, I think Labour's first priority is Scotland. The Independence debate is going to make this election look like a tea party. It has to find some way of stopping that or at least slowing it down. For what it's worth, I reckon that helping to push BREXIT though asap so that the Scots are definitely looking at rejoining rather than staying in, looks a viable strategy.
What makes Scottish independence look almost certain to me now, is how many English Brexiters want it.
I've always told my Scottish friends that if they truly want independence they should give the English a vote.
Labour must also back PR - and fast. That must be one of their new policies.
They only get to implement that if they win an election though! (Even if they do so as part of a coalition, that suggests they're within touching distance of being able to do so alone.) And if they can get a FPTP majority then they can actually implement their policies as they wish, rather than bending as a coalition requires.
It's a mistake to think Labour as we know it would be perpetually in government under PR, and most likely Labour would fracture into several parties in a PR system! (There's some fancy political science behind why PR supports more parties than FPTP, and Labour's internal coalition from working-class socialism to the "brahmins" would clearly be ripe for rupturing when there's a system both could compete independently in. FPTP enforces sticking together because you get punished if you try breaking out on your own.)
There's a Catch 22 here. You only get to introduce PR if you win FPTP and why change a winning system?
Let's be realistic, Labour isn't going to be winning a majority anytime soon. Not with the SNP cleaning up in Scotland again (to be fair I did predict that!),
I'm not Labour but, given that perspective, I think Labour's first priority is Scotland. The Independence debate is going to make this election look like a tea party. It has to find some way of stopping that or at least slowing it down. For what it's worth, I reckon that helping to push BREXIT though asap so that the Scots are definitely looking at rejoining rather than staying in, looks a viable strategy.
Labour got killed in Scotland for opposing independence and looking like the Tories' poodle. I would recommend that Labour do nothing to stand in the way of Scottish independence, which I think is now much more likely than not. Scotland and E&W no longer form a single political culture, the Scots should have the freedom to build a modern, European social democratic country on their own. Left wing unionism is dead.
What also must disappoint me is how despite all the signs, the youth vote just did not turn out. I have to conclude that must also be down to Corbyn.
The young never turn out in the same proportion. It is one of the things that is not down to Corbyn, although relying heavily on them was.
The opposite is true of the retired. Common consensus is Labour is the party of the client state, yet most state benefits go to the retired. The retired vote the most and they vote overwhelmingly Tory, which is why they get a far better deal than the rest of us from the Tory state.
The fact it's a popular position within the Labour party has a lot to do with the fact young professional graduates make up a big chunk of the membership and it is, quite naturally, their concern - but that's not the same as figuring out what policy offering you need to attract, say, a twenty-something technician from Workington who did BTEC instead of A-levels and earns above minimum wage but less than the national median. That's reaching out to a whole new planet, mysterious and incomprehensible and whose orbit many members will never have glimpsed.
It's a popular policy though, that's my point. I get the criticisms of it - but what Labour needs to do is offer popular but not too radical policies. ...
I get the POV you're coming from re you don't like the policies - but for me I am arguing purely from the POV of winning. Dealing with tuition fees ...
It's policy that's "popular", in a vote-shifting way, among (a) the Labour membership, (b) people who already are highly likely to vote Labour (and primarily one subset thereof). People who are essentially "in the bag" unless you get outflanked by another apparently left-wing party that claims it too can "sort out" tuition fees. Fortunately you just need to wait for them to get into coalition and come up against economic practicalities of their promise, so that they can get their backsides kicked over it.
It's not a policy which is dead-obviously good or bad. I recognise I can see the logic of the fee/loan system more than most of the electorate might do, may buy into it more even, but even politicians who oppose the system recognise there are difficulties or disadvantages to withdrawing it (how you fund an increased % of people going to uni, for example). So this isn't a basic issue of "sound governance" or even, inherently, "fairness", but rather about what you perceive as fair (i.e. whose definition are you using?) and who you intend to benefit and disbenefit (which tends to come back to the "whose definition...").
