But why?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF |OT2| - We Blue Ourselves
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
But why?
Because they have the same view Crab outlined. Lib's are seen as traitors to the left who let the tories get in, and they should just drop their idealism, join labour and beat the tories. It's as if the conservatives are a nebulous enemy you hate at a distance, whereas the Lib's are your next door neighbours who piss you off more because they live right next to you. The conservatives are evil by default in this world view - whereas the Lib's are people who enable evil by not joining labour. for some people that makes them worse.
(Note, not my own views!)
It ignores the very real policy differences between the two parties, and takes it for granted that all lob voters would vote labour if there were no Lib's. It also misses the point in that labour could fight for those lib voters if they wanted to.
Seeing many Labour activists online cheering and gloating over Lib Dems losing their seats to Tories last year really (further) cemented my dislike of that party. As if Labours failures are because of the Lib Dems and that they should just fall in line and disband. They have the same disdain for the Greens as they went after Caroline Lucas pretty hard. In light of this and the SNP being rebuffed whenever they've tried to extend a hand to the Labour party the idea of a "progressive alliance" being possible is a pipe dream. It's all or nothing for Labour, they are petty minded authoritarians who think they should have a monopoly on the not-Tory vote and that anyone who is not on their side in their feud must be a Tory themselves or are a traitor splitting the vote. They have the mentality of children.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Not my views, either. It's just very understandable because it is probably true - I think it is very difficult to argue that more liberal things do not get passed in the world where the Liberal Democrats cease to exist as a party; in the same way it is probably true that more leftwing things get passed if the American Greens just didn't exist as a party (2000...). Now, I don't take this very mechanical view towards these things. The democratic system does not work at the point that the electorate are simply required to stamp off on one of two choices, both of which are sub-par, in an attempt to stave off whichever one they feel is slightly worse. The right of the voter to chose as they may is paramount to democracy, it takes place before you can make any other suppositions; questioning it leads to dark places.
But regardless, it is incredibly easy for Labour to see Liberal Democrat seats as: stolen seats. Conservative seats, well, you have to fight for those, but Liberal Democrat seats feel like they should almost rightfully be Labour's and have been unfairly whisked away to be put to very little use. It's true that there are policy differences between the Liberal Democrats, and it is true not every Liberal Democrat voter would vote Labour if the Liberal Democrats did not exist. But it's also true that the Labour party is the second choice of the clear majority of Liberal Democratic voters. And the coalition just made this an extra kick in the teeth, because those seats were, for the first time in a long time, not just wasted - they were actively put towards Conservative goals and values. It was a betrayal, of sorts. The Liberal Democrats took our votes, and they built a Conservative government with them. It's not at all unsurprising many Labour supporters were happily dancing a jig on Nick Clegg's grave.
That'll fade, over time, as memories of the coalition go. Most of us here are too young to remember, but in the late '90s, relations between Labour and the Liberal Democrats were excellent - they nearly formed a coalition despite Labour already being a majority party. But in the present era certainly, when Liberal Democrats talk about a progressive coalition, the first reaction for much of Labour is to say: "progessive? you? remind me, which party was in government during the greatest weakening of the state since the second world war? which party was in government when child benefits were slashed, the education budget fell in real terms, the NHS was made less accountable?" That's not going to be overcome for a while yet.
Starting the New Year off with a bang, the Fabian Society has published a paper entitled 'Stuck: How Labour is too weak to win, and too strong to die'
They predict that Labour will win between 140 and 200 seats at the next election.
They predict that Labour will win between 140 and 200 seats at the next election.
The boundary changes won't do much to change Labour's plight, but I imagine that May would wait for those to go through in any event.
What's also interesting is that, according to Fabian and John Curtice, it'd take a massive 12.5% lead in the polls for Labour to gain a majority of one. That's a 1997/2001 level election. But if there was a swing of 0.4% away from the Tories and towards Labour, the Tories would lose their majority, opening the way for a progressive alliance.
What's also interesting is that, according to Fabian and John Curtice, it'd take a massive 12.5% lead in the polls for Labour to gain a majority of one. That's a 1997/2001 level election. But if there was a swing of 0.4% away from the Tories and towards Labour, the Tories would lose their majority, opening the way for a progressive alliance.
