The Afterword

Musings on the byways of popular culture

Menu

Navigation

You are here: Home / Forum / Can Labour ever get back into power?

Can Labour ever get back into power?

by 214 Comments

Rising inflation…

The fuel crisis….

The high likelihood of imminent food shortages…

A Tory manifesto-busting 1.5% increase in National Insurance that will hit the
younger and lower-paid workers most affected by the pandemic harder than it does the better off…

The neediest members of the UK population facing an imminent £20 cut to what
are already massively overstretched Universal Credit payments…

Labour should be a shoo-in come 2023/24 even without the COVID shambles of last year.

Sadly, the party’s getting back into power ain’t looking likely to happen any time soon.

Faced with probably the most incompetent cabinet in living memory and in urgent need of imposing some discipline on the disorganized rabble his party has become these last 10 years, Starmer completely fucked up his big chance at this weekend’s conference. While he did do his best to put anti-semitism to bed, he merely kicked the door open a whole lot wider for arguments about transgender issues of little interest to anyone outside the party’s new base in metropolitan London.

Where once Labour lead and inspired, they now seem more concerned with lecturing and hectoring the “ordinary” working people who until recently “would rather die than vote Tory”.

Sadly, as their loss of 39 “Red Wall” seats in 2019 shows those voters/attitudes simply no longer exist. In disappearing off the political map, they’ve also taken any chance of Labour as it now stands ever getting back into power.

So what’s Labour to do now and who’s the right man/woman to try and start turning the party’s dwindling fortunes around ?

Starmer? Pretty much a busted flush – the socialist equivalent of forgotten Tory leader. Michael Howard (anyone remember him? Thought not). This weekend was his chance to shine and instead of offering a single memorable policy idea, he went on national TV to deny a biological fact.

Rayner? Having called Tories – and by logical extension those who voted for them – “scum”, I can’t see her playing well with the electorate come 2023/2024.

Nandy? Having seen her hold her own with Andrew Neil two years ago, I always thought she was “one to watch”. And once the dust settles from the current shit show, maybe she’ll grab her chance. Choosing LN would certainly go some way to addressing the fact that Labour is lagging way behind the Tories when it comes to diversity in its leaders and (shadow) cabinets.

Burnham? Doing a good job in Manchester and occasionally ruffling Bojo’s feathers but apparently seen as a bit of a lightweight by many of his (former) Commons colleagues.

Corbyn? Well he won the argument in 2019! Seriously, no, please, no.

Anyone else got any thoughts?

3

Comments

  1. I agree with your analysis of the symptoms, but you don’t mention the cause: the membership, ie Ed Milliband’s army of three quid Trots. If Labour are to start winning again they will need to re-run the ’80s and rid themselves of this re-born militant tendency.

    Is Starmer up to the job? I have my doubts.

    Can Labour ever get back into power? Cf. the ’80s again. If 2019 is the new 1983, you’re looking at the early 2030s.

  2. Living out of the city in a safe blue seat – I settled here because of work – I’ve never ever cast my vote for the winner, it usually come down to whichever of the LD/Lab/Green candidates is less of a lost cause.

    I’d prefer the ballot paper to offer the choice of ‘anyone but the above’. I guess that makes counting a bit tricky.

  3. I live in a Tory seat which went marginal at the last election with a huge swing to the Lib Dems. We would have won too if Labour had made some sort of local pact, and they may have won in Stevenage similarly.

    Until Labour starts building alliances they will continue to shrink. Which is fine by me actually, after the disgusting way they campaigned in the last election though I’m happy to concede that was mostly Momentum. But a low level local non-competition agreement and shared manifesto commitment to PR is the way to go. I’m convinced a voting system which doesn’t disenfranchise most of the electorate is the key here.

    The trouble is this needs Labour to have a strong leader with vision and I don’t see any candidates.

  4. The transgender debate seems to be some form of false syllogism, with an incorrect initial premise of ‘if you promote women’s rights, you’re anti-trans’. People who have never issued any insult, threat or innuendo about trans people are now portrayed as dribbling bigots. It serves to illustrate the infantilisation of debate.

  5. Not in its current form. You’ve got two incompatible factions and to be honest I have some sympathy with both of them. I like the idealism of the Woke Left, but I don’t think dogma and shouting down everyone who doesn’t 100% agree with you gets you elected – for that you’ve got to reach out to the people who might vote for you, but didn’t last time.

    Starmer’s job is impossible. His noisiest critics expect him to say things that the people he has most chance of persuading to vote for him don’t want to hear. Cervixgate is the perfect example – do you pander to the Twitterati within the party, or economically-leftish, socially-conservative voters?

    • Excuse me for asking, but where did this ‘woke’ left come from? Are you just referring to the left? How is the left distinguished from it’s ‘woke’ faction? Isn’t the use of that term simply pandering to the right wing commentariat who use an invented pejorative to taint the idealism that characterises the left? It seems to me that that term embodies pretty much the same sort of thing as what you describe as ‘Cervixgate’ (great coining BTW – is it yours?).

      • Left = let’s unionise.

        “Woke Left” = let’s unionise once we’ve deconstructed the neo-colonialist power structures underpinning the union movement as a whole.

        Economic activism vs cultural activism. Not always mutually exclusive, but there you go.

      • To me ‘woke ‘ means ‘preferring to hold unimpeachably high moral standards in opposition, rather than getting a little bit dirty in order to be in a position to actually bring about the change you believe in.”

        • Thanks. Now I know it also means the same as ‘delusional’.

          I think we should be using either ‘loony’ or ‘delusional’ rather than ‘woke’, in order to be more precise by distinguishing between pejoratives. It’s a bit like using ‘scum’ as a lazy term instead of saying either ‘dishonest’ or ‘prejudiced’.