As soon as I see anyone banging on about the prerequisites of a Great Labour Revival and one of top three things that trip off their tongue is "and sort out tuition fees" then it suggests they're coming at things from a very particular angle. An angle where that policy seems to matter to the party, because it matters to them and to the people they know, but not necessarily to the voters they lost in the red wall. To someone coming at things from that angle, I would suggest your main problem may well be that You Do Not Understand What Your Problem Is.
Do think some reflection time could be in order in the Labour party generally, but suspect in practice that's just plotting time and "listening exercises" will lead to people hearing what they want to hear.
Labour is in the deepest political hole in its history but the early signs are that the Corbyn cult is doubling down on its efforts to dig an even bigger hole. The far left simply cannot comprehend that to win an election under FPTP a party has to be capable of representing views from across a wide political spectrum. It is also incapable of accepting any responsibility for the consequences of its own actions.
I am mulling over whether to rejoin the party, at least until the leadership question is settled.
I am mulling whether to join for the first time, so I can vote to stop the cult from continuing. I still agree with some of their policies - but I simply will not support Corbynism carrying on.
More normal people joining any party at the moment is a good thing.
The result in Northern Ireland is seismic. More nationalist MPs than unionists.
I think the day of a united Ireland now beckons - whether it will be all some in the north expect I'm less sure but it's their decision. I'm less clear how well an independent Scotland would fare without some a continued close relationship with the UK if they also voted for independence. I'd be very sad if the latter happened.
I can't see how independence can not happen, to be honest. If Johnson refuses a referendum, the groundswell will just increase.
Meanwhile, many of his core supporters don't only not mind, but actively want to achieve this outcome.
I suppose we'll have to come up with a name for 'England & Wales', maybe keep the 'Kingdom' and just lose the 'United' bit.?
I am really disappointed by the Scottish results. This is going to be a major problem unless the trial does serious damage. When you see the chronic state of our education system (Pisa), our hospitals (kids dying because known faults weren’t fixed) and the mess that is Police Scotland you are left wondering if nothing can make a difference.
What also must disappoint me is how despite all the signs, the youth vote just did not turn out. I have to conclude that must also be down to Corbyn.
Nah, young voters never turn out to vote for anybody.
Fair point - but we're going to have to turn out eventually or accept that we're tacitly supporting Tory Governments. Perhaps this will be a wake up call to get real.
Turns out I didn't do too badly in my betting, as it happens.
Over £300+ profit.
Mine is a mixed bag. About £70 profit in all, bolstered by the big bet I placed on Sarah Olney. It motivated me yesterday as Ied the GOTV in Barnes. I was up for 25 hours on the trot. Shattered today.
My model has gone in for major repairs. Not sure it's repairable. I have 5 years. Probably get a new one.
Fuck, I had put a bet on SNP under 47.5 seats - I thought I had done 48.5. Bollocks. I think that basically knocks me down to break even. Will have to do a full totalisation later.
We are now waiting to see what Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters are going to do next. My assumption is that the left wing of the Labour party will decide to fight on to the bitter end. I think that essentially Labour has made its choice and it will never go back to being a centrist party. The UK now faces a very long drawn out replacement of Labour by the Liberal Democrats as the main party on the left wing of politics, which could take 10 - 30 years.
In this election Labour has lost 59 seats or -22.5% compared to 2017. The Liberal Democrats have lost 1 seat (without St. Ives) or -8.5% compared to 2017. They are slowly closing the gap between them and Labour. I think this process will continue year after year in local, mayoral, regional and general elections, but it will be slow until the Liberal Democrats overtake Labour nationally.
The result in Northern Ireland is seismic. More nationalist MPs than unionists.
I think the day of a united Ireland now beckons - whether it will be all some in the north expect I'm less sure but it's their decision. I'm less clear how well an independent Scotland would fare without some a continued close relationship with the UK if they also voted for independence. I'd be very sad if the latter happened.