CyclopsRock
Member
Presumably the biggest repercussion of any boundary changes would be in mass re-selections across a lot of constituencies, no? Not a big deal for the Tories, but for Labour that could see a huge uptake of new candidates, could it not?
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
'Member the Labour party?
(What the fuck has Corbyn even been doing the last few months?!)
(What the fuck has Corbyn even been doing the last few months?!)
FlammableD
Banned
I mean that's not what the poll says, but yeah.
Ok doing a better job as PM vs him as Labour leader. Better?
I think that the PLP was premature .... surely even his own supporters will drop him by the time of the next election if he continues to see these polling results. Unfortunately for them, the way the party is set up, they'll just replace him with someone equally unelectable (maybe Diane Abbott's turn next?)
As for Fabian Society saying that UKIP are over-rated and won't win many seats. That's missing the point, they can still gain enough votes from Labour for the Tories to come through the middle. Surely that's how the 140 seat predicton would happen. Pyrrhic victory if they "beat" UKIP into second place against the Tories.
As for Fabian Society saying that UKIP are over-rated and won't win many seats. That's missing the point, they can still gain enough votes from Labour for the Tories to come through the middle. Surely that's how the 140 seat predicton would happen. Pyrrhic victory if they "beat" UKIP into second place against the Tories.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...n-symptom-labour-party?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Prompted by another article saying 'Labour needs to learn it's lessons, etc. etc.'. My issue with this line of thinkingno matter how much I'm coming to think that Corbyn is a disasteris that I'm no closer to actually understanding what this miraculous Centre Left alternative will look like. He can't look like Ed Miliband (he might have been too left wing?) and he can't look like Gordon Brown (not sure what the accepted reasons for his failure are).
Basically; what policies would this leader have? Do they just want a return to New Labour or is there an acceptance that, as much good as that project did, it failed in key respects? I get that Corbyn's 'ideological purity' is an issue (one that I find increasingly frustrating), but do people think the Labour Party should have any ideological foundations beyond the gaining and holding of power (I have not seen any suggested in all the articles complaining about their current Socialist garb)? What can I expect this New New Labour to do differently, not only from current Labour, but also from the Tories (and no this is not a disingenuous question; we've heard many Labour grandees over the last few years tell people that Labour needs to be seen as 'tough on the deficit', which implies a similar low spending approach that as the Tories).
Prompted by another article saying 'Labour needs to learn it's lessons, etc. etc.'. My issue with this line of thinkingno matter how much I'm coming to think that Corbyn is a disasteris that I'm no closer to actually understanding what this miraculous Centre Left alternative will look like. He can't look like Ed Miliband (he might have been too left wing?) and he can't look like Gordon Brown (not sure what the accepted reasons for his failure are).
Basically; what policies would this leader have? Do they just want a return to New Labour or is there an acceptance that, as much good as that project did, it failed in key respects? I get that Corbyn's 'ideological purity' is an issue (one that I find increasingly frustrating), but do people think the Labour Party should have any ideological foundations beyond the gaining and holding of power (I have not seen any suggested in all the articles complaining about their current Socialist garb)? What can I expect this New New Labour to do differently, not only from current Labour, but also from the Tories (and no this is not a disingenuous question; we've heard many Labour grandees over the last few years tell people that Labour needs to be seen as 'tough on the deficit', which implies a similar low spending approach that as the Tories).
Gordon Brown was doomed by an incredibly hostile press and his own ineptitude at party and political management. As a prime minister he was actually good at a lot of the job, and in particular his role in the financial crisis cannot be understated. but you also need to be a good politician to be prime minister and you need to be able to lead and inspire and manage a parliamentary party, and he couldn't do any of that.
Policy wise Ed Miliband was actually fairly decent, his issue was again an astonishingly hostile press, the fact that he couldn't assemble a decent narrative if his life depended on it, very very poor communications and unfortunately the fact that he looked like a waxwork alien from another planet.
Do you not think there's an issue with telling Corbyn's supporters that he's unelectable and that you know what needs to be done; and then taking as your better alternative two versions of the party that actually failed in two elections?
Also the meat of my post was the second half, because that's where most of my unanswered questions are. I want to genuinely know what this alternative looks like and whether it has learned anything from the failures of Third Way centrism (a political position that's as dead in the US as it is in the UK). Because right now my impression is that it hasn't; and if that's the case, I'm not sure I have any greater faith in it than I do in Corbyn.
