|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The future of socialism in the UK
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
We've had lots of threads over the last year that have heavily featured the Scottish National Party (SNP). This isn't surprising going back to the build up to the Scottish independence referendum.
Those of us in other parts of the UK have been able to hear lots about the experience of shipmates living in Scotland, and the consensus seemed to be that the SNP had been able to succeed in the general election because having gained power in the Scottish Assembly, they had proved themselves competent at governing on devolved issues in a balanced, left wing (socialist) way.
Of course they were campaigning on devolution as well, which was only lost by a modest margin, and the devolution campaign was reckoned to be a big energising factor in getting SNP votes at the general election.
Last week saw the widely admired (and widely shared on social media) maiden speech in Parliament by Mhairi Black of the SNP (also the youngest MP for a very long time). One of her main themes was that actually Labour had lost in Scotland because they stopped being socialist and had forgotten to give a toss about the poor. The wider context of the speech was her/their opposition to the welfare proposals in the budget.
So, if it's true that the left wing stance of the SNP is the major factor in their success, could that success spark a new left wing movement in the UK? (I'm not going to use a name for it, due to the connotations of words like nationalist and socialist together).
In the general election, we had a candidate from TUSC (The Trade Union and Socialist Congress) but they were a side show really.
In the meantime, the Labour Party are having a leadership election to replace Ed Milliband. "Proper Left Winger" Jeremy Corbyn originally made it onto the ballot by a whisker, apparently on the basis that it was important to have a broad debate. Depending on where you look, Corbyn is the run away popular choice, although the vote is based on a transferable ballot system.
All sorts of "new" Labour people are coming out of the woodwork to say how disastrous it would be if Corbyn wins, including Tony Blair, who has apparently gone as far as to say that he wouldn't want to win an election on a left wing platform even if he thought he could....
So - could there be a new, popular socialist movement inspired by the SNP, or could Labour elect Corbyn and go back to being socialist themselves?
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Although it should be noted that on some issues the SNP isn't socialist either - no intention to nationalise Scottish industry for example (although the Scottish government did by Prestwick Airport, that was more because there are arguments to say that that is vital infrastructure and needed to be maintained even though it's running at a loss). Also, socialism is also generally international looking, and nationalism is quite an unusual position for a hard socialist to agree with. Nationalism is almost always right wing (even in the UK - UKIP, BNP, Britain First etc).
I think the hard left Socialist Worker type groups will ever have a foothold - the concerns of people are generally the HNS, schools, welfare - things like nationalising industries and totally scrapping union legislations introduced over the last 30 years aren't among the things the bulk of the electorate want.
The future of left of centre politics in the UK is an interesting question. In Scotland and Wales it seems that the SNP and PC are well established. There are some small left of centre parties in England, most notably the Greens. It's unclear at present what the future of the LibDems is, but they also represent a left of centre position (despite their coalition with the Tories), we need to see how they settle down under their new leader. If Corbyn wins the Labour leadership they may well find votes by coming back towards the centre, even if they don't quite cross back to the left (although they may well lose votes from the other side of the party, likely to the benefit of UKIP and Tories). If Corbyn loses and Farron manages to hold the LibDems together in the left of centre position then there may be defections from the left of Labour to the LibDems. New players on the field are very difficult to predict, but some form of left of centre regional identity party inspired by SNP and PC seems possible, and of potential new players the most plausible.
So, my reading of it is that the future of English left of centre politics is one or more of:
- Growth of the Green Party
- Revitalisation of the LibDems (possibly with Labour defections)
- A return leftwards for Labour
- An unknown new player, most plausibly a left of centre English/Regional party
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
It strikes me that Labour are sunk whichever way they turn. If they stay where they are, they will not be distinct enough from the Tories and LibDems (although that will change as the Tories show their true colours and if the LibDems move leftward. If they move strongly to the left, their will be general acclamation that they have "returned to their roots", but they won't be able to garner enough votes from the other parties to win an election.
IMHO, Labour's best prospect is to move leftwards and also hope that the SNP (who are popular as much for Nationalist sentiments as for Socialist ones) will shoot themselves badly in the foot. But I doubt that this will happen.
Assuming Britain hasn't gone federal by 2020, I think we are likely to have either a Tory government or a Lib/Lab/SNP coalition.
[ 22. July 2015, 13:09: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Mr Blair should shut his trap. One of the main beefs the electorate had with Labour was the ballooning welfare bill. Funnily enough it was Mr Blair who started that.