I can't see how independence can not happen, to be honest. If Johnson refuses a referendum, the groundswell will just increase.
Meanwhile, many of his core supporters don't only not mind, but actively want to achieve this outcome.
I suppose we'll have to come up with a name for 'England & Wales', maybe keep the 'Kingdom' and just lose the 'United' bit.?
I guess the Tories never did stop political point scoring over racism. Now they've won, I bet that inquiry disappears quickly.
Because no one could really *mind* about what happened to, say, Anne Frank, and be genuinely concerned that it might happen again, right? Must be political point scoring. Must be.
Comments
Look what you made me do
I went and voted blue
oh Labour labour
I voted for the shyster
I didn't ever predict a Labour split or crisis in 2015 - but I can honestly see one now.
This is nothing less than a complete failure of leadership and fear from someone who only his true believers thought could be PM.
The problem for Labour is the same as it was when choosing Miliband over Balls or Corbyn over Cooper. Sober, sensible Social Democracy looks very tired and unappealing compared to the sugar rush of Populism of left and right.
Lid Dems and USA Dems have a similar problem.
How you take that, whether you class it as fair or not, partly depends what your counterfactual is. "The fact they're having to pay those graduate contributions, hence in a higher income band, tells you they've almost certainly benefited financially from their education - so compared to not having gone to uni, they're better off, and better positioned to buy a house or whatever else they want to do, despite the fees, so it's fair enough" versus "compared to a system without fees, having to repay your student loan limits your housing options - it's unfair that young people have to do that when older people do not". At the dinner party, option 2 was preferred. Unsurprisingly. Of course scrapping fees doesn't really make tuition free, just changes who picks up the tab to wider society - yet the financial benefits of university education, if they exist (depends highly on course chosen and how much work the student puts in!) accrue very much to the individual. You could argue the toss on "fairness" forever. My basic point is that those who feel it is really deeply vote-changingly unfair tend to already be in the left-wing column anyway, in the bracket (middle-class graduate but not asset-rich) you identify.
Incidentally, and to flip the parties around, Boris could really do with crushing the NIMBYs in his party.
Why did Labour do so badly in the North and Midlands? I'm no expert, but I was surprised by the anger felt against MPs by some here. It wasn't caused by their lies - that's expected of politicians. Few think BoJo is particularly trustworthy. The problem was the contempt both verbally and by their actions from some of the Remainers. Lying is expected, but real contempt isn't.
Labour took the decision to align with their members in London and to tell their old-time supporters they were morons. But to do so openly is unforgivable.
Labour will come again once Corbyn goes. They will pay perhaps more than lip-service to their natural voters then.
He needs to be careful or he will have to give another on screen public apology as he did the other day
"oh what a night" :-)
I for one am thrilled that Corbyn has been crushed, less thrilled that the Tories have such a majority. They need to act for all.
Corbynite Marxism is a rubbish ideology.
It is wrong to write off the other two ideologies because of the above. However New Labour was a movement of and for its time. Trying to blandly copycat it now would be wrong.
Imo Labour need to work out how they can get to 350 seats, where are those coming from? Scotland? Post industrial towns? Rural? South? Any of those are going to be challenging and they probably need more than one of them. Daunting.
Pick a leader to appeal to those areas, not just someone popular within the party.
Pick two or three clear and deliverable policies that will help the lives of people in those constituencies. Focus on those, fine to be radical on these but dont over promise or be radical throughout.
Actively recruit and promote older members to ensure they dont get smashed in the part of the electorate with the highest turnout.
Over £300+ profit.
well they did
https://twitter.com/Pleep17/status/1205417657547284480?s=20
That's what gives me hope that this Tory victory isn't such bad news as the other six in my lifetime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZh2SNZgt0g
Would recommend it.
One thing that is poisoning politics is the triumph of personality politics, of the charismatic leader, over a wider team. I prefer a decentralised system of spokespersons, able to thresh out ideas in committee rather than the cult of personality.
