Labour Party Desolation v2: a beige loafer stamping on a human face forever

[Kelvin]

We're going in circles because you keep swerving around the point.  The point is this - Corbyn's language and framing were on the nail, because he was genuine.

I'm not swerving that point, I just think it's irrelevant. Corbyn is one man, I'm talking about the party, it's (left wing) spokespeople, and the wider way that the leadership team (as opposed to just Corbyn) selected and defined their policies.

The fact that they were is evidenced by the unprecedented support that rallied to him, ordinary people, many not members, that recognised real when they saw and heard it.

But it wasn't enough. And what I'm suggesting would in no way have alienated those people (because the policies and values would have remained the same), but just made the polices more appealing and relatable to a larger section of the public.

Pretending that there was some technical fault with Corbyn's offer, rather than the barefaced sabotage which everyone saw is risible birdy-pointing.  People who present language and framing as a significant reason why Corbyn fell or a criticism of his leadership are engaging in that activity.

I haven't done that. I've repeatedly agreed that the single biggest reason we lost was because of sabotage and lies. It's frustrating to have repeated that so many times, and yet still have it implied that I think it's largely Corbyn's fault. However, unless you believe that Corbyn's leadership was utterly without fault, you must accept that some things could have been handled better. And if some things could have been handled better, it is not "risable birdy-pointing" for me to cite an example, even if it was a much smaller problem than centrist sabotage and media misinformation.   

EDIT: In fact, it doesn't have to be about winning/losing an election, just whether it would win us more votes and seats, fullstop. Even if we had won the election, it would still be legitimate to argue that we could have won more votes by refining our message. 

Language and framing do matter but in this situation, their value is to communicate a reality.  Corbyn did that in spades.  Centrist Labour can't because it isn't a reality, in the sense that it doesn't genuinely make a left wing offer.  Using adspeak to sell shit to mugs only works for a while[nb]on enough people to make it a worthwhile grift[/nb], that while has already been used up.  This is why we lost Scotland.

And this is the problem. We are clearly talking about different things, since what I'm talking about would be "communicating reality", just as clearly as possible. I'm not talking about lying, or focus grouping everything, or trying to be down with the kids. I'm simply saying we should communicate more clearly and persuasively. Which is clearly something I have failed at here.   

[thugler]

I am in agreement with both Kelvin and Buelligan here. I think it's very fair to say that Labour policy and its expression of that policy in the run-up to GE2017 was clear and appealing to the public, and also that had the party not had a toxic NEC attempting to destroy the Corbyn initiative, that there is a significant possibility that Labour might have won that election.

I also think it is very fair to say that, with hindsight obviously, the decision of conf 2018 to push for a second ref was a mistake[nb]one which I agreed with at the time as a reasonable compromise, but I didn't realise it would be seen by the red wall as a betrayal[/nb] which hampered Labour considerably, and that in the run up to GE2019 Labour's policy and expression of that policy was less focused than in GE2017, and in some case jumbled and a little incoherent. It does not seem unreasonable to me to comment on this and suggest it could have been and should have been done better.

That is not to say that this was the cause of the GE2019 defeat. That has already been analysed to death as down to the 2nd ref policy and the smearing of Corbyn in the whole of the national media and everywhere else.

Not so much the 2nd ref policy, but the inability to offer the full hard brexit policy that the tories did, and labour rightly never would. Any other brexit policy labour had gone with would have had the same or an even worse result, every option was terrible. This idea that pro brexit voters would have come around for a soft brexit which would be denounced as BINO, or that droves of remain voters would not have been turned off as well is fantasy. The 2nd ref thing is a convinient thing to pin it on, let's not forget it was the membership who were also in favour of this.

[Endicott]

Not so much the 2nd ref policy, but the inability to offer the full hard brexit policy that the tories did, and labour rightly never would. Any other brexit policy labour had gone with would have had the same or an even worse result, every option was terrible. This idea that pro brexit voters would have come around for a soft brexit which would be denounced as BINO, or that droves of remain voters would not have been turned off as well is fantasy. The 2nd ref thing is a convinient thing to pin it on, let's not forget it was the membership who were also in favour of this.