Mr Miliband, in his early years as Labour leader, gave an interesting speech in which he said the main problem with Blairism was that it wanted to organise society along all the lines of Thatcherite capitalism, and then use regulation* and the welfare system to bodge the output into something more acceptable to a socialist. However, since inequality tends to widen under untrammelled capitalism, it follows that the welfare system also has to balloon.
Unfortunately Mr Miliband didn't seem to have any practical ideas about what to do instead, and I'm not convinced Mr Corbyn does either. In fact Mr Osborne's tactic of raising the minimum wage, raising the personal allowance, and then cutting tax credits - taken in isolation - seems a lot more coherent than anything Labour have come up with.
* Well, except of the banks, obviously ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I'm not sure if there is any point to Labour now; certainly, it has nothing to do with socialism. But then I didn't find people like Harold Wilson or Callaghan particularly socialistic. It's often said that Callaghan introduced neo-liberalism to British politics in 1976, in a famous speech, dealing with the cuts required after an IMF loan. Quote: 'you can't spend your way out of a recession'. Ah, sounds familiar!
Whether or not a left-wing movement will develop in England is an interesting question. Impossible to say, since on the one hand, England is quite a conservative society, on the other hand, who knows what storms and alarms may be on the horizon.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Quote: 'you can't spend your way out of a recession'. Ah, sounds familiar!
Yes, and...
CALLAGHAN SLAMS THE BREAKS ON SPENDING
According to to the back cover of that Supertramp album.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Blair needs to learn that he has had his time, and it is over. He was a failure in the end, and that is partly why his party lost.
Of course, the reason Labour lost was primarily because people didn't trust Milliband to run the country. It was not primarily that we didn't trust them on welfare or the economy specifically. It is that Milliband failed to sell himself and his party as a viable party of government. Blair was one of the people who made personality so important, of course.
Now, they seem to have lost their way. It seems like they are saying "The Tories won, so their ideas must be right. We had better just agree with them". Which is idiotic crap, of course. Their job is to represent the 75% of people who didn't vote for the government.
A future for the left, for socialism? I think there is still strong support for socialism in this country. The problem is that there is no single political party that represents us. For some, the Greens are the true socialist representatives, but for others, their environmental focus is divertionary. For others, they will support Labour because they are historically the socialist party, but for others, their internal battles and inability to stand up for themselves makes them inviable.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Blair needs to learn that he has had his time, and it is over. He was a failure in the end, and that is partly why his party lost.
Hang on, though. Without Blair, the Labour party hasn't won a general election since 1974 and hasn't won a majority of seats in England since, I think, 1966. Labour didn't lose because of Blair, it finally won because of him.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Blair needs to learn that he has had his time, and it is over. He was a failure in the end, and that is partly why his party lost.
Hang on, though. Without Blair, the Labour party hasn't won a general election since 1974 and hasn't won a majority of seats in England since, I think, 1966. Labour didn't lose because of Blair, it finally won because of him.
Yes he did bring them a win. But in the end, the changes he made in the party and in the expectations of party leaders, he lost the party the recent elections.
I said he was a failure in the end. He won for him, not for the party.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Yes he did bring them a win. But in the end, the changes he made in the party and in the expectations of party leaders, he lost the party the recent elections.
I said he was a failure in the end. He won for him, not for the party.
He brought them three wins. And while, as Enoch Powell said, all political careers end in failure, this analysis seems to overlook the fact that when the Labour party eventually lost, it had been led for three years by Gordon Brown.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
To get an idea of what the Ship thinks, I have started a poll in The Circus.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
I think that there is a good argument for a leftward leaning leader of the Labour party, who is strong on the disinctive aspects of the Left (protecting the NHS from privatisation; care for the under-privileged; enhancing education for all; etc etc), but who can then reach towards the Centre (where all elections are won).
The problem as I see it with "new" Labour is that it now has little to distinguish itself from the LibDems or even the Tories. Its message seems to be "we won't screw things up as much as the Tories are going to" - to which the obvious response is "but you did that already!"
Where is the passion for equality, for justice, for compassion?
There is space in UK politics for a genuine leftward leaning party. Whether that party will continue to be the Labour party is another matter. (And whether the domineering right wing press will ever allow any leftwing party space to breathe is a whole different discussion!)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I think that there is a good argument for a leftward leaning leader of the Labour party, who is strong on the disinctive aspects of the Left (protecting the NHS from privatisation; care for the under-privileged; enhancing education for all; etc etc), but who can then reach towards the Centre (where all elections are won).