      • “Woke” just another “loony left” “political correctness gone mad” sloganeering. So tired of the right wing/Old Eatonian (I know, i know), Pig fuckers, Brexit voting etc etc. The British voters got “fooled again” and will do so forever more. I’m sure glad I escaped to Canada but know almost inevitably that we too will be caught by the invasion of populist media driven wave of uglies that seems to have risen to the surface in the last 10 years or so. Hey! Lets

        have a nice cosy Beatles themed post instead.

        • Not a big fan of “woke”.

          Not a big fan of “gammon”, “pig fuckers” and “scum” either.

          Each side uses the other’s juvenile behaviour as justification for their own. See Angela Rayner with a textbook example just below.

      • I think the dictionary definition of woke is something along the lines of ‘an alertness to injustice particulalrly racism’. But that sounds like a sensible aspiration to me so I can only think that people that use it as a term of insult think that such an alertness is not a desirable thing.

  6. Starmer has zero chance of winning a general election. Such was the mess he inherited that he’d probably have had zero chance even if he was a talented, inspirational political leader, but he’s neither of those things anyway.

    What Starmer can work on doing is finding a way to either reconcile the two warring wings of the party, which seems enormously unlikely (and would probably be unsustainable), or eject one of them. He appears to be working on the latter path.

    I have no idea whether his strategy will be proved correct, and I suspect that making it stick will eventually cost him the leadership, but it’s one way to at least move the party forwards. Personally, whatever loyalty I felt to Labour ended under Corbyn; I’ll happily vote elsewhere until the nutters are gone. I suspect a lot of people are in the same boat.

    I reckon there’s a market out there for higher taxation, improved public services and a greater emphasis on community, it just needs to be offered by people who don’t get an erection over any group that opposes the West (no matter how god awful), call each other “comrade”, hector everyone who disagrees with them, endlessly parrot the nonsense that gets you chaired shoulder high around Twitter and reject all criticism as bad faith/evidence of brainwashing by the MSM.

    You hear a lot of “but people do like our policies”. Well, quite – what does that tell you about what people must think of you personally?

  7. There was a cartoon in the Telegraph of a red out-of-use petrol pump with “Labour” written underneath and the unit drawn to resemble Starmer’s face. Yes, that’s their take on the fuel crisis.

    I point this out because Starmer is savaged by parts of the media, no matter what. Just like all Labour leaders before him. Compared to Corbyn, he is far more electable and in direct contrast to the PM he does come across as a grown-up. He’s making mistakes but it’s not calamity after calamity. That’s the Government’s M.O. I think there’s every chance that the Conservatives will crash and burn due to their own foolishness.

    • @Black_Celebration

      The petrol pump cartoon was their take on Starmer being out of ideas and prospects.

      Try as they might, I doubt even the drooling nutjobs who edit, write and read the Torygraph could pin the blame for the fuel crisis on Labour.

      • They pinned it on a Brexiteer. Apparently, they leaked to the press that there was a shortage of tanker drivers leading to under-served forecourts. It was their fault there is now panic buying.

      • I realise that but the “optics” are there – a casual scroller sees Starmer as a useless petrol pump – so he’s now in the frame, involved, part of the problem. There is no observational, comedic or satirical parallels to be drawn between the Labour Party and the fuel crisis. A better joke is a Boris Johnson petrol pump because ultimately the whole situation is his fault. This must have occurred to the cartoonist but the Telegraph would probably find that rather near.

    • I more or less agree, & I think that he is up against a PM/government/party that can do no wrong in the eyes of the majority of the electorate because they delivered Brexit.

      I have read posts on many FB forums/ Twitter (& yes, I know it’s “only social media”), that essentially believe that any Brexit related problems are simply down to the coronavirus (which of course nobody could see coming).

      I really do despair.

    • The man who did that cartoon, the almost perfectly named Bob Moran, got into trouble on Twitter the other day. Dr Rachel Clarke tweeted that she’d been abused on public transport on the way home for wearing a mask. His response: “She deserves to be verbally abused in public for the rest of her worthless existence. They all do.” He then doubled down, saying she had blood on her hands.

      He is a rabid anti-vaxxer and COVID denier, also a worthless twat. Amazingly, the Telegraph have suspended him.

  8. I’ve often said that among a huge majority of the population they will only start to care when shelves are empty or they can’t get fuel or they can’t watch TV. That same majority just aren’t especially politically interested. They’ve looked up from their devices chuckled at “Boris” and gone to vote for him. We’ve discussed endlessly about how any opposition fights that. Almost impossible. My theory now though could be tested but there’s no election for 3 more years. Who knows how things will be then?

    The answer to the question about Labour is clear to me. Assuming Johnson is still leader in 2024 they have to accept personality politics is a thing and unless they find an enormous personality to compete with Johnson in the art of winning elections at all costs they’ve got no chance. Can they play Tik Tok politics? Can they appeal to those who vote for Ant and Dec every year at the TV awards? Can they get to those who don’t really care and grab their attention for the 5 seconds they will give to them? Not going to happen is it?

      • She’s not wrong. But it was stupid of her to give the Tories an open goal like that – all it does is distract from the messages Labour is trying to give, and from the utter uselessness (and toxicity) of the Tory government. I see even though he is no longer Culture Minister, Oliver Dowden still sees himself as Culture Wars Minister; he stepped in with a particularly and characteristically vacuous and pompous newspaper article about this.

  10. The election system in the UK is not great. The Liberals conveniently dumping their PR manifesto as soon as it suited them did not help *

    We have the same first past the post system in Canada, the Liberals are still in (minority) government after a pointless election in which their share of the votes was 33% (conservatives had 34%), only 59% voted so their “mandate” is actually from 19% of the population! This isn’t really very fair. However what a pandemic has proved to me is there is much power in the provincial governments, currently the biggest provinces Ontario and Quebec have conservative governments.

    * Likewise Trudeau promised electoral reform when campaigning in 2015, naturally since conveniently forgotten as soon as there is a taste of power. Liberals are one of the 2 main parties here though.

  11. In Italy we hsd our years of personality politics, with Silvio Berlusconi winning on account of having control of the media and having a strong personality. Since then we’ve had mostly technocrats in charge and personality and ideology don’t seem to play a role anymore (although we do have Matteo Salvini shouting his populist anti-immigrant spiel from the sidelines). The current incumbent -economist, banker and academic Mario Draghi- seems to be doing a pretty good job of running this “ungovernable” country as far as I can see. Perhaps that’s what UK needs, a ‘low-key personality’ technocrat?

          • Arf!
            But my question was genuine. I think he was referring to Starmer (can’t look it up right now – I’m at the beach), but Starmer hasn’t been tried and anyways, I was talking about what the country needs not what it wants. (What it wants is most definitely a strong personality and right of centre ideology.)

            • There’s not a lot of point talking about what the country needs, but doesn’t want. It’s the mistake Labour have made endlessly over the last 5 years, and what’s pissed off half the electorate.

              They need to show they can listen if they want to be elected any time soon.

              I don’t think the issue is needing a strong personality (although it doesn’t hurt). Johnson behaves like a clown, but he’s very good at intuiting the public mood and communicating with the electorate.

    • Mario Draghi had the advantage over Ed Miliband, Jeremy Corbyn and Starmer of not actually needing to be elected by your actual voters. That aside, it would be worth the price of admission to see Momentum’s response to an unelected, technocrat banker appointed Prime Minister with the full backing of the leading right of centre politicians ( e.g. the UK equivalents of Salvini and Berlusconi ).

  12. Short answer – no. Starmer is clearly smart and probably decent. But he seems incapable of leadership. Labour are too factionalised and either they need to split or work out that compromising will provide them with an opportunity of power. That needs extremely strong leadership.

    Putting forward policies that will push floating voters in the middle to one of the other parties will not work. There are around 1 million voting parents paying for private education so adding VAT to school fees is not going to get any of them to swing toward Labour. Arguing about who has the right to a cervix on social media is not going to get people to swing to labour. They need more people to vote for them. They seem to struggle with this concept and think being even more labour will do it.

  13. A clue may lie in what the last Labour government to win power stood for. I’m not at all justifying everything they did, but being strong on law and order, having a strong economy, focus on good public service outcomes, invest in schools and the health service… unencumbered by Left wing dogma and “tradition” might be a start. Oh, but of course, Blair was a Tory. Err, no, he was a social democrat, like a lot of the voters.

  15. Unpopular opinion: Keir Starmer is doing alright.

    Labour was struggling to survive following the Corbyn Catastrophe. It has both survived and begun to grow. The influx of nutters is rapidly flowing out, back to the fringes.

    Starmer is an intelligent man who, unlike many in politics, has actually done a proper job. Winning an election will mean seeing off nationalism on both sides of the border. Not easy but by no means impossible – and I see no-one more capable of succeeding.

  18. A massive long term problem for Labour is that Scotland has now swung to the Scottish Nationalists. This hasn’t just taken a big swathe parliamentary seats, but also created a situation in which, as long as Scotland is still part of the UK it would have to have some kind of understanding with the Scots Nats, and that would be a big turn-off for a lot of voters in England. It was last an issue in the 2015 election when Labour had a credible chance of winning the most seats and the Tories really turned up the noise on the issue, and I’ve always thought that was the key factor in Cameron winning over Miliband.
    Add to that the way first past the post works in the Tories’ advantage and it’s a mountain to climb.
    Only chance for Labour is an electoral deal with the LibDems and Greens. I don’t doubt some of its members would squeal outrage at the idea, but I reckon Starmer has the savvy to see its necessity and do something about it.

    • As any Labour leader has enough trouble holding together the coalition which is their own party, forming a pact with two others, which are also coalitions, would be very difficult. I think there is also the assumption that all of the people who vote for these parties are anti-Tory, and so would switch their vote to another anti-Tory party. I’ve never seen any analysis of this, but I’ve met people who vote Green who used to vote Conservative. If the Greens under some pact stood down in their constituency, it’s quite possible they would vote Tory, particularly if they feel their vote is seen as being bargained away in some backroom deal. And if the goal of this is a coalition government, whichever party you vote for is going to give some of their manifesto up, so you don’t know what you’re really voting for.
      I think the kind of unspoken low-level pacts that go on now, where a party doesn’t put too much effort into a seat where someone else is very likely to win, will continue. But anything else is unlikely.

  19. As an illustration of the depth of Labour’s problems, let’s talk about Royston Vasey. No, I’m not suggesting that Labour’s membership and much of its front bench are grotesque enough to meld seamlessly into the League Of Gentleman’s comic noir creation (although now you mention it…), I’m referring to Mr Vasey’s stage alter ego, Roy Chubby Brown. Brown is being banned from venues all over the north of England by Labour councils who insist his act is racist, sexist, homophobic &tc. It may well be (if you thinks so and this offends, I would suggest the simple solution of not going to see him), but he is also extremely popular, especially among working class voters in the crumbling ‘Red Wall’.

    So what does a working class lad or lass do when they learn their Labour council has banned their favourite comic? Do they think “Hmm, yes, I really must reconsider my social attitudes and perhaps consider attendance of an LGBT theatre workshop and watch ‘actors’ stand inside an inflatable plastic hippopotamus pretending to be printing presses” or do they think “**** them! I’m not voting for these bastards!”

    If you are in doubt as to the answer to this question, peruse the results of the last general election.

    • @dwightstrut

      Given Roy Chubby Brown’s experience of high office (he played the Mayor of Royston Vasey in at least one episode of LOG), he would probably make a better fist of running Labour than Keir “Cervix? What Cervix?” Starmer

        • @Vulpes-Vulpes

          Like the “poor bloke” whose idiocy you’re trying so hard to defend, you could do with reading up a bit of political history, Foxy!

