That’s just not true, a silly and vindictive mischaracterisation. The stains on the party’s soul are the Iraq War, PFI and losing large sections of the working class. Both the Party and the ‘forgotten towns’ were hollowed out by the end of the Brown/Blair era. If you don’t believe that, you need an alternative explanation for their defeat, UKIP and Brexit. It’s a great shame, because there was another side to New Labour which was rational and capable. It invested well in services with waiting times that we can only dream about at the moment and had great initiatives like Sure Start. But it squandered that capital on war and lauding both wealth creators and privatisation. It did as much of the latter as Thatcher and built fewer social houses. Like I say, centrists would be better off respecting socialists and turning the critique on their own failures, lest they repeat them in Government and we get another 15 years of austerity Toryism.
The real problem for Labour is this permanent split between "centrists" and "leftists". Too many (not all by any means!) seem to prefer attacking each other than attacking the other parties policies. Yes, the Blair/Brown regimes made mistakes but they did far more to level up than any Tory government has done before or since. I think that you are correct, the "centrists" have to learn from those mistakes and perhaps be a bit more "socialist" in their aims. But the leftist hard-line socialists have to accept that the nation will never vote for that. At the end of the day the rich and middle class (supported by the press) will fight it tooth and nail. But there is also a huge chuck of the working class who are aspirational to be middle class and will vote against pure socialism. Labour have a huge opportunity to win the next election. Both sides of the party need focus on that and accept that their ideologies need to be compromised for the sake of the party and nation.
I agree with the call for unity, that’s why the article is so poor. You are never going to find me at a conference with the Jeremy lovers, but they do not deserve ridicule for having a belief in socialist principles. But you are incorrect that New Labour ‘levelled up’. It provided great services, but it weakened working class solidarity by weakening unions, allowed wealth transfer from poor to rich (by privatisation and a decline in home ownership towards the rented sector) and allowed many areas to stagnate, those towns that then turned against them. When the Tories removed the services, almost all the gains were lost. I’m happy to fall in behind Starmer’s Barmy Army, but with open eyes.
I've experienced, two electoral attempts of Labour returning to its roots and core principals, in my lifetime: Foot and Corbyn. Remind me what happened when 'the people' were offered this return to true socialism?
On both occasions the right of the Party fought viciously against them, first the SDP splitters and then (after Corbyn got 40% in 2017) the centrist splitters, like Change, who took every opportunity to undermine his leadership along with their Tory chums who had before Brexit been inflicting austerity. You know exactly what tactics followed, nationally and locally to you. And moreover, those attempts at a socialist approach happen when? They follow Labour running aground in the centre. After New Labour the party had no idea what to do. It was an utterly busted flush, apeing the Tories on immigration and public spending. Like I say, I’m happy to call a truce and both sides at least pretend to respect each other. I’m right down the middle of them. Are you ready to call to truce on it or do you need to keep on trampling on comrades long after the war is won? Because it’s funny isn’t it? We get great news of the possible end of this Tory nightmare and what do some do? Attack the left.
I'm not a participant in the war. I'm a true exemplar of that old adage that as you get older you become more right-wing. I was an archetypal Liberal (lefty) but I'm more comfortable with the (Social) Dem wing/philosophy now - which is what New Labour effectively were - Social Democrats. When I used to very politically active, one of the mates at the time (in the aftermath of '92 election), was a politics PhD student, and it was very interesting experiencing the rise of New Labour (in real time) with him. Occasionally we used to play fantasy politics, as the forthcoming Tory wipe-out was readily becoming apparent and that at the next election there was going to be a significant ABT (anyone but Tory) vote - what would happen if 'Old' Labour were still around....
I think most of those discussions would make more sense within the context of a redefinition of what the terms 'middle class' and 'working class' mean in the present as opposed to how they were originally understood.
Not really engaging with the points though. We know the failings of the left, but what will you, as someone in the so called, self-styled ‘centre’, say when centrists repeat all the same mistakes again? When wealth concentrates further and home ownership shrinks? If Starmer’s Labour are going to arrest that tendency, they will need at some point to do something quite challenging towards capital and those who have it. Then you may want to defend a left view a bit more or rinse and repeat.
I don’t really think they have changed much, we simply have a bit more stuff. There may be more sub-categories, education more widely open, more of an underclass, but most people can still place themselves just fine. And Labour shouldn’t have a difficulty in deciding how to represent the interests of the working class.
Found this video of Lloyd and… a member of this forum, having a conversation at the Labour conference looking good in that hair Lloyd* But seriously now. Jess Phillips for Prime Minister. If she keeps on talking reality stuff like this, she could have my vote. Provided it doesn’t turn out that she is a dangerous fascist right wing nutter, which I think Jones was quite tempted to say at one point. I touted her as a possible future leader a few months back. Though she appeared to be one of the most unelectable in the leadership race. I think the “No. Unlike you I would have to make policy in the world I live in” is my fave, though there are plenty more. What a belter. Or fascist, depending on your point of view. Kudos to Jones for posting it!! * Not saying Lloyd’s a leftie, just highlighting the fact that Phillips’s argument is one Lloyd has been making to… a member, for some considerable time now.
Labour doing what Labour do best. Turning the negative attention on themselves and taking the pressure of the Tories. Seriously, do they actually want to be elected or not? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...eves-immigrant-suella-braverman-b2195904.html
More than a few people will be scratching their heads wondering what reality it is you are living in. Labour are talking about failed asylum seekers, not new arrivals. Are you suggesting that removing failed asylum seekers is now a vote looser? Or that it is a morally improper thing to do? If there is no consequence for illegal entry into a country, any country, then you might as well not have borders. And if we give up on boarders, the pampered middle class, like us, will be the first to die out. No one will choose to pay tax, and people will take what they need to survive from those who have it. See Stalin’s Russia and the Kulaks. Yet left wing extremists still seem to think that Labour fails because it is too right wing.
I'm not convinced it's a bad move, though it's almost certainly a cynical result of intensive focus group polling to work out what messages certain groups of potential voters want to hear from Labour. I doubt this will be a manifesto headline policy type thing. Plus if someone has failed in their asylum claim it's surely right they are removed? Safely, ideally to somewhere they want to go and is willing to taken, with respect for their human rights etc but otherwise if nothing happens as a consequence there becomes no such thing as a failed asylum seeker.
I totally agree. I have always favoured a quick process that can be done offshore through embassies or centres (as France has offered), as well as onshore. Those that fail in their applications should of course be denied access or removed if they have already arrived. It's not what she said, it's the timing of it that I think is a miss step. The Tories are imploding in front of them. There is absolutely no reason to discuss potential controversial policies now.... especially ones that cause heated debates between factions within Labour. As I've mentioned before, it's the infighting in Labour that has been their achilles heal. Right now they should sit back and enjoy the sh1tshow that is the Tory party. There will be plenty of time to put together an immigration and asylum policy when the election is called.
My guess is their internal polling and the like has identified a significant chunk of genuinely floating voters for the first time in ages and they're making a bid for them. Plus Reeves could have announced free energy bills for everyone forever and you can bet your bottom dollar there's a faction within Labour that would pipe up moaning about it.
Agree totally. I am not a Labour supporter, more an anti-Tory, but when you compare the shadow cabinet with their opposite numbers on the government benches the contrast is stark. For example, Yvette Cooper always seems to be in full command of her brief, confident and a good communicator. Compare her with the third rate brexiteer that she shadows!
Just when things are looking good for Labour they do one of the most stupid things possible, to expel the President of the UK’s largest union, UNISON. The crime? Sharing articles from a socialist organisation now banned by Starmer’s increasingly Stalinist Party. It might be tempting to say that the Labour Party has rules about not supporting certain groups it proscribes and she knew them. But in the first instance she shared before it was banned and the second article simply referenced her becoming President. In any case, what has happened to Labour’s famously broad church? What has happened to its belief in socialism? And what has happened to its common sense? How can it possibly set itself on such a collision course with the unions and hope to keep their funding and support? It should have dealt with this tactically, but it should also recognise that it can incorporate a range of views, just like it did during New Labour’s period in office. Many Labour supporters believe in a more collective and socialist approach, but will also fall behind a Parliamentary Party doing a good job.
Sounds like Starmer’s going after HoL reform: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/19/keir-starmer-i-will-abolish-house-of-lords-to-restore-trust-in-politics
I think there would be plenty of support for this. Both parties have always stuck dubious cronies in there, but of late the excesses have infuriated. However, Labour will need to avoid simply replicating the politics of the HoC. Surely some form of PR is required here?
Starmer is becoming as issue for Labour and I wonder if he;s starting to cost them. Labour should be banging the final nails into the Tory coffin at the moment and he's keeping a very low profile. However I'm not sure who would be a decent replacement. I've always quite liked Nandy.
Yep time for it to go as it is now. MPs who've served a minimum of two terms if they want to go into the Hol can put themselves up for a PR public vote. As should experienced business and community leaders. Those with a similar time served in Education, NHS, services, emergency services and having held other jobs with public responsibility. They Can be put on the short list for public vote and then put up for re-election after 8-10 years in the HoL. It should be a full time job and salaried accordingly. Journalists, TV personalities and anyone from Luton should be banned from applying.
Another leadership contest would be suicidal. And I'm not clear how he can raise his profile any more - he's at PMQs every week, I've seen him as a talking head on the evening news responding to government nonsense twice in the past few days and he's done his thing with the CBI today which made the front page of most of the papers that consider themselves more serious (lol).
I’m not clear why someone who has trained as, and is successfully working as a doctor, lecturer etc would willingly give up that job to subject themselves to public vote to do something completely different? Wouldn’t you just end up with a load of people who have either failed in their original careers or who are reaching the end of them? Unless it was either extremely well paid or part-time.
They need to swap the Lords for a peoples parliament, people chosen like they do for jury service, four year terms, one for each constituency and they get paid the same amount as MPs. Yeah yeah, i know it wont happen but if they want to bring trust back into politics it needs doing. Pure oversight by the people for the people.
I would have a certain number of seats which are assigned each election based on the % vote. I'd also have an independent panel, out of political hands, which scrutinises experts from across the UK, with certain criteria needed to be met (such as minimum attendance etc.). This should be for a longer period. I definitely wouldn't have a separate election or a fully elected second house or they'd regularly block the Commons and we'd get gridlock like in America.
Do you remember when Corbyn first became leader of the Labour party and at PMQs he posed questions asked by constituents. It completely wrongfooted Cameron. But the media hated it and, for whatever reason, Corbyn did not persist with it and settled back into the cosy pattern of Punch and Judy knockabout. I maintain our media is a huge part of the problem. The way they fail to report or even reflect events maturely, preferring to trivialise and indulge the tribalism is ingrained. When sensible members of the public ask pertinent questions on Question Time they often get shut down, or things are swiftly moved on. Basically the political debate and analysis in our country is about as sophisticated as our football debate and analysis. No major fan of Corbyn by the way, but many of his ideas were radical and would have benefited the majority, hence they were complete non-starters.
Politics in this country has gone the same way as most political discourse around the world. Usually fuelled by the press which is owned by the elite, classic divide and conquer, the ones at the top win whatever happens. Corbyn was a massive threat to the establishment hence why he was attacked so much, he really should have gone on the attack back but just didnt have it in him sadly. Would probably have been portrayed as a conspiracy nutter if he had told the truth about why he was being attacked so much and who by. I dont watch Question Time, especially with the planted members of the audience that has been highlighted again and again. Is the ex tory guy still running BBC news?