No, that was what I was asking about putative alternatives, not Labour as it currently exists.
That doesn't make much sense tbh. No-one is suggesting that we bring back Brown or Miliband. Both were flawed, but for various reasons both got their shot. We knew Brown was going to lose going into the election, and the odds were on Miliband losing (although not by that much). It is possible for there to be a credible centre left politician who isn't Brown or Miliband. Plus Corbyn is going to do significantly worse than both of them!
In terms of policy proposals, I think that you are forgetting that the 1997 Labour Manifesto was the most detailed and specific party manifesto in our lifetimes, and it delivered (mostly) on those promises. Specific policy is what centre left does *far* better than Corbyn's wing of the party.
I don't think the "third way" is dead by the way. I think it fundamentally changed politics and how we talk and I think the conservatives stole a lot of its language. May has given numerous speeches which could have been Blair's back in the day.
Ultimately, for labour to win they need to be able to talk to the people who aren't in the bottom 10% or the top 10%, which was the mistake they made in 2015. You won't win an election by going on about austerity and how awful it is because it hasn't affected the majority of the voting public. You need a vision and a positive statement and the appearance of competence, none of which they have currently. Again, I would say go look at 1997 and Blair's promise card for an example of a well run centre left campaign and policy position and communications system.
1997 Labour Pledge card said:
Now, I'm not on-board with all of those (particularly number 2, but Blair was obsessed with crime), but it's a clear vision and policy statement that not only gives a specific promise but also tries to cost it in simple terms and sets the main focus of their agenda (Education, Criminal Justice, Health, Employment - an entirely domestic agenda).
(also don't write third way off as dead in the USA, given that Clinton ran the most left-wing campaign of any democratic nominee in living memory, possibly ever).
AHA-Lambda
Member
Sturgeon suggests soft Brexit could take indyref off table in short term
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38528058
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38528058
Jezbollah
Member
I think the results of the last Scottish referendum did the same.
I don't know if anyone still reads newspapers, but they've been banging on about some new press regulations that are being debated and making it sound to be the death knell of independent papers. Certainly the details they give sound absolutely horrific, but then of course the press themselves would be negative on regulations so I'm not sure how much one can trust their editorials.
anyone know any more about this?
anyone know any more about this?
Audioboxer
Member
The Sturgeonator has been turning the heat on May saying she has no plan lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYfSyxyoDPc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYfSyxyoDPc
British Prime Minister Theresa May said on Monday it was wrong to say she was talking about a "hard Brexit", after the pound fell to two-month lows following an interview she gave on Sunday.
The pound dropped after traders felt May had indicated during the interview that Britain would dramatically rework trade ties with the EU after Brexit.
Asked if her comments had been interpreted wrongly, May said: "I'm tempted to say that the people who are getting it wrong are those who print things saying I'm talking about a hard Brexit, (that) it is absolutely inevitable there's a hard Brexit.
"I don't accept the terms hard and soft Brexit. What we're doing is going to get an ambitious, good and best possible deal for the United Kingdom in terms of ... trading with and operating within the single European market," she added.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...7f8b&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
May has no clue
The pound dropped after traders felt May had indicated during the interview that Britain would dramatically rework trade ties with the EU after Brexit.
Asked if her comments had been interpreted wrongly, May said: "I'm tempted to say that the people who are getting it wrong are those who print things saying I'm talking about a hard Brexit, (that) it is absolutely inevitable there's a hard Brexit.
"I don't accept the terms hard and soft Brexit. What we're doing is going to get an ambitious, good and best possible deal for the United Kingdom in terms of ... trading with and operating within the single European market," she added.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...7f8b&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
May has no clue
Roberto Larcos
Member
Martin McGuinness resigns, which means there'll almost certainly be elections in NI (unless SF replaces him, which they won't). Doubt Arlene Foster will survive now.
jimbobsmells
Member
I don't accept... I don't accept... I don't accept...
she's like a broken record
she's like a broken record
Royal_Phalanx
Member
Take a shot every time May says "best possible deal..."
She should get some tips off Trump. I hear he knows a thing or two about getting good deals.
