Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
So yeah, Labour needs to move economically rightwards to win an election, but that's simply because we live in a country where the super-rich call all the shots. Any other considerations pale in importance next to that.

I'm not totally convinced of that. Remember that the policies Labour adopted under Corbyn are, for the most part, very popular. I think it's fair to say the national mood has turned against austerity after ten grinding years of it. Nobody actually wants the NHS to go tits up, which is why Matt Hancock keeps going on about how only the Tories can "save" it, in the apparent belief that people might not stop to think for a moment about which party has spent a decade deliberately underfunding and mismanaging it. (A tactic which, sadly, probably is working with some less intelligent voters.)

Now let's say Starmer becomes the next Labour leader, which seems fairly likely. It goes without saying that the Tory press will call any economic plan he puts forward "unworkable", whether it's pure Blairism or copied word-for-word out of The Communist Manifesto, even if it's costed down to the last farthing. But they haven't accused him of contributing to a racist book, endorsing a racist mural or associating with Holocaust deniers, because he hasn't done any of those things. Corbyn has vulnerabilities in this regard which aren't shared by other Labour figures who may put forward economic programmes just as left-wing as anything he did. So there is hope yet in this regard, I think.


Labour did vastly better in that election than anyone would reasonably expect, based upon the media disparity and the impact that had on elections over the previous 25 years. Also, the polls *were* a poor guide to the result in 2017, to the point where everyone was proclaiming that polling was dead.

Hmm, yes and no - I would say that polls can be wrong, but they're never that wrong. I don't think a party led by someone with a public approval rating of -60% has ever won an election. Last month's result could be seen coming from miles off; it was sealed the moment Labour lost in 2017, with Corbyn at the height of his popularity and the Tories at their most divided and vulnerable, with a leader hated by most of her own party, never mind anyone else. That's what makes the recent election so frustrating - that the result, which was inevitable with Corbyn in charge, would almost certainly have been different if Corbyn had been honest with himself after June 2017 about the fact that he was obviously never going to win.

Last point of what has become a rant: it's very easy to make people look foolish on TV, which is part of the reason politics by media is such a shitshow.

Well yes, but as an interviewee, you can certainly make things easier for yourself by not saying foolish things.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
Starmer's vulnerabilities, your starter for ten: https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...-cps-ian-tomlinson-john-worboys-a9276321.html
Think how much dirt they can dig up if he actually becomes leader. It's about the press and the threat their owners perceive to established interests, not who the Labour leader is on a personal level.

On 2017 - I think precisely no-one was suggesting Corbyn resign after that election result, even his worst enemies. To say 2019 result was inevitable at that point, is inventing the past. As said, the real point is how unlikely that 2017 result was given levels of media hostility that I for one had never seen in the uk before. It went wrong a while after that

Anyway, rehash of main point - It is incredibly unlikely any Labour leader will win with such a disadvantage in the media coverage. Simple as that.
 
Last edited:

craner

Beast of Burden
On 2017 - I think precisely no-one was suggesting Corbyn resign after that election result, even his worst enemies. To say 2019 result was inevitable at that point, is inventing the past.

The problem was, they processed that as a victory, rather than the defeat that it was.

In other words, Bennism will not die: "Labour commanded the loyalty of millions of voters and a democratic socialist bridgehead has been established."
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
Xpost - was responding to Baboon

I'd agree with that. If anything the better than expected 2017 result knocked back his internal critics and strengthened his position.

The recent polling re. popularity, not so much. They should've taken this seriously - I've read various stories about Labour bigwigs deciding to ignore their own polling, and either fought back with a "hearts and minds" popularity campaign, or had the leadership contest a while back. Hindsight is easy though (I tend to find mine is 100% accurate) - I think he has such totemic significance for his base that that would've been hard to do.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
Xpost - was responding to Baboon

I'd agree with that. If anything the better than expected 2017 result knocked back his internal critics and strengthened his position.

The recent polling re. popularity, not so much. They should've taken this seriously - I've read various stories about Labour bigwigs deciding to ignore their own polling, and either fought back with a "hearts and minds" popularity campaign, or had the leadership contest a while back. Hindsight is easy though (I tend to find mine is 100% accurate) - I think he has such totemic significance for his base that that would've been hard to do.

Sure agree with that - clearly 2019 campaign was not good, and messaging discipline non-existent. At a certain point in 2019 id agree that defeat seemed overwhelmingly likely and there didnt seem to be a plan b. And brexit was badly handled all the way thru, tho tbh I dont know what a winning strategy wd have been on that issue
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Some extremely specious logic from RL-B in the Indy piece posted by baboon:

In her Labour leadership announcement in Tribune this week, Rebecca Long-Bailey remarks that the party has been “too close to the establishment we are meant to be taking on – whether cosying up to Rupert Murdoch, joining forces with David Cameron in the Better Together campaign in 2014 or turning our focus inwards on parliamentary manoeuvring for the last year”.

It's not actually necessary for progressives to disagree with everything David Cameron has ever said, if Cameron once said "Perhaps we, as a country, shouldn't collectively shoot ourselves in the head" (which is effectively what he did say, by campaigning for Remain). Her position here is then reduced, by default, to accepting Brexit as some kind of "anti-establishment" movement, which is exactly how the likes of Farage, Johnson and Rees-Mogg have presented it.

Labour is fucked for as long as it mutely accepts the idea that Brexit represents some sort of spontaneous proletarian anti-elitist revolt, rather than a hard-right anti-democratic coup funded by billionaires and led by hardline racist ideologues. It has allowed itself to be made the useful idiots of these people and needs a leader who is prepared to recognise that and reverse it.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
The problem was, they processed that as a victory, rather than the defeat that it was.

Reminds me of a Twitter thread I saw recently in which some guy was maintaining, point blank, that Labour did not lose the 2017 GE. No indication whatsoever that he was trolling or in any way being ironic or humorous or metaphorical.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
Labour is fucked because it is obsessed with its own history, and the history it is obsessed with is a fantasy anyway.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Quite hilariously extensive list of corrections at the end of that Indy piece:

The Fucking Independent said:
UPDATE (10.01.20) This article has been amended to make clear that Sir Keir Starmer did not introduce 10 year prison sentences for ‘benefit cheats’; rather, he issued guidelines for the CPS relating to the applicability of the Fraud Act to benefit and tax credit fraud, which meant that suspected (sic.) [I assume that by 'suspected' they mean 'convicted'] ‘benefit cheats’ could face a 10 year prison sentence. Our piece has also been updated to make clear that it was the CPS who decided that there was insufficient evidence to charge MI5 and MI6 agents accused of torture and ill treatment, rather than a decision taken by Keir Starmer. It has also been amended to remove the erroneous reference to Keir Starmer being a former 'member of the judiciary'.

With a 'progressive' paper (well, website) like the Indy happy to stick the boot into the front-runner for next Labour leader, who needs the Torygraph, eh?
 

john eden

male pale and stale
Today Labour Transformed is beefing with Momentum.

LOL. Bout time!

Fair play to the lion-hearted anti-capitalists who believe they can capture the Labour Party for their own ends.

Ignoring 120 years of history in the process.
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
First episode of Corbynism: the post mortem is dropping today, put together by Oz Katerji:
Will pop link in later
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
Here we go:
Not listened to it yet but am looking forwards to it. I think I get pulled into deconstructions of the Left more than denouncement of the Right because the psychology at work is so weird and mad and interesting.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I think I get pulled into deconstructions of the Left more than denouncement of the Right because the psychology at work is so weird and mad and interesting.

Possibly also because conversations that go "Oh man, I sure do hate the Tories!" "Me too, they're terrible!" - although perhaps comforting - aren't very interesting or productive.
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
Yeah, I do think it's a bit of a failing of mine though. I can lose sight of how shiteatingly evil the Tories because I'm so busy being appalled by the other side. What we need is an equal opportunities application of disdain, cynicism and bad faith mockery.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
What we need is an equal opportunities application of disdain, cynicism and bad faith mockery.

Indeed. This is why I've always had far more time for arguments of the "The papers/BBC should subject the Tories to the same scrutiny to that they do Labour" sort than for variants on "Any criticism of Corbyn is a right-wing smear (even if it's in the New Statesman)".
 

DannyL

Wild Horses
I find this guy, Glen O'Hara a really clear sighted commentator on the Labour Party. If you give a shit about having a leftwing social democratic government you need to give this a read: http://publicpolicypast.blogspot.com/2020/01/so-what-should-labour-do-now.html?m=1

Thought this was so well expressed:

Selling things to the electorate isn’t about publishing a list of things they might like, and it isn’t even about getting out an essay packed with stuff they agree with: it’s about creating an overall narrative, an impression, mood or emotional bond, that they identify with, can believe and which resonates both with them and with people they perceive as being like them. That’s why the impression that Labour politicians and members still think they put a good case to the people – that they ‘deserved’ to win – is so lethal. It threatens, and in Labour’s case has nearly severed, that bond of emotional connectivity and trust. Many voters are still watching, you know. Those that are will now say ‘okay, you didn’t listen to my beliefs and wishes yet again, so I’m going to punish you one more time until you do’.
 
Top