          Far from being a lazy misrepresnetation of what Starmer said, my “cervix, what cervix?” remark referred back to the “Crisis, what crisis?” front page headline the Sun ran during late 1978 and early 1979’s “Winter of Discontent” ((C) all UK papers).

          The rag ran the line after then Labour PM James Callaghan arrived back at Heathrow having stupidly flown out of the UK on holiday during the worst of the crisis.

          Like the charisma-free fuckwit who didn’t anticipate what he might get asked by Andrew Marr, Callaghan never said “crisis, what crisis?” but the phrase was still ringing in voters’ ears when he lost the May 1979 election.

          I would be very surprised if Starmer’s ill-advised cervix remark doesn’t do likewise by also following him around for the rest of his political days.

          • My point is entirely that the more this sort of misrepresentation gets repeated, the more likely it is to remain out there – under false pretences as it is a fallacy – for exploitation by the dishonest, just as happened to Jim.

            Oh, and I’m not specifically ‘trying so hard to defend’ anyone in particular (see my ‘I’m not a fan’ statement in another thread re: Starmer), so please don’t throw a strawman into the mix. I’m railing against the creation of fake news that can be exploited by fuckwits.

            • @Vulpes-Vulpes

              Sorry, Foxy, have no intention of withdrawing or apologizing for my “Cervix, what cervix?” remark, the ironic intent of which will have been perfectly apparent to the fairly bright people who read and post on this forum.

              Ultimately, Starmer went on national TV and clearly – if stupidly – said that for RD to state a biological fact was wrong. As a result, a perfectly decent Labour MP who’s been hailed for her bravery speaking out about the past domestic abuse she’s suffered ended up being thrown to the wolves.

              At the end of the day, Starmer is surely sufficiently well versed in the ways of the UK media to prep the various words he might have chosen to answer such a question before he went on Marr’s show.

              How many votes do you suppose Starmer’s pandering to the now way too powerful TGL is going to win him in the 30-odd “Red Wall” seats Corbyn lost the party two years ago?

              Answers on a postcard to “Big Fat Zero” competition.

            • The Cervix row is not what yer average UK punter is concerned about right now. A minor distraction at best for the right-wing media.
              Fuel shortages, empty supermarket shelves and energy companies going bust are the things that concern people currently and those are all things that can’t be quick-fixed.
              Starmer is right that winning the next election is more important than party unity. Now he needs to up his game outside of the party conference and engage with people that are worried about their livelihoods, their access to fuel and energy, their housing and the food on their tables.

              • @Mike-H

                If only Starmer had done the sensible thing and swatted aside Marr’s question with a similar set of words to those you used in your first two pars.

                Had he done so, he might have taken a first step to achieving the targets set out in the remainder of your post.

    • This isn’t a recent ‘woke looney left’ thing – many venues – not just Labour Council ones – have refused to take Brown for decades, on account of the fact that, last time I saw him, (admittedly a long time ago) his material is indeed homophobic, sexist and generally vile (though not racist as I recall). It isnt just a case of ‘don’t go if you don’t want to be offended’ – it’s a case of theatres, and, in some cases, Councils, not wanting to be associated with that material.

      • It’s hard to get too wound up about Roy Chubby Brown being consigned to the dustbin, but there’s probably a broader issue here.

        An awful lot of people have probably found themselves in the last 18 months listening to things they don’t necessarily believe or agree with, and without much right of reply. The dialogue around Diversity & Inclusion is a bit of a facade: the acceptable response in a lot of cases is to nod and accept your teachings/”listen”, whereas to question and probe risks a micro-aggression or an unseemly demonstration of white fragility.

        This approach will probably drive a good deal of positive change and move us forward in lots of areas way quicker than the “hearts and minds” consensus based approach we adopted previously. It will also cause a material number of people to simply go quiet, double down on their existing beliefs and vote Tory when the chance arises, particularly if the net is spread too wide in terms of what is considered too offensive to be said aloud.

        You can police people’s public behaviour, but you cannot police their actual thoughts, or what they do at the ballot box, and that’s an issue worth considering if we really do want to avoid endless Conservative government. It’s also why the culture wars invariably play into Tory hands.

        • Great post – that describes what is going on very well I think. I would add that the sense that certain views can’t be challenged or questioned plays straight into the horrible culture wars and anti ‘woke’ rhetoric that the Tories are exploiting so effectively from a political point of view, but so irresponsibly from any other point of view.

          The trans ‘debate’ is a classic case of what you are talking about – not least because it isnt a debate at all; anytime anyone questions the self definition orthodoxy they simply get called out as transphobic and/or TERFs; there seems to be zero attempt to actually engage in their point of view and counter it with reasoned argument or empathy.

          • I suspect the central problem is how tribal everything has become. There seems to be no real appetite from anyone to call out the worst extremes of their own “side”, and no recognition that your opponents will invariably use those extremes to characterise your movement as a whole, which will be to your ultimate detriment.

            Or perhaps it’s just that we live in a world now where an algorithm will deliver the shittest, loudest, most obnoxiously narcissistic and provocative voices from either end of the spectrum to the largest possible audience, thereby making compromise virtually impossible. Who knows.

            All I know is that it isn’t healthy for anyone if you don’t let people politely raise good faith concerns or reservations (or even outright disagreements) about the doctrines you’re feeding them. Even, and indeed particularly, when it comes to The Beatles.

      • But then you are suggesting that politicians should be allowed to censor what people can or cannot see on the grounds of their own political sensitivities. A dangerous step, surely?

        I don’t like him myself. More to the point, I don’t find him funny. However, I don’t believe that gives me the right to prevent other people from seeing him.

        • If the local authority run the venues then they are entitled to decide which bookings they want in them. Just the same as if someone you find distasteful wanted to hold an event in a venue of yours.
          If Chubby Brown can find privately-owned venues that don’t object to his material there is nothing to stop his shows going ahead in them.

          There are venues where alcohol is not permitted as a matter of policy. I don’t see why, if the management of a venue don’t want it, homophobia, sexism and misogyny should be treated any better.

          • That is one view, but to many people it just looks like censorship. Particularly as many towns don’t have an alternative venue outside the town hall and/or a subsidised theatre. To return to the OP, if Labour want to get back into power they’d stop this sort of nonsense because it pisses off the people they want to vote for them.

            • If the right didn’t make so much fuss about it, would local voters care that much?
              Is it really “many” people seeing it as censorship, or just a vocal minority stirring up the rest, who are more eager to be stirred up these days? How many of these voters would actually want to go to a Roy Chubby Brown show?

                • Because, as I said above, they know that people are generally discontented and restless, eager to be stirred up, and the Labour-hostile media are eager to do the stirring.
                  So yes, Starmer needs to be more careful in what he says. Hopefully a lesson has been learned.
                  But he needs to act as well as react, if he wants to make an impression. When you’re in opposition you have to make more of an effort to be seen and heard by the public. The government can more easily get away with having little or nothing to say, because they are the ones that are in power and it’s 3 years till the next General Election.

  20. I believe that Labours problems stem from the beginning of Tony Blair’s first term.

    Labour (new Labour), had won such a huge majority & I believe that they thought that they would be in power forever & the 2001 election landslide victory reinforced that belief.

    I believe that in his first few days in office Blair should have offered the LDs a place in a coalition, & I believe that if they had (&the LDs accepted), that coalition would still be in power now with the UK still being a serious player in the EU.

    The LDs had a very successful general election in 97 (50+ seats), showing the conservatives as being on their knees.

    But, Labour being Labour would/ could not see beyond the end of their noses & thought that 140 seat+ majorities were always going to be the order of the day.

    But what the fuck do I know?

    As ever, OOAA.

  21. @jackthebiscuit

    Why would Bliar offer the LDs a pact when he had a stonking great majority.

    At the end of the day, the see-saw swings of the FPTP system suits both Labour and the Tories.

    And therein lies the reason why we are unlikely to get PR voting in the UK any time soon – if indeed ever.

    • He had agreed to then renaged.

      I don’t know why the Labour hard left don’t form their oft floated new party and welcome in those unwanted in the current party if their manifesto of so popular. A Real Labour party led by Jeremy Corbyn would surely be a vote winner?

        • I would probably fit the definition of a Centrist (“don’t believe in political tribalism/ideology – just do what works”, rather than “is a screaming Neo Liberal with Dick Cheney pyjamas”, in case the term causes confusion) and I voted Lib Dem at the last two general elections.

          In many ways a wasted vote; I don’t regard them as being competent or particularly serious about ever assuming power. But I was told enough times that the Labour Party could now do without the votes of the likes of me that I duly got the memo, as did many many others who also failed the ideological purity test, it would seem.

          My overriding feeling now is that I won’t vote for Labour again while the left flank of the party, as currently constituted, has any chance of regaining power, because I find them almost entirely intolerable. If that means I never vote for the party again then so be it. I would stop short of saying I’m “content” with this outcome, but I’ve certainly made my peace with it.

          I suppose that’s a long way of saying: a lot of us have spent the last half decade not voting Labour because of the hard left, or whatever you’d prefer to call them. Maybe it’s their turn to find a new home now, as they’re always threatening to do?

          • I’m not even sure what distinguishes the “hard left” from the regular left, to be honest. I’ve heard the term applied repeatedly to Corbyn (who, along with Bernie Sanders, is probably the politician I’ve felt most affinity with) but I didn’t find his manifesto particularly radical or “hard left”.

            Like you, I too would claim a “just do what works” attitude rather than adherence to any specific ideology. I imagine that the things I would like to see -less poverty, improved free healthcare and education, minority rights defended, environmental concerns tackled seriously, efficient law and order, improved infrastructure through government spending and/or public ownership, an end to the monarchy, peace, love and understanding- are on most lefties’ wish lists and not just the preserve of any one faction.

            There’s obviously a lot to be said for the attitude that winning the next election to oust the Tories must be the most important objective as clearly nothing can really be achieved in opposition (Starmer’s current party conference line). One might very justifiably say that’s all that really matters. But I do see the question of “how best to win an election?” as being a different question to “what are my personal politics?”. And it’s a question I don’t claim to know the answer to. While my personal politics are defintely more at home in the Labour Party than any other.

            • I get a bit bored with people chucking these terms around. It doesn’t really matter where Corbyn sits on the political spectrum, or what label we apply: I think he’s a horrendous bell-end and I wouldn’t want him to be Prime Minister in a million years, so I would never vote for him. Much like the current incumbent. Sadly for most of us, the British public only half agree with me.

              Re: the manifesto, I’m sure lots of people quite liked aspects of the Labour manifesto but either (a) regarded it as essentially away with the fairies and undeliverable; (b) didn’t trust the competence of the leadership to actually deliver it; (c) were concerned he’d go further than the manifesto once in power (which, let’s be honest, he probably would have – manifestos are the lies politicians tell to get to office, not binding promises, and the public is well aware of that); or (d) all of the above.

              For what it’s worth, my suspicion is that if you’d called Corbyn “far” or “hard” left 15 years ago he’d have probably worn the badge with pride. When your Chancellor is chucking Mao’s little red book around the commons and describes himself as fomenting the overthrow of capitalism I don’t think you can complain too much if the public conclude you might be a reasonably long way to the left, and vote accordingly.

              • Also, conflating “liberal” with “centrist” is kind of just not accurate. Just because the Lib Dems have adopted some centrist policies over the years doesn’t make them attractive to someone who has drifted a good way from the central tenets of liberalism – particularly the idea that the individual is paramount in all things. The fact is I’m highly statist / community-minded in some areas and really quite liberal-right in some others. I’d probably break it down as instinctively (very)moderate-socialist economically and pretty small-c conservative in social policy.

