Author Topic: Labour Election Hustings:What Do They Know? Do They Know Things? Let's Find Out!  (Read 42180 times)

pancreas

  • The islets of Langerhans are the very best islets
The vast majority of Labour members were (and are) pro-remain.  As are the vast majority of Labour voters.  It would’ve been difficult to argue that the party’s position on a second ref wasn’t popular in the party.

I genuinely think if those in denial on here went to visit a Labour club in the North East they’d get the surprise of their life.  Corbyn wasn’t unpopular simply because of Brexit.  Brexit had a role to play in Labour’s defeat.  The two are not intertwined.  Had Corbyn came out as the hardest of leavers, his unpopularity would still likely have led to defeat in those seats.

Again, this is the result of somehow thinking that every Labour vote under Corbyn means that the voter is a socialist.  They aren’t.  Just as every Labour vote under Blair didn’t make those voters all ‘third way’ centrists.  Voters can be tribal as well as ideological.  They also usually go for perceived competence (irrespective of whether or not the perception is valid). 

Take Bishop Auckland (mentioned above) as an example.  A Labour safe seat for a century (other than 1931 Labour have always won it comfortably). For all the talk about 2017 showing how beloved the party was, Labour took 48% of the vote.  Under Blair in 1997, they took 66%.  In 2005, it was still 50%.  Or Laura Pidcock’s former seat of NW Durham.  I know she’s popular on here (I like her - she was an excellent MP, and a Good Thing for the party generally).  She managed 53% in 2017.  Less than Labour’s share of 69% in 1997, and the 54% in 2005.  It is worth remembering NW Durham has been a Labour safe seat from its reformation in 1950 up to 2019. 

The point I’m making is that even at the ‘high water mark’ of Corbynism, the party was still not as popular as it was in the Blair era (or before) in those seats.  It wasn’t even as popular as it was in the dying days of Blairism.  To suggest that somehow a Starmer-led party wouldn’t have an excellent chance to recover those seats simply isn’t supported by historical voting evidence.  Posh gadgies in suits are usually equated with competence in the NE.  That doesn’t mean Starmer’s party would win everywhere - but in terms of the NE, they’ll take back every seat they lost.

There has been a steady decline in Labour's vote in those seats, since 1997. One might like to ask why that has been happening for 20 years, rather than just the last 3.

Buelligan

  • STOP being afraid
Great.  So then what is the point of electing a ‘socialist’ as Labour leader, if the MSM, establishment, friends of Israel etc simply attack them and stop them from winning?  “I’m going to vote for someone who ‘the man’ won’t let win” is an exercise in futility if you believe that the press & the illuminati wont allow a victory (I don’t, incidentally - I think that a dem. Socialist govt can be won regardless of the wankers in the press).  Blaming the MSM is a lot easier than admitting that a favourite politician isn’t as beloved as you might think.

I wanted to see Brown & Miliband win in 2010 & 2015.  I wanted to see Corbyn win in 2017 & 2019.  A Labour govt is worth fighting for regardless.  There was a lot more of what I would like to see in the 2017 & 2019 manifestos than the two previous ones - but that doesn’t mean that a Labour govt wouldn’t have been better for the country in all four of those elections.

I've already acknowledged, quite frequently, that the media will attack any good socialist leader.  I'm pretty sure that I mentioned it earlier today in this thread, along with the assertion that even the most stupid members of the electorate will begin to smell a rat after a while with this strategy and it will cease to work.  I've already said that, to avoid these attacks, there is a simple choice for Labour members - let the elite choose your Party Leader - then there'll be no more trouble.

If you think that's a good strategy, fill your boots.  I will oppose it.

And please stop misrepresenting and exaggerating what I've said, it's dishonest.

I don't blame people for being bitter and angry towards the centre or soft left and wanting nothing to do with them, I will certainly never forgive the likes of Streeting and Hodge who are genuinely despicable people, but I also desperately want to see a labour party in power as soon as possible, and one that promises to enact what is now the labour party programme, as mandated by the membership, is absolutely fine by me. I don't need ideological purity and I don't need 100% of what I want.

Cardenio I

  • Hasta la muerte, todo es vida
The point I’m making is that even at the ‘high water mark’ of Corbynism, the party was still not as popular as it was in the Blair era (or before) in those seats.  It wasn’t even as popular as it was in the dying days of Blairism.  To suggest that somehow a Starmer-led party wouldn’t have an excellent chance to recover those seats simply isn’t supported by historical voting evidence.  Posh gadgies in suits are usually equated with competence in the NE.  That doesn’t mean Starmer’s party would win everywhere - but in terms of the NE, they’ll take back every seat they lost.

I'm not convinced this bit is true. The decline in "red wall" seats is, as you've shown, a fairly long term phenomenon. Labour's base has shifted to educated city dwellers. This has been ongoing for some time and doesn't look to be going anywhere. Certainly, Corbyn's personal unpopularity did nothing to help with this, but I'm not sure what the basis is for thinking that Starmer stands a particularly good chance of winning them back.