To be successful, I think Labour needs to make a positive case for itself. The Conservatives still exist in the minds of many of the electorate as the default safe pair of hands for the economy. "We hate the Tories / the rich" might get the left riled up, but it doesn't swing the centre. The Tories can win with a negative "don't trust the socialists with the economy" campaign, but Labour needs a positive vision.
Blair provided that. He was a good orator, and presented a positive case for his party. Gordon Brown, by contrast, had all the charisma of a bank manager, and Ed Miliband couldn't sell anything to anyone. Cameron won the last election largely by default.
Compare Labour to the SNP - Alex Salmond is a reasonable speaker, if rather in the pugnacious Prescott mould, but Nicola Sturgeon is the best political speaker since Blair or Thatcher.
Labour needs someone who can make the case not that a Labour government won't screw over the poor - that won't win an election - but that a Labour government will be actively good for the middle.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I think that the left has answers for various issues if they make their case.
For example, the research supporting an austerity platform has been publically discredited.
Promoting the construction of affordable housing to take some heat out of the rental market.
Addressing concerns about the immigration on low pay work through the strengthening of workers rights rather than via immigration caps.
I think alot of people would support the renationalisation of the railways - as we pay vast amounts in subsidy for a poor service anyway.
The adoption of a negative income tax system would be a more effective way to overhaul the welfare state.
The left needs to change the framing of these debates, it is the failure to argue the initial premises of various issues that is the major failing of opposition.
(Moving left is not necessarily the same thing as going for a fully socialist idea of the state.)
[ 22. July 2015, 21:34: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Essentially, if I were to chose between the USA and Denmark - I would go to scandinavia rather than the States.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
I think the big factor in Blair's success was hope (and that against the background of a Tory party in disarray, with a bunch of leaders less appealing than Major).
The triangulation was a factor, but only that, for a time people really did believe that 'things can only get better'.
The problem of course is that Blair did this whilst the not really shoring up the existing vote (which continued to fall numerically) and building a party within a party rather than taking the party with him. Finally the public's natural suspicion of the over-slick re-asserted itself - at least for anyone with a weaker reality distortion field than Blair.
The problem with triangulation is that it works less effectively when everyone does it, especially when you sound (like the post-blairites) like you don't really believe what you are saying anyway.
I'm not sure that saying 'We are exactly like the Tories but less so' is a particularly winning strategy. People will just go for the real thing instead.
[ 22. July 2015, 21:41: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think that the left has answers for various issues if they make their case.
For example, the research supporting an austerity platform has been publically discredited.
..
The left needs to change the framing of these debates, it is the failure to argue the initial premises of various issues that is the major failing of opposition.
I think the issue is that they largely no longer believe that arguing the initial premises have merit, and some of them don't really believe in initial premises.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
My essential disconnect with politicians is that alot of them look at the USA and see its wealth and power as success - the tories blatantly want our country to function more like that. I look at the states, and see the massive divisions and people being dirt poor in a wealthy nation, as exactly what I don't want to copy.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
OddJob
Shipmate
# 17591
|
Posted
Perhaps the biggest challenge for the left in gaining credibility is to dissociate itself from excessive union power - which I've always argued is anarchistic rather than left wing. Recall how it brought Callaghan down and helped Thatcher into No.10?
Posts: 97 | From: West Midlands | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OddJob:
Perhaps the biggest challenge for the left in gaining credibility is to dissociate itself from excessive union power - which I've always argued is anarchistic rather than left wing. Recall how it brought Callaghan down and helped Thatcher into No.10?
I think I'm right in saying that they've changed the rules for the leadership election of the Labour Party this time around. Milliband famously got the better of his brother on the back of the union vote, but this time around it's more of a one member one vote thing. Which is ironic, as Unite, the biggest union, have publicly backed Corbyn, who would be very much their type of man I suppose - but their support doesn't actually mean anything in terms of actual votes.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
The problem for Labour vis-a-vis the unions is that on the one hand, they absolutely need the unions to finance them. The Tories can get money from big business at a drop of a hat, but Labour would be utterly sunk if the unions pulled their financing. But on the other hand, Labour really needs to distance itself from the - at times - toxic nature of the unions. Union connections are a vote-loser - even an election-loser.