For an Orange Booker, I do have very strong sympathies with Anarcho-Syndacalism. Don't replace bosses, get rid of them! This is a fairly niche political position though.
Ah well, duty calls, all that paperwork won't do itself...
https://twitter.com/MirrorPolitics/status/1205417072060186624
Will pay for family lift passes in Tignes next week plus some.
Labour is in the deepest political hole in its history but the early signs are that the Corbyn cult is doubling down on its efforts to dig an even bigger hole. The far left simply cannot comprehend that to win an election under FPTP a party has to be capable of representing views from across a wide political spectrum. It is also incapable of accepting any responsibility for the consequences of its own actions.
I am mulling over whether to rejoin the party, at least until the leadership question is settled.
Brown was at the tail end of 13 years in office, facing a re-energised Opposition led by a capable leader.
Corbyn (part 2) was facing a known egotistical buffoon and incompetent whose party (if we include the Coalition) had been in power for 9 years and won (again, including the Coalition) the last 3 elections.
I never think Brexit will be a good idea, I have opposed it from day one and I continue to believe it will damage the people who have just elected Tories and in time they will unfortunately see the consequences of that. But having said all that, Labour needs to accept that they now can't stop Brexit, there is no appetite for rejoin but there must be appetite for the future relationship now Brexit is "done" (it of course, isn't).
But I think anyone offering a simple route to Labour success, such as, just be more Blairite, just be more Tory, just be more left wing, is wrong. This a complex answer.
But I am really pissed off that Corbyn hasn't already gone, to be frank.
It will be a shame if UK political imperatives have warped perceptions to the extent that people will start defending the indefensible actions of the Israeli government.
Oh well a few more defeats and they might get there.
Meanwhile, many of his core supporters don't only not mind, but actively want to achieve this outcome.
Stuck in a bubble all of her own.
You don't mean it of course. You connived at antisemitism and lost. You were called out at that the time. Don't double down by pretending that now it's all over we can all have a laugh and admit that that the warnings were just a partisan ploy. They were not.
How much of Labour's current plight goes back to Brown and his marginalisation of lots of potential challengers?
The opposite is true of the retired. Common consensus is Labour is the party of the client state, yet most state benefits go to the retired. The retired vote the most and they vote overwhelmingly Tory, which is why they get a far better deal than the rest of us from the Tory state.
Errrrrr
It's not a policy which is dead-obviously good or bad. I recognise I can see the logic of the fee/loan system more than most of the electorate might do, may buy into it more even, but even politicians who oppose the system recognise there are difficulties or disadvantages to withdrawing it (how you fund an increased % of people going to uni, for example). So this isn't a basic issue of "sound governance" or even, inherently, "fairness", but rather about what you perceive as fair (i.e. whose definition are you using?) and who you intend to benefit and disbenefit (which tends to come back to the "whose definition...").
As soon as I see anyone banging on about the prerequisites of a Great Labour Revival and one of top three things that trip off their tongue is "and sort out tuition fees" then it suggests they're coming at things from a very particular angle. An angle where that policy seems to matter to the party, because it matters to them and to the people they know, but not necessarily to the voters they lost in the red wall. To someone coming at things from that angle, I would suggest your main problem may well be that You Do Not Understand What Your Problem Is.
Do think some reflection time could be in order in the Labour party generally, but suspect in practice that's just plotting time and "listening exercises" will lead to people hearing what they want to hear.
That's always my favourite vital post-election stat!
I hope the next Labour leader can deal with it.
My model has gone in for major repairs. Not sure it's repairable. I have 5 years. Probably get a new one.
In this election Labour has lost 59 seats or -22.5% compared to 2017. The Liberal Democrats have lost 1 seat (without St. Ives) or -8.5% compared to 2017. They are slowly closing the gap between them and Labour. I think this process will continue year after year in local, mayoral, regional and general elections, but it will be slow until the Liberal Democrats overtake Labour nationally.
I am glad you lost.