Buelligan

  • STOP being afraid
Ok but you're NEVER going to get a "true socialist govt" in power because no such thing exists, there will always be compromises, Corbyn had to compromise on many issues, RLB would have to as well. I mean not two weeks ago people were briefly refusing to back her because of her "compromise" on anti semitism.. politics is all about compromise, and that compromise is about how much you are willing to give up of what you want for the power that means you will be able to enact some of what you want. If you think that RLB has a better/similar chance of winning the next election than Starmer then you are right to vote for her, however anyone that believes she has a significantly lower chance (whether that's because shes less competent, easier to destroy in the press, because people always vote for the "posh" white guy, it's irrelevant) would be right to vote for Starmer. The added factor of course being how much of the labour programme you think Starmer would be willing to compromise away, if it's 90% then you also probably shouldn't vote for him. However I don't believe for a second he will do that, he has stood in front of a 600k membership explicitly promising to maintain the same course. Unless you can point me to numerous examples of him being a liar then why would I believe he's lying?

The man accepted a knighthood, how much evidence of his willingness to compromise socialist ideas do you need?

even the most stupid members of the electorate will begin to smell a rat after a while with this strategy and it will cease to work. 

Honestly what are you basing this statement on? The stuff that they came out with for Corbyn was so transparently obviously (and often proveably) absurd but it made absolutely no difference to people believing it.

The man accepted a knighthood, how much evidence of his willingness to compromise socialist ideas do you need?

I said examples of where he lied not examples of where he compromised his ideas.

NoSleep

  • feat. Keith Jarrett and his singing parrot
    • Space Is The Place
I'm not convinced this bit is true. The decline in "red wall" seats is, as you've shown, a fairly long term phenomenon. Labour's base has shifted to educated city dwellers. This has been ongoing for some time and doesn't look to be going anywhere. Certainly, Corbyn's personal unpopularity did nothing to help with this, but I'm not sure what the basis is for thinking that Starmer stands a particularly good chance of winning them back.

What will win them back is being shat upon by the current government (already begun). I don't think they'll care much whether the leader is RLB or Starmer (so vote RLB to ensure there'll be some rebuilding in those constituencies).

Buelligan

  • STOP being afraid
Honestly what are you heading this statement on? The stuff that they came out with for Corbyn was so transparently obviously (and often proveably) absurd but it made absolutely no difference to people believing it.

If that's the case then there is literally no point in electing a leader or choosing policies because the wider electorate will do what they're told, so why worry about anything?

Why not just sit on our arses and wait for instructions from on high?

I said examples of where he lied not examples of where he compromised his ideas.

So selling out socialism doesn't count?

I'm not convinced this bit is true. The decline in "red wall" seats is, as you've shown, a fairly long term phenomenon. Labour's base has shifted to educated city dwellers. This has been ongoing for some time and doesn't look to be going anywhere. Certainly, Corbyn's personal unpopularity did nothing to help with this, but I'm not sure what the basis is for thinking that Starmer stands a particularly good chance of winning them back.

Reversion to the mean & (desperate) hope.  I absolutely take the point made by a couple of posters here that the trend in those seats had been on the slide for some time - and demographic & economic changes in those areas have roles to play.  But it’s hard to imagine Starmer reaching -60 approval ratings.  The press will find it a lot more tricky to have a real go at him than Corbyn (I’m not just talking politically).

A lot of voting is gut instinct/intuition as well as evidence-based.  My instinct tells me Starmer has a better chance of forming a govt than RLB. 

Edit: should RLB win the leadership I wouldn’t be unhappy, and would be happy to support her until after the next GE.  Everything beyond would depend on that result.

Buelligan

  • STOP being afraid
Reversion to the mean & (desperate) hope.  I absolute take the point made by a couple of posters here that the trend in those seats had been on the slide for some time - and demographic & economic changes in those areas have roles to play.  But it’s hard to imagine Starmer reaching -60 approval ratings.  The press will find it a lot more tricky to have a real go at him than Corbyn (I’m not just talking politically).

A lot of voting is gut instinct/intuition as well as evidence-based.  My instinct tells me Starmer has a better chance of forming a govt than RLB.

What?

Instinct.  The same thing which is telling you that Starmer is going to betray the party.  You think it regardless of evidence.  This doesn’t mean that the position is unsupportable.

Reversion to the mean & (desperate) hope.  I absolute take the point made by a couple of posters here that the trend in those seats had been on the slide for some time - and demographic & economic changes in those areas have roles to play.  But it’s hard to imagine Starmer reaching -60 approval ratings.  The press will find it a lot more tricky to have a real go at him than Corbyn (I’m not just talking politically).

A lot of voting is gut instinct/intuition as well as evidence-based.  My instinct tells me Starmer has a better chance of forming a govt than RLB. 

Edit: should RLB win the leadership I wouldn’t be unhappy, and would be happy to support her until after the next GE.  Everything beyond would depend on that result.