                There isn’t a party which looks at all like that, least of all the LDs, who seem best aligned with the sort of “woke capitalist” approach being taken by most commercial brands in 2021.

                • I’m with you there. But the LDs still align better with my views than any others so I’m a member and activist. Liberalism has been around a long time and morphs according to current mores but the basic principle that individual liberty within a fair society is important remains, even with the current shape throwing.

              • Whilst I have always described myself as “left of centre”, rather than ideology, I still think you comment “(b) didn’t trust the competence of the leadership to actually deliver it” one of the key reasons that the last Labour government was successful – the first Tony Blair cabinet with the likes of Robin Cook, Gordon Brown, Jack Straw, Mo Mowlam, David Blunkett, etc came across as incredibly competent.

                Its certainly a world away from current incumbents.

                • That’s a good point, and one that the current Labour shadow cabinet simply can’t compete with. Whatever people think of Blair and Brown now, they combined intellectual acuity with a sense of competence.

                  The current shadow cabinet seem vaguely inept and shouty.

        • Because there’s a fundamental policy difference about the role of the state. Condensing wildly, Labour think the state should do everything. The LDs think there’s a role for the state or private sector depending on what works best. This influences policy though obviously in some areas they overlap. The idea that the LDs are centre left is quite wrong. They can be centre right on some things and centre left on others.

  22. Oh, and to refer back to the OP, “ever” is an undefined point in time. I’d say that they stand an extremely good chance of being re-elected before the heat death of the universe.

  23. His speech was quite well delivered and sincere but not exactly electrifying. I think he’s got chills that are multiplying and if he’s not careful he’ll be losing control. He’d better shape up.

  25. I think part of the problem lies with the electorate. With all the right wing anti immigration divisive shite of the past few years I think a lot of traditional Labour voters have realized that the Tories of today actually better represent their personal views.

    • I’m sure you’re right. The point of the party was to fight for better terms and conditions and wages for working people. Not all the other stuff which preoccupies them now.

  26. Interesting-looking 5-part doc about the Blair Brown years on Monday.

    Should be quite good as its by the same people who did the Thatcher: A Very British Revolution a couple of years back

  27. Thanks for the heads up, I’ll be extremely interested to watch that. I do think if Blair hadn’t tarnished his reputation with Iraq he’d be widely considered the UK’s best post-WW2 Prime Minister. (Cue the glib sarcasm, but for many people those images of the crying children with their limbs blown off or their faces disfigured will never go away.)

    • @Gary

      Aren’t you forgetting Clement Attlee?

      Given all the visionary legislation he and his government pushed through in the 60s (legalized homosexuality and abortion being just two examples), I’d rate wilson (Brenda’s favourite of the 14 PMs she’s worked with) , ahead of him, too.

      • You’re quite right. I was forgetting about Atlee and thinking more about the Prime Ministers of my lifetime. I’m not so convinced about Wilson though. (But I’d be very open to the suggestion that I don’t know what I’m talking about.)

  28. Blair gave me the creeps. Corbyn gave me some hope. Starmer has given me nothing much (so far). Just saying.

    But more relevant is the fact that so many on this forum denounce political threads and then pitch in mightily when a political thread raises its head.

    • The Blair (and Brown) governments changed lives for the better. Corbyn was a thin-skinned thicko with a hard-on for violent extremists and anti-British authoritarian regimes abroad who nearly destroyed Labour permanently. Starmer has made huge steps to returning Labour to electability and may yet finish the task. He is unusual in politics, as an intelligent person who has had a real job.

      I think that summarises things. You’re welcome.

      • Corbyn consistently championed peaceful solution through dialogue, was awarded the Gandhi International Peace Award in 2013 for his “consistent efforts over a 30-year parliamentary career to uphold the Gandhian values of social justice and non‐violence” and also the Seán MacBride Peace Prize “for his sustained and powerful political work for disarmament and peace” in 2017.
        Blair was responsible for an illegal war against a foreign country that was no threat resulting in an estimated 200,000 civilian deaths (approx), the repercussions of which are still evident today. In November 2011, a war crimes tribunal of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission reached a unanimous conclusion that Blair and George W. Bush are guilty of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and genocide as a result of their roles in the 2003 Iraq War.

        Yet Corbyn hard “a hard-on for violent extremists” while Blair “changed lives for the better”? I think I spot a flaw in your summary.

        I’m very interested to see how Starmer fares. He is, as you say, an intelligent man -with centrist, albeit somewhat vague, policies- up against the most incompetent buffoon to ever hold the office of Pime Minister. I really hope he wins the next election.

        • Those sound like terribly prestigious awards, which is why you mention them: argument from authority, designed to make it sound like Corbyn is considered a man of peace, a big deal, a statesman, by big-deal, credible international bodies.

          They’re not, though. The Gandhi prize is awarded by an organisation run from a community centre in Bromley; it has no connection with either the Gandhi family or the much more famous prize of a nearly-identical name, awarded annually by the Indian government. (It’s almost like they named it so that people would assume it was both those things – I couldn’t possibly comment).

          The Macbride prize I don’t know so much about. I’ve never heard of it, but I note that its organisers once awarded it to themselves. It’s a real thing, but I’d say its prestige is pretty debatable. https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-has-the-media-ignored-good-news-about-jeremy-corbyn

          But like I say: you mention these awards because you want them to confer some kind of patina of authority on your view that he’s widely and internationally recognised by real expert authorities as a great statesman in pursuit of peace. I think that’s pretty doubtful, myself.

          And what’s the “Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal”? That would be an entirely self-appointed and unilateral project of Mahathir Mohamed, former Prime Minister of Malaysia and noted antisemite, who is also a “New World Order” conspiracy theorist. The soi-disant “tribunal” has no powers or jurisdiction, and concerns itself pretty much exclusively with the actions of Israel and the United States. In other words, it’s one guy’s opinions, with a fancy-sounding label applied to them.