As usual, I think you're talking complete shit.

[JaDanketies]

I think the voters would have been amenable to a soft Brexit and it's a big shame in retrospect that we didn't win the custom union vote. I would say that most leave voters were not voting for a hard Brexit. But maybe nowadays we're polarised, and remainers and leavers alike would've never accepted compromise, which has led to the current situation.

[thugler]

We're going in circles because you keep swerving around the point.  The point is this - Corbyn's language and framing were on the nail, because he was genuine.  The fact that they were is evidenced by the unprecedented support that rallied to him, ordinary people, many not members, that recognised real when they saw and heard it.

Pretending that there was some technical fault with Corbyn's offer, rather than the barefaced sabotage which everyone saw is risible birdy-pointing.  People who present language and framing as a significant reason why Corbyn fell or a criticism of his leadership are engaging in that activity.

Language and framing do matter but in this situation, their value is to communicate a reality.  Corbyn did that in spades.  Centrist Labour can't because it isn't a reality, in the sense that it doesn't genuinely make a left wing offer.  Using adspeak to sell shit to mugs only works for a while[nb]on enough people to make it a worthwhile grift[/nb], that while has already been used up.  This is why we lost Scotland.

It's simplistic in the extreme to suggest Corbyn did virtually everything right and only nefarious cheating/smearing/sabotage meant he failed. He's a nice man who espoused decent social democratic policies which would not be considered outlandish whatsoever in other parts of europe. We need to move the conversation on from denial of any mistakes he and those around him made and endlessly protecting him from criticism. Not everyone who thinks he made mistakes is a 'centrist cunt', there is a lot more of a spectrum of views then people are willing to believe. Some of his biggest supporters and those who campaigned for him are willing to pick out what went wrong in the campaign including in language and framing. Blaming the media and internal sabotage are not the end of the story, and poor media treatment is always a certainty.

[Blinder Data]

All you and your ilk's fault.

As usual, I think you're talking complete shit.

Must posters in this thread insist on dismissing points in a simplistic insulting way, just because they don't come from die-in-the-wool Corbyn supporters? It's a very childish and counter-productive way of going about things.

[Endicott]

I think the voters would have been amenable to a soft Brexit and it's a big shame in retrospect that we didn't win the custom union vote. I would say that most leave voters were not voting for a hard Brexit. But maybe nowadays we're polarised, and remainers and leavers alike would've never accepted compromise, which has led to the current situation.

Precisely, but you are wasting your time.

[thugler]

I think the voters would have been amenable to a soft Brexit and it's a big shame in retrospect that we didn't win the custom union vote. I would say that most leave voters were not voting for a hard Brexit. But maybe nowadays we're polarised, and remainers and leavers alike would've never accepted compromise, which has led to the current situation.

Even if we had won that indicative vote it wouldn't have meant anything, it wasn't a binding thing.

Leave and remain were polarized in the lead up with both sides less open to compromise as it went on, only 1 party had the ability to offer that lack of compromise and win the election. Labour voters were hopelessly split. I'm pretty sure there was polling of leavers that suggested they wanted a hard brexit or even no deal, soft brexit was not a popular option. Again, Labour would have also lost remainers who didn't want to vote for any version of brexit.

[thugler]

Must posters in this thread insist on dismissing points in a simplistic insulting way, just because they don't come from die-in-the-wool Corbyn supporters? It's a very childish and counter-productive way of going about things.

It's actually worse than that, I was pretty much a dyed in the wool corbyn supporter, campaigned for him at 2 elections, and saw him speak. However I was always in it for the policies alone really. When his popularity slumped and the publics mind was made up I knew it was going to be hard. Every conversation i had trying to get people to vote Labour was about convincing them of the value of doing so despite him.

[Paul Calf]

Even if we had won that indicative vote it wouldn't have meant anything, it wasn't a binding thing.

Leave and remain were polarized in the lead up with both sides less open to compromise as it went on, only 1 party had the ability to offer that lack of compromise and win the election. Labour voters were hopelessly split. I'm pretty sure there was polling of leavers that suggested they wanted a hard brexit or even no deal, soft brexit was not a popular option. Again, Labour would have also lost remainers who didn't want to vote for any version of brexit.

Do you think the polling would have been different if the consequences of 'hard Brexit' had been clearly explained to them?

[thugler]

Do you think the polling would have been different if the consequences of 'hard Brexit' had been clearly explained to them?

No, as they had been over and over and people didn't give a shit. People are still absolutely baying for it, it will take years for them to realise it was a terrible idea and they may never admit it.

[Buelligan]

I haven't done that. I've repeatedly agreed that the single biggest reason we lost was because of sabotage and lies. It's frustrating to have repeated that so many times, and yet still have it implied that I think it's largely Corbyn's fault. However, unless you believe that Corbyn's leadership was utterly without fault, you must accept that some things could have been handled better. And if some things could have been handled better, it is not "risable birdy-pointing" for me to cite an example, even if it was a much smaller problem than centrist sabotage and media misinformation.   

I'm not doing that, don't imply it but if I am it's not what you're saying?

Don't worry, I wasn't saying you were - I was saying that people that do it - like the person in the original quote that we were discussing - are.

And, you know, I did ask you earlier in the conversation what you meant by this

And what I'm suggesting would in no way have alienated those people (because the policies and values would have remained the same), but just made the polices more appealing and relatable to a larger section of the public.

the first time you said it.  Some specifics because, otherwise, it's very bigger prams.  If we're thinking that some of the amazeballs folks that train Keith on how to come across as human should get on the job, I'm voting not a good idea.

[BlodwynPig]

Must posters in this thread insist on dismissing points in a simplistic insulting way, just because they don't come from die-in-the-wool Corbyn supporters? It's a very childish and counter-productive way of going about things.

Adult in the Room speaks.

Sod off. It's very simple. You and your ilk screwed us and you are now reaping what you sowed with all those "childish games" of tittle tattle.

[imitationleather]

No, as they had been over and over and people didn't give a shit. People are still absolutely baying for it, it will take years for them to realise it was a terrible idea and they may never admit it.

Well quite. Once it was widely accepted by all sides that there was no scenario where a hard Brexit wouldn't result in damage to the economy the trope that Leavers started to come out with was that we've become soft from having it too easy for too long in this country and a period of hardship would do us good.

It's impossible to win against this kind of cognitive dissonance. It's just a shame I have to share a world with these people.

[Kelvin]

If we're thinking that some of the amazeballs folks that train Keith on how to come across as human should get on the job, I'm voting not a good idea.

I'm not, and I've repeatedly said that's not what I mean. I'm just talking about explaining ourselves in a digestible, engaging way. Other people like Endicott seem to have understood my point, so I don't know how much clearer I can be. There are ways to phrase or frame policies that make them stick in the public mind, or crash and burn horribly. Core pillars of a political platform should be simple, streamlined, relatable, and lacking in caveats as much as possible. Labour's Brexit positioning was the worst possible position because it was so heavily caveated that, to someone only casually engaged with politics, it was not clear what the policy actually was, or what the Labour Brexit position was in the greater sense. Even before the media had lied about it, the actual positioning was a mess - which only made their job easier. That's a specific example, and one I've given several times before.

[Endicott]

I don't even think the two of you are talking about the same thing. It took me until a couple of posts ago to finally cotton on to Buelligan's point, which is that many of the centrist LP MPs and party workers, who sabotaged the Corbyn initiative, are now saying in bad faith that it was his fault for having a poor presentation. Well I agree that they are and condemn them for it.

Whereas you are, in good faith, suggesting that a better presentation would be a good thing. You are not laying poor presentation on Corbyn himself and you are not saying it was even like the third reason for failing in the GE, let alone the most important one. It's just a thing, that could be improved. Nor are you suggesting that this better presentation is likely to come from Starmer or his team.

These kind of misunderstandings plague the left, and they make me despair. You are both on the same fucking side.

[pigamus]

And why is it always Corbyn himself who gets the blame for all that? What about Seumus Milne and Karie Murphy and so on? He wasn't running the party by himself.

[Blinder Data]

Adult in the Room speaks.

Sod off. It's very simple. You and your ilk screwed us and you are now reaping what you sowed with all those "childish games" of tittle tattle.

Please tell me the ways in which I "screwed" you. Does posting critical comments about Corbyn in this thread count as sabotage? I took part in door-knocking sessions during the last two general election campaigns, which was at least a bit helpful. Maybe I should've sat on my arse and typed pithy one-liners instead...?

[Paul Calf]

The far right are fucking shitting themselves at our level or organisation and solidarity. I can hear them quaking.

[notjosh]

I don't comment much on these threads because it can get a bit aggressive, but thought I'd throw my opinion into the balance for what it's worth.

I totally get where Kelvin and others are coming from. As someone who dearly loved Corbyn and was a bit heartbroken by the way he was treated by large sections of the British public, I don't think his communication skills were above criticism. Of course he was massively hampered by the media and the right-wing contingent of his own party, to the point that I'm not sure winning an election was ever really on the cards, but he could still have done a better job of communicating to working class Brexit voters.

It's from 2017, but one example that sticks in my mind is the famous 'wall of gammon' debate where a parade of plain-talking Yorkshiremen heckled him on his refusal to blithely press t'red button and nuke the shit out of anywhere a bit sandy. Corbyn of course took the reasonable and compassionate stance that there are almost no circumstances under which any sane person would press it, and made a lot of sensible points about international co-operation and diplomatic processes. However, as the exchange went on he increasingly started to look like a rabbit in the headlights and by the time the last person asked him the same question, he basically did a dry gulp and a nervous shake of the head when asked to comment. I think he was trying to indicate that he'd already answered the question and wasn't having anymore of that nonsense, but it was clear from the laughter of many in the audience that they saw it as a pathetic capitulation.

I do sympathise with him, given the insane levels of vitriol he was facing, but if he's ever going to get anything into the skull of those thick cunts he needed to attack the question head on and turn it into an issue of national pride. If international diplomacy is important, why couldn't Britain 'lead the world' in promoting unilateral disarmament? Rather than banging on about all those forrin' lives what he wanted to save, how about making it an issue of BRITISH safety, contrasting Labour's approach of national strength through diplomacy with the Conservative's reckless alienation of international partners, which puts all of us (HARD WORKING BRITS) at risk?

Obviously being a bit glib, but the point is that I think he should have found a way of communicating with these pricks that highlighted the genuine courage and radical vision of the Corbyn project, rather than sounding (to them) like a mealy-mouthed surrender. Most of them still wouldn't have listened of course, but getting through to just a small percentage could have made a difference.

[thugler]

Labour's Brexit positioning was the worst possible position

Not only do I think it was the best possible, (albeit still terrible and poorly explained/communicated as you point out) I don't really understand what other position Labour could have credibly taken. Their membership were strongly behind remain or 2nd referendum (this wasn't even enough for some!), while brexit voters of all stripes were being offered full hard brexit by the tories, and had already denounced anything less (including the May deal) as brexit in name only. The idea they would accept something softer still than that is nonsense. Please explain what the best policy was? a pivot to no deal?

[JaDanketies]

stuff

I think it comes down to how he was a nice guy who wanted people to feel like their concerns were listened to. In retrospect, you still need to be a little nasty to succeed in politics. He came so close, but he had failed to purge the party like everyone said he was doing.

If he'd have said "you guys who want to wipe out a bunch of innocent souls are obscene," then maybe he could've at least drawn a line under it.

[BlodwynPig]

Please tell me the ways in which I "screwed" you. Does posting critical comments about Corbyn in this thread count as sabotage? I took part in door-knocking sessions during the last two general election campaigns, which was at least a bit helpful. Maybe I should've sat on my arse and typed pithy one-liners instead...?

slow hand clap

doff's hat

[phantom_power]

#StarmerOut is trending on Twitter and centrists, without irony, are saying people should stop the petty bickering, back the elected leader of the party and shut up, and that to do otherwise is enabling the Tories. Short memories, these cunts

[BlodwynPig]

#StarmerOut

[Buelligan]

I don't even think the two of you are talking about the same thing. It took me until a couple of posts ago to finally cotton on to Buelligan's point, which is that many of the centrist LP MPs and party workers, who sabotaged the Corbyn initiative, are now saying in bad faith that it was his fault for having a poor presentation. Well I agree that they are and condemn them for it.

Whereas you are, in good faith, suggesting that a better presentation would be a good thing. You are not laying poor presentation on Corbyn himself and you are not saying it was even like the third reason for failing in the GE, let alone the most important one. It's just a thing, that could be improved. Nor are you suggesting that this better presentation is likely to come from Starmer or his team.

These kind of misunderstandings plague the left, and they make me despair. You are both on the same fucking side.

Yes, absolutely but we all know that better anything (almost anything) is better.  Not a revelation.  If that's the only point Kelvin is making, then yup.

[Thursday]

Starmerona

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54148974

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer is self-isolating after a member of his household "showed possible symptoms of the coronavirus", the party has said.

The person displaying symptoms has had a test and Sir Keir is now awaiting the results "in line with NHS guidelines", they added.

The Labour leader will not be speaking in Monday's Commons debate on the government's post-Brexit plans.

However, he is not reported to have shown any coronavirus symptoms.

Sir Keir - who is due to address the TUC Congress on Tuesday - found out about the concerns over the member of his household following an appearance on LBC radio on Monday morning.

A Downing Street spokesman said: "The prime minister has spoken to the leader of the opposition this morning and gave best wishes to him and his family."

[Thursday]

Also today the liberals are very excited because Milliband (Their spiritual god) Owned Boris Johnson in his parliamentary speech today, apparently still under the illusion that this will have any effect on anything whatsoever.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

'Legislative hooliganism', another whizz cracker from Man of the People Ed Miliband. That rejoinder is going to be echoing round pubs across the nation tonight as they whimper into their sanitized booths.

[Johnny Yesno]

It's from 2017, but one example that sticks in my mind is the famous 'wall of gammon' debate where a parade of plain-talking Yorkshiremen heckled him on his refusal to blithely press t'red button and nuke the shit out of anywhere a bit sandy. Corbyn of course took the reasonable and compassionate stance that there are almost no circumstances under which any sane person would press it, and made a lot of sensible points about international co-operation and diplomatic processes. However, as the exchange went on he increasingly started to look like a rabbit in the headlights and by the time the last person asked him the same question, he basically did a dry gulp and a nervous shake of the head when asked to comment. I think he was trying to indicate that he'd already answered the question and wasn't having anymore of that nonsense, but it was clear from the laughter of many in the audience that they saw it as a pathetic capitulation.

I do sympathise with him, given the insane levels of vitriol he was facing, but if he's ever going to get anything into the skull of those thick cunts he needed to attack the question head on and turn it into an issue of national pride. If international diplomacy is important, why couldn't Britain 'lead the world' in promoting unilateral disarmament? Rather than banging on about all those forrin' lives what he wanted to save, how about making it an issue of BRITISH safety, contrasting Labour's approach of national strength through diplomacy with the Conservative's reckless alienation of international partners, which puts all of us (HARD WORKING BRITS) at risk?

Obviously being a bit glib, but the point is that I think he should have found a way of communicating with these pricks that highlighted the genuine courage and radical vision of the Corbyn project, rather than sounding (to them) like a mealy-mouthed surrender. Most of them still wouldn't have listened of course, but getting through to just a small percentage could have made a difference.

I remember that too and I remember thinking he should have said something along the lines of 'We're pissing money up the wall on that out-of-date junk when we should be spending it on protecting our infrastructure from cyber attacks, you stupid gammon cunts.' But in his kinder, gentler way, obvs.