If there were election campaign financing rules that created a more level playing field, then Labour could afford to cut the ties with the unions and would become more credible. But as long as they can be portrayed as the unions' pet poodles, they are in trouble.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OddJob:
Perhaps the biggest challenge for the left in gaining credibility is to dissociate itself from excessive union power - which I've always argued is anarchistic rather than left wing. Recall how it brought Callaghan down and helped Thatcher into No.10?
Union power is not excessive and hasn't been for 30 years. Ordinary union members helped elect Ed Miliband (there was no block vote). What the left needs is to expand and rebuild the union movement. Almost everyone who is employed has need of a union, and the problem the union movement has at present is that it is seen as representative of only some sections of workers, and that allows the right to practice divide and rule - pointing at train drivers and saying the fact that they have good pay and conditions is a reason to hate unions rather than a reason to join one yourself.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
My wife, a teacher (now retired) always told her colleagues to join a union. This was especially so they could be supported in the case of allegations being made against them (almost inevitable these days) rather than to improve pay and conditions. She didn't mind which union they joined, although she personally felt that NUT tended to be too militant and "political".
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by OddJob:
Perhaps the biggest challenge for the left in gaining credibility is to dissociate itself from excessive union power - which I've always argued is anarchistic rather than left wing. Recall how it brought Callaghan down and helped Thatcher into No.10?
Union power is not excessive and hasn't been for 30 years. Ordinary union members helped elect Ed Miliband (there was no block vote). What the left needs is to expand and rebuild the union movement. Almost everyone who is employed has need of a union, and the problem the union movement has at present is that it is seen as representative of only some sections of workers, and that allows the right to practice divide and rule - pointing at train drivers and saying the fact that they have good pay and conditions is a reason to hate unions rather than a reason to join one yourself.
But does it inherently benefit the left if someone joins a union? I've never been a member of one personally. The only benefit I might have got would have been the sort of protection BT mentions above. Certainly not any sort of collective bargaining on pay and conditions in any of the places I've worked. They all had individual contracts with merit based pay reviews.
There are plenty of significant manufacturing jobs here in the north west and that are very well paid and the people doing them wouldn't necessarily identify as "working class". I'm not sure that people in those well paid jobs would be instinctive or natural labour voters.
I imagine most people now join a union for "selfish" reasons - protection in disputes being the main one. Not out of any sense of comradeship with their fellow workers.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
It may take a while, but the best hope for socialism is for the electorate to wake up to the essential aggression of this present government. One nation Toryism will be seen to be an oxymoron.
But that will take time. Meanwhile, the probable election of Jeremy Corbyn may well turn out to be a repeat of the Michael Foot fiasco period. In that respect, Tony Blair may well be right.
Eventually. the floating vote, the centre ground of British politics, will see the ugliness and partisanship of this present government for what it is. But I think we may have to live through some social destruction (disguised as 'reform') first. I like Doublethink's analysis. It's US free marketing v Scandinavian equity. Many seem to have forgotten that equitable societies need wealth redistribution. They will need to learn that again.
Meanwhile, I think the Labour Party looks set for a wilderness time.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Although I was very cross at Blair for getting involved in the debate, I think Barnabas' scenario may well be depressingly correct. I think we need to remember that Conservatism today is still very much in the thrall of the legacy of monetarism and the Thatcher years; it is very different to the more benevolent One Nation Toryism of the 1950s which had no desire to argue with some of the 1940s Socialist reforms.
The big question-marks in the present debate must be the SNP (and nationalism in general) and the future of the LibDems. Labour will need to distance themselves from these while regaining popular appeal.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I imagine most people now join a union for "selfish" reasons - protection in disputes being the main one. Not out of any sense of comradeship with their fellow workers.
That's always been the case. Trade unionism is about enlightened self-interest - you stand together because the alternative is falling seperately. I'm a teacher and while legal representation is important, so is having the skills and support to call on when you're threatened with redundancy. In my first job the head screwed up their budgetting and got themselves into a position of needing to plan 12 redundancies. A concerted campaign of industrial action reduced that to one, who we couldn't help because they weren't a union member. I should note that only the NUT took action while the other two teaching unions rolled over. Militancy is what gets results (as the RMT know well). I'm also well aware that the terms and conditions: the 35 hour week, protected planning time, guaranteed lunch breaks, decent sick pay and pensions are a result of long and persistent trade union activity.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
Is Jeremy Corbyn's election probable? I would guess that Liz Kendall will be eliminated first, her votes going to Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham (more to Cooper). Then, if Corbyn is not eliminated on this round, Cooper (probably) will go, and Burnham will pick up enough votes to win. And if Cooper is ahead of Burnham, she will pick up enough votes to win.
Socialism? I worry more about the future of liberalism, but then many (on the right) would call Rawlsian liberalism socialist.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
The only public poll so far suggests that Corbyn will defeat Burnham in the final round 53-47. The accuracy of the polling is, of course, open to considerable debate.
The result will come down to the balance of two forces: the groundswell of popular support and social media campaigning for Corbyn against the fear of what the media will do to Labour if he's elected, a fear being desperately fanned by the right of the party.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I'd love to think that. But (a) lots of people would refuse to vote for Labour if they were so closely linked to the Unions; and (b) the whole Union movement is not what it was. The rise of the Tory policies may encourage Unions to grow again, but they are much less likely to succeed in today's scenario of casualised and fluctuating labour forces than they were in the old traditions of job stability in heavy industry.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The only public poll so far suggests that Corbyn will defeat Burnham in the final round 53-47. The accuracy of the polling is, of course, open to considerable debate.
What I'm not clear on is this: do these polls reflect the opinions of the public at large, or a sample of the voting members of the Labour Party?
If it's the former, they are worthless, as it's not the public who will be doing the voting in this election.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
Indeed it may well be close. I will admit that my vague prediction was based on the idea that the Labour party voters understand AV, and will use their preferences rationally. It would be uncharitable to suggest that they do not and will not.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
Indeed it may well be close. I will admit that my vague prediction was based on the idea that the Labour party voters understand AV, and will use their preferences rationally. It would be uncharitable to suggest that they do not and will not.
How many preferences do people have? Surely preferential voting only really applies to the three who aren't Corbyn? In reality, if your first preference is for Corbyn, it doesn't seem very likely that you'll bother with any other preferences for anyone else?
Equally, if you are starting with one of the other three as your first preference, you aren't going to put Corbyn down at all?
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Phantom Flan Flinger
Shipmate
# 8891
|
Posted
You have as many preferences as there are candidates, so four in this instance.
I'm putting Corbyn as my first preference, really struggling as to what to do with my other three - almost certainly won't be putting any preference down for Liz Kendall.
[ 23. July 2015, 10:42: Message edited by: The Phantom Flan Flinger ]
--------------------
http://www.faith-hope-and-confusion.com/
Posts: 1020 | From: Leicester, England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I'd love to think that. But (a) lots of people would refuse to vote for Labour if they were so closely linked to the Unions; and (b) the whole Union movement is not what it was. The rise of the Tory policies may encourage Unions to grow again, but they are much less likely to succeed in today's scenario of casualised and fluctuating labour forces than they were in the old traditions of job stability in heavy industry.
I guess folks need to discover the old truth. Hang together, or you'll be hanged separately.
In modern Tory terms, the term "Trade Unions" clearly includes the Law Society, the British Medical Association and any other professional body which might argue that their micro-managing policies are socially damaging.
Again, it seems to have been forgotten that much of what we call the British Way of Life was won by collective groups challenging the inequities of the status quo. You don't have to be a socialist to know that powerful and aggressive administrations can, and often do, play ducks and drakes with human rights and freedoms.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
You have as many preferences as there are candidates, so four in this instance.
I'm putting Corbyn as my first preference, really struggling as to what to do with my other three - almost certainly won't be putting any preference down for Liz Kendall.
As I suspected then....
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The only public poll so far suggests that Corbyn will defeat Burnham in the final round 53-47. The accuracy of the polling is, of course, open to considerable debate.
What I'm not clear on is this: do these polls reflect the opinions of the public at large, or a sample of the voting members of the Labour Party?
If it's the former, they are worthless, as it's not the public who will be doing the voting in this election.
No, but it's the public who will be doing the voting in GE 2020. And if that poll is accurate (a big if, admittedly) it gives the lie to those saying a Corbyn-led party would be unelectable.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
What I'm not clear on is this: do these polls reflect the opinions of the public at large, or a sample of the voting members of the Labour Party?
If it's the former, they are worthless, as it's not the public who will be doing the voting in this election.
It's my understanding that it was an attempt to poll people eligible to vote in the leadership election, but there is some question over how accurately it is possible to do that.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
And if that poll is accurate (a big if, admittedly) it gives the lie to those saying a Corbyn-led party would be unelectable.
Indeed a big if: lots of recent polls suggested Ed Miliband would be Prime Minister by now...
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Jeremy Corbyn is about as electable as UK PM as Donald Trump is as U.S. President. Without a sea change of opinion in the centre ground, none of the other Labour candidates have much chance either - but probably a bit more. The evidence for these opinions is not conclusive, of course, but there is a lot of wishful thinking going on on both the right and left wings of the Labour Party.
[ 23. July 2015, 13:23: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I was reading some of the furious debate between Blairites and the left, and I can see the Blairite point, that first you have to have a government, before you can help people. However, I think Labour are scarred by the Blair experience, well, some parts of Labour. Hence, a repeat of it, via somebody like Mrs Cooper, seems unattractive, and improbable.
Thus, to see Blair himself, the dark lord, or whatever epithet you wish to adorn him with, and others like Mandelson, (who used to be known as the prince of darkness), telling us that the left will commit suicide, might make us think that following neo-Blairism would be even worse.
And Harman's argument that Labour should not oppose Tory benefit cuts, well, the term 'Tory-lite' seems a bit feeble really. Bryan Gould calls it 'me-too' politics. You too can be an aspirational Tory without even having to use the word 'Tory'!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was reading some of the furious debate between Blairites and the left, and I can see the Blairite point, that first you have to have a government, before you can help people. However, I think Labour are scarred by the Blair experience, well, some parts of Labour. Hence, a repeat of it, via somebody like Mrs Cooper, seems unattractive, and improbable.
As I said in the other thread. Blair's success was more down to hope than triangulation - and that against a Tory party in meltdown. The lesson the PLP took away was that triangulation was the factor though - hence their efforts since to be exactly like the Tories, only less so. Of course, triangulation on right wing issues only really works if you are the only one doing it - otherwise you can always be trumped to the right by a party of the right. So most of the post-blairites come across as believing in nothing so much as power itself.
I actually think a Blair like strategy could work - but only with severe caveats - it would require someone who was able to project hope in a manner that was able to overcome the publics heightened scepticism for which Blair himself is responsible.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, that is the trouble with the other 3 candidates, well, I don't know Ms Kendall, but Burnham and Cooper have a distinct whiff of Blairite clones. For me, they are actually less electable than Corbyn, but no doubt, the right wing media would do a bacon sandwich on him.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
A friend was telling me that part of Middle England is so terrified/angry with the SNP or anything to do with them, that they will never be tempted to vote Labour, in case of demonic contamination. I suppose this might be true, in which case, Labour's task seems a huge one, along with the Scottish seats, which are presumably lost for a long time, or forever. I think they need about 100 seats to win an election, and that is in England. Gordon Bennett, I think I will join the DUP, at least they vote against benefit cuts.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And while the likes of Burnham were proud of scuppering fox hunting last week, they didn't show any leadership qualities when it came to last night's welfare bill, not even pointing out that Cameron promised, before the election, not to cut tax credits and has gone back on his word.
It struck me that the Blairites have given up really, I mean, given up opposing the Tories. Harman seemed to be saying that Labour should not support the people who voted Labour, but the people who voted Tory. Hang on, I thought the point of a party was to persuade people? I suppose if you agree with the Tories, there's no point.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Touchstone
Shipmate
# 3560
|
Posted
Andrew Rawnsley was predictably scathing about JC in his "Observer" column this week. About the only positive thing he could say for a Corbyn leadership was that the old 80's idea that Labour loses elections because it isn't left-wing enough would be tested to destruction. That made me think, well actually that's not a bad idea really. Labour will probably lose in 2020 anyway, so why not pitch a truly radical set of policies with a personable, credible leader and see what happens? Seemed to work for the SNP. When you're in the dumper you've got to roll the dice - Blair's reforms were, in their way, quite a risk for the party.
As a prospective voter in this election (who may or may not use my vote) I have to say that so far Corbyn has seemed likeable, straight talking and calm under fire. I would never have thought it 2 months ago, but of the 4 he looks the most like PM material. The other 3 certainly ain't doing it for me.
--------------------
Jez we did hand the next election to the Tories on a plate!
Posts: 163 | From: Somewhere west of Bristol | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I joined the Labour Party today, because of Jeremy Corbyn. 30 years ago I'd have had him shot.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I joined the Labour Party today, because of Jeremy Corbyn. 30 years ago I'd have had him shot.
Is that 'cos he appeals to you politically, or because you're one of the Labour opponents who are allegedly all registering as members in order to vote for Corbyn and ensure the ruin of the Labour party?
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