          This just in: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea not a democracy. You can name anything whatever you like. It doesn’t mean it’s a thing.

          • Corbyn is a tremendous bridge builder. It’s just that he starts in the middle and endlessly builds his bridge to one bank of the river only.

            Wouldn’t share a platform with David Cameron and Gordon Brown during the Brexit referendum, because the Tories are unconscionable. Brought Hamas into parliament in the name of championing peaceful solution through dialogue.

            Here are some excerpts from the public, written charter of Hamas at the time Corbyn met with them. You be the judge of whether these are the guys to meet to foster a peaceful solution through dialogue (or refer to as “friends”). He may as well have sat down with the IDF – presumably that end of the discussion slipped his calendar.

            “Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.”

            “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”

            “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”

            “The day the enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews’ usurpation, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.”

            “Egypt was, to a great extent, removed from the circle of struggle [against Zionism] through the treacherous Camp David Agreement. The Zionists are trying to draw other Arab countries into similar agreements in order to bring them outside the circle of struggle. Leaving the circle of struggle against Zionism is high treason, and cursed be he who perpetrates such an act.”

            “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.”

            When Corbyn spent four days in the Middle East in 2010 he met with Hamas leaders, various pro-Palestinian organisations and precisely no one from Israel, prompting the observation that he had probably met with more people who had personally killed Israelis than actual Israelis.

            Regardless of what side of the argument you want to take, it’s perfectly clear that Jeremy Corbyn is not some sort of neutral intermediary looking to mediate between the two sides of the Arab/Israeli conflict in the name of peace. It’s entirely evident that he’s a campaigner for one side.

      • Starmer expelled Ken Loach from the Labour Party.
        What else does anybody need to know about the useless prick? (except that hell will have frozen over a long time before he gets even the slightest whiff of being PM).

          • The esteemed documentarian Albert Maysles is credited with the the quote ‘Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance’ .
            The right wing of the Labour Party are such a clear & nauseating example of this notion, particularly in their portrayal of those they disagree with, that it saves time to call a spade a spade.
            Starmer is useless, but he’s also unprincipled.
            Anybody with an IQ above room temperature can see he’ll never be PM.

            • I watched this discussion the other day. (It’s not very interesting, I wouldn’t bother.) One thing about it that surprised me was Ken Livingstone’s keen support for Starmer (“He’s coming over as a Prime Minister that could transform Britain for the better and his focus is on making life better for ordinary people”) and firm belief that he will win the next election (“If you said to me now would I bet a thousand pounds on Labour winning, yes I would.”).

        • Loach expelled himself, through continued membership of an organisation incompatible with Labour membership. It’s worth noting that Loach set up his own vanity party to campaign against Ed Miliband. His association with Labour is recent and an example of Corbyn functioning as a bam magnet, attracting an influx of cranks and anti-semites. If Loach would just set up another vanity party to draw them back out, I might revise my opinion of him as a cheerless waste of space.

  30. Well, nuanced or not, the debate won’t go away, because it reflects a perpetually manifesting fissure in the LP. Those hoping for a split in the party, which Starmer has done nothing but encourage, should be very careful about what they wish for. Which way would the unions and fellow travellers go in such a scenario? It might purify the party into a social democratic wing of. capital, ditching Corbyn et al, but it might very well be a much smaller party than it was under Corbyn. And, moreover, there is no comparable ideological split in the Tories.

    Corbyn lives on, despite the kind of vilification, usefully demonstrated for us again by Mr Cakes, as highly popular in his constituency (and therefore among those who know him best). He is a driving force in the Progressive International, of which I am a supporter.

    I did however enjoy the fact that Starmer cracked a grin when heckled. Clearly he didn’t recognise the hecklers even as members of his own party, an irrelevance. He wrong.

    My nuanced opinion? It ain’t over …

    • Perpetually Manifesting Fissure – many, many more from them later.

      PS. There was a very good camera shot of the heckler wasn’t there? And we heard every word absolutely clear as a bell. Interesting.

    • @chinstroker

      Given that he got elected, I would imagine JC was popular in his constituency. Sadly, the concerns of those who live in Islington bear very little resemblance to those of the Labour loyalists who abandoned the party in droves the December before last.

      Probably the only people who know JC better are those who work with him every day (i.e. the members of the Parliamentary Labour Party). Tellingly, they tried to get shot of him the first chance they got.

      Corbyn does indeed live on.

      Sadly, any chance – nugatory at best – Labour might have of getting into power while he does so are effectively dead in the water.

      • Perpetual north Islington bore slides in (worked there for years).

        Corbyn represents, effectively, Finsbury Park. Calling it Islington North tends to deceive a little: despite the borough’s reputation for leafy Patrick Nice loveliness, that only exists down on the southern border of the place, around Angel and no further north than Highbury Fields. Levels of deprivation get pretty high as you move upward. Corbyn’s constituency has a sizeable immigrant population of Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Somali extraction, and his attitude to foreign policy plays pretty well in those communities, on the whole. Add in the posh socialist contingent – Corbyn and his team’s exact demographic, in other words – and that’s his majority sewn up.

        I agree that Islington North’s concerns probably don’t look much like the Red Wall’s, but not particularly because of the stereotypical Islington dinner party reasons.

        • One thing that has always intrigued me:

          Back int’ 90s didn’t some of the New Labour crowd (the Blairs. Campbell, Mandelson, Dolly Draper) actually live in JC’s constituency and therefore have to vote for him and put his poster in their windows?

          PS. Corbyn has to die before Labour can win an election? Wow….

          • If JC possesses the telekinetic powers needed to compel his neighbours to put his posters in their windows and their Xs next to his name on ballot papers, I fear he is going to continue to walk among us for some time yet.

      • Look I don’t wan’t to get rude or anything, but the shouty, repetitive person here is mainly you. I am quite willing to withdraw from this topic, but if you don’t have what it takes to at least imagine what it might mean for the Labour Party (see my earlier post) to expel the whole of the left, then you really are just pissing in the wind. (translation: strengthening the case for the opposing view rather than your own). Now I am going to do my best to avoid getting into such a fruitless argument. Others can pick it up until it gets to a more productive debate. Hopefully a bit later.

        • What makes you think I would want Labour to expel “the whole of the left”? Members of other parties (eg Militant, Socialist Appeal etc.) and anti-Semites would pretty much cover the cranks attracted by Corbyn.

  31. One of the(many) podcasts I subscribe & listen to is Alexei Sayle.

    During a recent anti Starmer rant he said that he would prefer Labour to be an idealistic socialist opposition rather than a compromised Labour government.

    I believe that a lot of Labour Party members & activists share that opinion.

    • If the price of idealogical purity is spending perpetuity in opposition, what’s the point of anyone going into politics as they could never hope to change anything?

        • Can’t help you with Call Me Dave, but Blair’s legacy positives include minimum wage, a major role in peace in NI, major investment in more doctors, nurses, paternity leave, devolution ….. and so on. He also won 3 elections. 3 more than Corbyn in fact. Labour in the sense of a viable alternative to endless Tory rule.

          • Since I was able to vote I’ve endured governments from Callaghan to the present catastrophic incompetents. If I could have just one government back again it could only be the Blair Brown one. Better a competent centre left government than any of the alternatives we’ve had over the last forty years.

            • But it turned out they weren’t so very competent when it came to financial regulation.
              The banks and big finance ran rings around them, monster bonuses were trousered and then the bubble burst and the government had to bail them out.
              Not that a Tory government would have done better, as what paltry regulation the banks got under Blair was opposed by the Conservatives at the time. They were opposed to ANY regulation.

        • Genuine observation: the diff is that when I read that report, I just think “yeah, that bellend should have paid his taxes”.

          No “it’s an MSM conspiracy”, no “well, the Tories are worse”, no “present but not involved”, no “he didn’t really look at it properly”, no “that can’t be true, he’s an international man of peace”, no “£20,000 isn’t an enormous amount of money”.

          Because, ultimately, Blair is just a politician I once voted for. He’s not my personal North Star, nor should any politician be.

          And he should be accountable, as they all should.

          • absolutely agree. Ditto your point ‘He’s not my personal North Star, nor should any politician be’. Blair is neither the Messiah nor an evil warmonger. Much of what his government did domestically and especially in Northern Ireland is hugely to his credit; Iraq was a wilful and terrible set of decisions.

  32. What I can’t get my tiny mind around is the near-constant whinging and victim mentality from Tory backbenchers in safe seats about the woke culture and how you can’t say or do anything anymore. Well, you’ve got Brexit, you’ve ended Freedom of Movement, you’ve got your favourite idiot in No. 10 with a huge majority – when are you going to do some work?

    • I think it’s funny that these headbangers always form things called Research Groups. Most of them would cheerfully burn down every library in the world.

      Perhaps it’s because they’re the kind of blokes who spend their days saying, “Do your research!”

  33. I have no dog in the Labour fight so a genuine question – since the two halves hate each other more than they hate the Tories, why don’t they split and form a hard left party and a centre left social democratic party?

    • We’ve got that already Twang, Labour and the Lib Dems. They should get together, they might really change things.

      *this was another attempt at humour. Nothing to see here.

      • The Lib Dems and Labour are not the same but there is an overlap. But with Labour as currently constituted it would never work. If the hard left spun off to create Real Labour or something then it might.

    • Didn’t this happen, partially, in the eighties with the part of Labour leaving to form Social Democratic Party, who ended up merging with the Liberals? Things do change in politics, but there still seems to be room for one only left party in politics. And whichever section of the party they belong to, they still want to be under the Labour brand.

      The people who regard themselves as radical left certainly know that they would have little chance without Labour in their name. Corbyn has spent years voting against Labour, campaigning against the leadership and associating with its opponents, for example congratulating Galloway on defeating a Labour candidate. But he sticks with Labour as people vote for the party and he’s kept his seat for nearly forty years. Either pragmatism on his party of a lack of integrity and courage depending on your point of view.

      • Yes it did. Undone by the first past the post system, which is why some form of PR is required before real change happens. While we continue to disenfranchise the majority of voters we may well be stuck with a Tory government.

    • Perhaps a better way of putting this might be “why don’t the cranks attracted by Corbyn go back to their fringe organisations?” Because Labour gives them a bigger platform, even as their presence diminishes that platform.

  34. Sadly, Kier Starmer is playing the role of Neil Kinnock. His job is to purge the party of the extreme left and shape it into something more electable. He will emerge battered, bruised and an unlucky loser in the next election. After that, Labour will need someone to the right of their party to win enough seats to take a majority. That someone may not exist. It may be too late by a second election. Westminster may only be able to govern England and The Tories will have ditched up the rules.

  35. I very much doubt it, and so it seems that we are doomed to be serfs to Cocktavius’ despotic court of ineptitude, crookedness and greed. Bad times indeed. As for this winter, if it does do for him, what fresh shagnasty toff nightmare would emerge?

  36. With the Tory party’s thoughts surely already turning to the next election, wonder if they’ll do their time-honored thing of defenestrating a leader they see as having over-stepped the mark and/or being well past his/her sell by date?

    Since Labour only seem to inch ahead in the polls every time Starmer is forced to isolate with COVID (apparently now happened five times), they might be inclined/advised to start looking around earlier rather than later.

    Given both parties’ currently piss-poor leadership, surely also only a matter of time before the political chattering classes in the quality dailies start postulating about an alliance between the new Tory Red Wall MPs and their disaffected Labour moderate counterparts.

Leave a Reply