FlammableD
Banned
Jeremy Corbyn: UK can be better off out of the EU
First speech of 2017 will make clear that Labour is not wedded to free movement and supports repatriating powers from Brussels
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ration?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Fuck it all. I'm done, I'm out.
First speech of 2017 will make clear that Labour is not wedded to free movement and supports repatriating powers from Brussels
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ration?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Fuck it all. I'm done, I'm out.
He's (correctly) saying the government doesn't have a plan, but his own policies are so wishy-washy it's hard to think Labour is offering an alternative.
Royal_Phalanx
Member
This country is fucked. I want out. Utter betrayal.
He might as well be aligned with the Tories. I thought Labour were suppose to be the opposition party, not the receiving party of the BDSM gig?
That human piece of garbage. Labour's so fucked with him at the helm.
Truthfully, I don't see the link between this
and
It's a stupid, ill thought-out, off-the-cuff comment that speaks of airy-fairy "wouldn't it be nice" thinking rather than actual policy - which all has its own negative implications but not this hardcore militant left they seem to be pushing.
and
It's a stupid, ill thought-out, off-the-cuff comment that speaks of airy-fairy "wouldn't it be nice" thinking rather than actual policy - which all has its own negative implications but not this hardcore militant left they seem to be pushing.
JonathanEx
Member
Cool, he's managed to put all the conversation of the day in to a side-thought. Maybe he really is going for the Trump style.
Relaunch day 1 going swimmingly then.
Relaunch day 1 going swimmingly then.
Corbyn has spent his entire career trying to get the UK out of the EU. He's as anti-EU as Farage.
Calling for a cap on wages just shows how out of touch with economics and the modern world be really is. You know what will happen when you cap wages? The people who would earn above that cap will leave the country and take their tax payments with them. Given that the richest minority in the country pay nearly a quarter of the total taxes, that would be an absolute disaster.
Bony Manifesto
Member
That sort of talk is fine if you're on the backbenches (and nobody is listening to you anyway), but you can't get away with that sort of thing when you're the leader of a major political party. When you're in that position and you start a sentence with "I would like there to be...", if whatever follows isn't party policy (or something that's going to be party policy), then you should bite your tongue.
Still, he's successfully created a distraction from that earlier leak of his EU speech, so I guess it's not all bad news!
Valid, but the mega rich already avoid taxes through sticking their money in tax havens and paying accountants a lot of money to play the tax system.
I'm more interested in seeing the disparity lowered, not just putting a cap on maximum wages.
Aye, but the point is this: putting a cap on earnings would lower the disparity but, in real terms, would leave less money to spend on, say, public services.
I'd need a napkin and a biro to work out how true that is.
This does seem to be from the "Trump playbook" - i.e. say some mad shit, hope it resonates, ignore that it would be nearly impossible to implement and possibly disastrous if you somehow managed it.
I'd need a napkin and a biro to work out how true that is.
This does seem to be from the "Trump playbook" - i.e. say some mad shit, hope it resonates, ignore that it would be nearly impossible to implement and possibly disastrous if you somehow managed it.
In all my years in politics and public service, this is possibly the most stupid policy idea I have ever heard - and that's saying something. It is utterly awful in every respect, and the fact he even ponders it is staggeringly stupid.
1) it does absolutely nothing to help a single person get out of poverty. Nothing. Not a single persons life would be improved through this.
2) unlike raising taxes, it generates absolutely no extra income to help those who need it.
3) it is not the fixed salaries that are in issue with extreme wealth anyway. Take home pay is a small part of the problem - stock options, bonuses, capital investments, in work benefits. All of those are part of the income disparity and wouldn't be impacted by this.
4) it would be extremely easy to avoid, and in all likelihood would simply decrease our overall tax base.
It is not only a stupid idea, it does nothing to help anyone and would demonstrably harm the country. It's a child's response to the idea that income disparity is too great. It is nothing more than the politics of jealousy - literally you can't have something because I don't have it.
Corbyn is both intellectually and managerially a once in a lifetime fucked up disaster for the left. The tories must be unable to believe who lucky they are.
AHA-Lambda
Member
I'm all for shrinking the inequality and wages gap obviously but this is the most mind-bogglingly stupid and inconceivable thing I've heard in ages. And we're in the time of Brexit for christ sake
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked