Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Assessing the mood amongst Labour pragmatists
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Assessing the mood amongst Labour pragmatists
For friendship and nostalgia, I had a dinner last week with 14 veteran campaigners who have mostly been with me in every campaign since 1997. Coincidentally or not, I think I was the only one at the table who had voted for Jeremy Corbyn. The others are pragmatic Labour campaigners who fight every election to win, and turned a safe Tory seat in 1992 (16% margin) into a perpetual marginal.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Oops !
If there were a leadership challenge and Corbyn was on the ballot, do you think he would win again?
It felt like I was the only Tory that had voted for Ken Clarke for leader in 2001
"Doesn't the Bible short circuit this by saying it is the innerant word of God and any alterations will bring down plague of famine or other appropriate disaster"
No. A few sects like to think that, but there are two separate and contradictory stories of the creation in the first few pages of Genesis. You're so last fifth century. It's full of useful advice and stories of a wandering, vengeful tribe, and then you've got the New Testament. Have you read that bit - you'll like Revelations
But Ken was such an oaf - if only he was prepared to modify his Europhilia. He'd have torn the party asunder if he were elected. But all ended well in 2005.
Having said that, Nick is surely right that pragmatism isn’t quite the same as centrism.
Hardly likely as that is what defines him. While I find his views repellent I have some respect for him, for sticking to them.
The same can't be said for frauds like John Major, or careerist trimmers like the hapless Sajid Javed.
I thought that applied to the whole Bible rather than just revelations.
Labour really need to square this circle. The solution to higher public spending cannot always be borrowing/stealing from our children. It may be higher taxes. SLAB get very little attention these days, even in the Scottish media, but pushing an additional penny in the £ to pay for at least some of what they want shows a road to credibility that Ed never found.
The likes of Miliband etc are generally perceived as well-intentioned if misguided but with Corbyn's extreme views on the country, stability, security and his shall we say interesting friends there is plenty to actually dislike about Corbyn. Let alone his decades of disloyalty to the pragmatic Labour cause.
I'm curious too about the penultimate line, Labour has never been led from the centre-right. Not only were Brown and Miliband definitely of the centre-left but Blair himself was still very much of the centre-left even if he was to the right of the Labour party as a whole. I think it subconsciously betrays a peculiar line of thinking to suggest that Labour is only now not being led by the "centre-right".
If at some point the membership had become disillusioned with Corbyn, then they might welcome a chance to express it. But they wouldn't like being pushed into it.
I simply cannot understand why expressing support for terrorism or terrorists is described as an "odd" view. No-one would describe some MP who in the past supported the Nazis or apartheid as having an "odd" view. Repellent would be more accurate. And, yet, standing shoulder to shoulder with people who have shot babies and blown up children is only seen as "odd" in the way that someone who thinks that standing on your head cures baldness might be said to have an "odd" view.
or "odd" as in quoting from the book of a mass murderer....Imagine if Osborne had quoted Mein Kampf in the budget.
To be fair to St John of Patmos, he was knocking on a bit, and he'd had a bit of a rough life.
the OT is basically the story of a wandering tribe of sinners and written by a wandering group of sinners. An example to all. The Muslims like the first five chapters where loads of smiting goes on. They're not so keen on the rest.
The NT is different - it's a story of the Jesus movement and sets a very high bar for non-sinners. I like the woman taken in adultery story. A rattling good read.
As with all, the Church decided on which books made it and which didn't.
At the moment Labour seem to be more than self indulgent, more interested in their principles (however otherworldly) than winning. The time when Chuka and his ilk are involved in the leadership again will be the time to start paying attention.
ICM (#EURef):
REMAIN 41 (-2)
LEAVE 43 (+2)
This in particular: "pragmatism isn’t quite the same as centrism".
I would say this. To win elections you need a coalition of 36+% of voters, ideally 40+%. You don't have to pitch for the centre to get them but it's a good idea tactically to do that because if you capture the centre you stop the other side from getting those votes and almost force them into a core-vote strategy, which will tend to be a losing one. To that extent I think it's always going to be pragmatic to try to win the centre ground.
However, when one says "centre" one doesn't mean a population of Nick Clegg clones but people who don't buy into left or right ideology and who judge parties primarily on the credibility of their leader and their economic policy.
I think a credible leader could come from any wing of the Labour Party. However, they can't have a history of apologising for the IRA.
The economic platform is tricky. You need to frame the economic debate in terms that Labour can win. I tend to think that you won't succeed in this unless the Tories help you, as they did in 1992. But in principle I think a (relatively) left-wing platform could win. I certainly think you could sell renationalisation of utilities if you present it as something that would benefit consumers and not just producers (and if you actually mean it).
Your second sentence makes me want to do a happy dance.
Remembering that our enemies are not discrete groups of people responding to concrete geopolitical realities. No instead the enemy is "hate" and "extremism" and that whilst the challenge of Muslim extremism is real, we can meet it with humanity, courage, and an omnipresent totalitarian surveillance state.
People need to stop pretending Western civilization is in some sort of crisis; it only strengthens Trump.
Early days yet.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/12/10/turning-on-taxes-the-tectonic-plates-of-scotlands-politics-are-moving/
The SNP have been even less ambitious than I anticipated.
https://twitter.com/MattBruenig/status/712091444421513217
Believe in BRITAIN!
Be LEAVE!
It's not a view many would approve of, but I can't see how it would mystify you. Labour has it's roots in class struggle rather than patriotism. It's not a huge step from that to see terrorists and soldiers as combatants rather than instinctively supporting the former and condemning the latter.
After all, Britain kills people too. Not only that, but we actively support people who if they were to carry out the activities we support across a border, we would designate as terrorists. To misquote a phrase, when you lie down with dogs, don't criticise others for having fleas.
Days like today show how important it is that political parties interested in winning power have to be sound on national security issues. Labour's current leadership is not sound on national security issues. That is what makes Labour unelectable.
Could someone like me accept a Labour leader to the left of me? Absolutely. Just as with Tony Blair I happily accepted one to the right of me. But there are certain no-no's that are non-negotiable. This is what Labour members have got to get to grips with. They might be happy to shrug things away; normal voters are not. If labour does want to win power that lesson has to be absorbed.
Tip: CHECK THE WARDROBE....
Utah caucus (it's online voting too) ends at 5 AM GMT, partial results may come out between 1-3 AM GMT when in-person voting begins and ends.
Expect a Cruz-Sanders victory with Trump 3rd in the low teens, it's WTA if Cruz gets more than 50%.
Arizona primary ends voting at 2 AM GMT.
Expect a Trump-Hillary victory, it's WTA for Trump.
Idaho caucus (democrats only) begins at 1 AM GMT.
Who knows?
Samoa should come sometime by tomorrow afternoon.
It just shows how utterly removed from reality Labour party members are. A real pragmatist, of course, would know that a party with a leader who has expressed consistent and vocal support for the IRA will never get close to power.
If they've been with you through the campaign last year when similar optimism led the party into a series of errors, I expect most of them must remember losing in Broxtowe and Gedling by huge amounts in 1992. They must also know we won Sherwood in 1992, but are nearly 5,000 votes behind the Tories.
They will also know the last boundary review removed Gedling (L) and Rushcliffe (C) and would have turned Nottingham South into a Tory-leaning marginal under 2010 results. Prob be a Tory seat by 5-7k if we apply 2015 results. Nottingham East, on the other hand, would probably have a Lab maj of only two or three thousand thousand. On top of that the results of any new review would be worse for Labour, given IER. Locally then, even if we did just as well as last time (we're doing significantly worse so far) we'd be down a seat, and struggling to hold another.
So If I were in your old friends position, I'd be more worried about losing the proposed Nottingham East and South seats locally than optimistic about gaining anywhere, let alone thinking about McDonnell as chancellor.
Complacency comes in many forms, and one of them is refusing to see how bad things are.
Later I gave it a lot more thought and concluded that if an election was to be held in the next month I would-for the first time in my life-vote for a Cameron led Tory Party.
Choosing your party is as much as anything deciding who you don't want. I loathe the right wing anti Cameron Tories even more than Farage so my first priority is to keep them out.
I don't like Corbyn either in character or for his priorities. I see him as an opportunist lacking talent or an ability to win but wanting the top job anyway. Rather like Miliband but without the heart.
No one else-least of all the Libs-can be trusted or have any chance of keeping the Johnson/IDS faction out. So it's got to be Cameron
Reinforces the view that McDonnell is the Corbyn falls under a bus next leader IMHO.
https://moustachemadness.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/adventures-the-black-island-left-toon.png
Do you think recent Conservative tribulations makes Corbyn's position any more at risk? If the Conservative Party (post-referendum) indulges in a civil war, Labour (with a better leader) could be in a very good position.
Shrieky Meeky will go into overdrive.
Today's events might push Trump up into the high teens in Utah, or not.
If support for McDonnell and all his baggage, however qualified, is what passes for middle of the road in the pragmatic wing of the party, it rather suggests that the rest of the party must be completely away with the fairies.
After all, Britain kills people too. Not only that, but we actively support people who if they were to carry out the activities we support across a border, we would designate as terrorists. To misquote a phrase, when you lie down with dogs, don't criticise others for having fleas.
UK have supported actively many "terrorists" over the years. Tories pretending they are whiter than white is a real hoot, try Yemen for a starter. Not heard Cameron say anything against his partners there yet other than yes we take cheques.
@davidtorrance: Reminded of Herbert Morrison's line about "socialism" being whatever a Labour gov does; SNP appear to think "progressive" is whatever SG does
Repetition on the scale you use it might make readers think you have OCD.
The best way to remove Corbyn early is if everyone sees him to be a failure but that relies upon the Tories not engaging in civil war.
I do wonder though about the insouciance on display. Where's the sense of urgency? "Either Corbyn will break through or he'll move on".
Meanwhile we wake up and find ourselves in the mid-2020s.
And Thatcher's friends, the Khmer Rouge
If the party wanted to win an election, it should have deposed it's last two leaders. It didn't. So whether it'll depose another leader who is even more unlikely to win an election is anyone's guess.
I expect Nick is right and that even with all engines on fire, the captain clearly incompetent, the co-pilot talking on the loudspeaker about the IRA and Mao while the stewards looking either manic, terrified or depressed, the prevailing mood on the Labour plane is that it'll all turn out alright, so best not disturb anything.
PS: We will find out very soon who the public believe are progressive party and even you surely know the answer. The rats are scrabbling for the list. Will be easy to play spot the losers.
PS, it should be Westminster Tory , they only have one.
Pinochet , we could be here all night.
REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST SEES GOP IN A WEAK POSITION - Stuart Stevens (R): “The simple truth is that there simply aren’t enough white voters in the America of 2016 to win a national election without also getting a substantial share of the non-white vote. Romney won 17 percent of the non-white vote. Depending on white voter turnout, a Republican needs between 25 percent and 35 percent of the non-white vote to win….Only 12 percent of Hispanics have a favorable view of [Donald] Trump with 77 percent unfavorable. Even among Hispanic Republicans, he has a 60 percent unfavorable ranking. Among African Americans, 86 percent have an unfavorable view of Trump. To have even a chance at winning a national election, a nominee must get 90-plus percent of their own party. But one out of every three Republicans view Trump unfavorably….In my view, Donald Trump, if he does claim the party’s mantle, would be a historically weak and vulnerable nominee. But let’s not kid ourselves. Even if John Kasich or Ted Cruz, the remaining two candidates, were to emerge, the advantage is still very much with the Democrats.“
https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/712300799850733568
(You can almost hear him muttering to his aide "Where the hell is Belgium")
Conversely, by the same token, it shows Trump would walk it on the demographics of 1980.
And in appreciation let me advise you that my first ARSE4EU referendum projection will be published exclusively on PB next Tuesday ....
Someone's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.
And will readers of the New York Times be penning lengthy letters to swing voters in Berkshire begging us to stay in the EU?
So Seanin what's your take on Osborne ?
that's 4cough Obama
In my diary!