This. I just don't think RLB has as good a chance of winning and is going to be tarred with the same stuff as Corbyn. I would support and campaign for her if she wins, and that goes for whoever wins in future as Labour is the only game in town for getting the policies we want.

If that's the case then there is literally no point in electing a leader or choosing policies because the wider electorate will do what they're told, so why worry about anything?

Why not just sit on our arses and wait for instructions from on high?


That wasn't the point - you said that people would eventually "smell a rat" at some point when enough bullshit has been made up and I just asked what you were basing that statement on because there is absolutely nothing to suggest it's true?


Quote
So selling out socialism doesn't count?

Well it doesn't count as a "lie" does it?

I mean I wouldn't accept a knighthood in a million years but I don't believe that someone that accepts a knighthood couldn't possibly also believe in nationalising the rail industry and enacting the green new deal, for example.

It has to be said, there is polling data in the North of England to back what I’m saying re Starmer too.  I doubt it’ll be accepted as evidence (though I’m yet to see any evidence favouring other candidates).  Ipsos MORI have found his favourability rating amongst Northern voters is +14.  RLB’s is -12.  His rating amongst leave voters is negative; -15.  RLB’s is -31 amongst the same group. 

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/low-public-awareness-all-labour-leadership-candidates-although-keir-starmer-starting-stronger

I mean I wouldn't accept a knighthood in a million years but I don't believe that someone that accepts a knighthood couldn't possibly also believe in nationalising the rail industry and enacting the green new deal, for example.

Clement Attlee became a hereditary peer after resigning as Labour leader.  I understand the 1st Earl Attlee did a bit of nationalising in his time.

Starmer is setting out his party reform plans today - https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1224662160166604801

Hollow and watered down, as expected.

It's a concern that he's comfortable in his campaign just paying lip service to left policies and reforms, shows his team are confident he's likely coasting this.

The RLB campaign somehow needs to step up a level.

Fambo Number Mive

  • Golden Member
  • *****
The latest "HOW DARE YOU CRITICISE NEW LABOUR" from the Labour right: https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/1224662213228662785

Apologies if this is the wrong thread for it.

Endicott

  • I've done no research
Still don't understand why Campbell wasn't thrown out for saying he'd vote Lib Dem. It's quite obvious they want the party back, which is why the message the membership send back has to be a very emphatic fuck you Alistair. Which is why is has to be RLB.

Not sure picking an unpopular leader that will lose the next election is the best way to say - fuck you - maybe it's electing a leader that might win, and do so on a left wing programme. If that's someone Centrists can feel comfortable with because they look and speak a certain way (always more important to them than actual policy) then that just makes a victory more likely.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2020, 06:50:24 PM by Armin Meiwes »

king_tubby

  • Spit roasted by Latin Kings
Still don't understand why Campbell wasn't thrown out for saying he'd vote Lib Dem.

He was.

Yeah wasn't that a whole massive story "look at how its ok to say Hitler was right and mein kampf is my favourite book but if you vote lib dems you get kicked out of the party" type thing.

Starmer is setting out his party reform plans today - https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1224662160166604801

Hollow and watered down, as expected.

What's wrong with this exactly? Seems to be some positive things there, if not heavy on details, which you wouldn't expect at this point anyway.

More democratic selection and policy making is good, and positive mentions of unions, mobilization of the membership more effectively.

It's hardly 'let's go back to centrism' is it? nor is it 'let's do what Corbyn did' which would be met with ridicule.


What's wrong with this exactly? Seems to be some positive things there, if not heavy on details, which you wouldn't expect at this point anyway.

More democratic selection and policy making is good, and positive mentions of unions, mobilization of the membership more effectively.

It's hardly 'let's go back to centrism' is it? nor is it 'let's do what Corbyn did' which would be met with ridicule.

Which has been entirely the point.  Vague nice sounding ideas: but don't worry we'll get full clarification of them at some stage.

How does it compare to this https://labourlist.org/2020/01/long-bailey-backs-open-selections-in-democratic-revolution-plan/

It is amazing the times we need left wing socialist policies more than ever is the time right wing fascism keeps popping up. I hate people so much.

No you don't. If you did you'd be pleased about the fascism.

What will win them back is being shat upon by the current government (already begun).

I don't think it will. The government has already spent 10 years shitting on the population of places like Stoke and there is no sign whatsoever of the people turning against them.

Which has been entirely the point.  Vague nice sounding ideas: but don't worry we'll get full clarification of them at some stage.

How does it compare to this https://labourlist.org/2020/01/long-bailey-backs-open-selections-in-democratic-revolution-plan/

Only if you assume the worst. RLB hasn't been very forthcoming on most things either. How exactly the selection process will work is not included in either proposal is it? Both are backing democratisation of the process and more membership involvement. I don't see how they will find way of doing the opposite of that? It's not a plan for Blairism is it. I'd give them both the benefit of the doubt until they actually do something wrong rather than try to come up with hidden motives for everything


Tags: