Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Can Labour really sleepwalk another 3 and a half years into di
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Can Labour really sleepwalk another 3 and a half years into disaster?
Lincolnshire has a habit of producing earthquakes. One in 1185 was powerful enough to badly damage Lincoln Cathedral. A more recent example, centred near Market Rasen at about 1am on 27 Feb 2008, was strong enough to wake people across large parts of the North and Midlands. To go by the reporting, the Sleaford & North Hykeham by-election didn’t generate similar tremors. The reporting is wrong; politics’ tectonic plates continue to move.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
This post is sponsored by my £20 at 10/1 on Mr Starmer being next leader.
But even if Corbyn must go, what is the alternative? Corbynites will remind us that the more right-wing or Tory-lite leaders, Miliband and Brown, both led Labour to electoral defeat. Mainstream Labour supporters will despair that Angela Eagle and Owen Smith turned out to be even worse than Corbyn.
Sponsored by my £25 at 100/1 on Ed Balls.
All your facts are correct but ...
The Conservatives are led by a Remainer who is going to implement Brexit. Ukip voters therefore lack an urgent purpose at the moment.
The LDs are going for the embittered Remainers. Sod Democracy, we know best.
But Labour represent whom?
Brexit may not be on everyone's mind but on a December day with the result a foregone conclusion who is going to bother to vote?
And even worse, who is going to go out and vote "Don't Know", because that is Labour's position. And that is their position on many other things because they are split down the middle now, and never the twain shall meet.
Leigh will be a very telling by election, anyone have ideas on possible dates? Andy Burnham's shameless shift to immigration control and economic subsidy/protective tariffs is astute. It is in keeping with the times though.
One or two people on here salivating at the prospect of the extinction of the Labour Party it would appear so nothing unusual in that.
I wouldn't take the S&NH result or even a YouGov poll as symptomatic of anything new and dramatic. Labour is still able to win and win big in some of its heartlands and I'd need to see some evidence of a big loss in the 2018 London local elections to convince me we were in anything like a different phase.
As in the 1980s, Labour has been driven back to its heartlands - the question of its recovery and renewal, which seems so obvious to many of us not in support of the Party, seems less obvious to those who do back it.
The problem remains, as it has since 2008 (arguably), the absence of a coherent alternative economic strategy. The centre-right embraced austerity as the response to years of big Government spending and profligacy but now seems to be abandoning that in favour of big Government spending in the name of reflation.
The re-emergence of protectionism in some quarters in a mistaken belief that can somehow "protect" domestic jobs threatens a free trade concensus which has lasted decades. The world is changing perhaps more rapidly and unexpectedly than most predicted but it requires audacious and nimble thinking to keep up with that and while the Right aren't covering themselves in glory on that front, the Left has said almost nothing.
The reaction to the LEAVE vote and to the Trump victory doesn't need to be instant and inflammatory - it ought to be measured and reflective while at the same time reminding those who have followed the LEAVE and Trump banners that their expectations need to be met and considering the response when (inevitably) they aren't.
As for the article, its a pretty hilarious mix of outrageous hyperbole and mundanity. The Sleaford result has a wider significance summing to the precise total of the square root of cluck all.
How would Jeremy be able to explain that, and how dozens of MPs feel as they start to realise their own seats are under threat if they stick with Corbyn?
McConell's wife is now part of the Trump cabinet
I was more politically interested in the 1980s, and voted labour then. Even when Michael Foot was leader, But I remember Jezza then as a camp follower with no original thoughts. Already a throw-back to the 1960s, a bag carrier for Ken Livingstone
Suddenly, in 2015, this old relic is left when the labour tide recedes and is revered as an old sage.
To the young, he is a wonder. A font of ancient wisdom and straight talking, In reality, he remains the wreckage from a bygone era. The ossified remains from history.
Yes, Labour can recover. But not under Jeremy. Not while older voters vote.
Or is he happier enjoying some time out, with a little media work paying the same as an MP salary for less effort and less hassle?
I suppose it's conceivably possible, although somewhat unlikely, which is why Betfair's odds of circa 2/1 against there being no overall majority at the next GE appears to offer outstanding value in my opinion, especially having regard to the Tories' already wafer thin majority and their seemingly hell bent determination to continue to fall out with one another at the top. Plus Mrs. May is as yet an unknown quantity .... initial indications are not that brilliant, but who else is there? Answers on a very small postcard please.
Labour's problems are twofold. They have a leader who due to his dodgy past is completely unelectable and they have a policy spread that only a small minority wish to vote for. That begs two questions - (1) would it be possible to win with the same policies under a different leader and (2) are they likely to change the leader? The answer to both these questions is unfortunately no. Because Labour members are not sleepwalking to disaster. A majority of them have made a conscious choice that they will stick two fingers up at the electorate and vote for people who represent their personal views even though to the majority of the population and a large chunk of Labour's own membership - cf Roger, SO, Rochdale Pioneers - hanging out with murderers and Holocaust Deniers and being implicated in the coverup of child sexual abuse should be automatic disqualifications from politics.
There are members of the Labour left, e.g. Jon Trickett, who don't quite carry Corbyn's baggage in this regard. In theory at least, Labour's fortunes might improve under one of them. But this is still a group more concerned about the future of Israel and Palestine than it is about jobs and services in Blackburn. They simply have no message for these people - but that's OK as these people are xenophobic bigots and Labour don't want to be associated with them anyway. Better to be ideologically pure than have lots of seats in parliament.
In part this is due to the nature of the leadership. It is staggering to reflect that Labour have only had two working-class leaders in the last 36 years, and haven't had an English working class leader since 1980 (and he sat for a Welsh seat). In that time the Tories have had at least three, four if you count May (personally I wouldn't but some do). Only Howard was not born in England, and he sat for an English seat in Kent.
Because they believe they are the good guys, who care about the poor and want an end to injustice, they have persuaded themselves (1) that the evil they do en route is a necessary evil and (2) it's not really evil anyway because they're the ones doing it and they are decent people. They are therefore persuaded that the overwhelming majority who do not agree with them are therefore evil themselves and their opinion can be safely ignored.
(Continued)
The second part is about Corbyn. But here again the question is wrong. They have made a conscious choice to elect him (twice, by huge margins over at least four better candidates ) for no other reason than because it makes them feel good about themselves. They know Corbyn will be a catastrophe electorally but that doesn't matter as they are uninterested in elections. They believe (correctly) that they will also lose them if they are ideologically pure and that in power in a democratic system they will be unable to implement their desired policies anyway. So both approaches are worthless to them. They will therefore vote for Corbyn, who despite his loathsome past makes them feel good about themselves, and jeer and carp from the sidelines rather than actually do something about the issues that matter.
The ultimate conclusion is simple - Labour are stuffed. Unfortunately, for lack of a decent opposition, so are the rest of us.
Honestly, maybe it's the normalisation of bad news you talked about, but I cannot really recall corbyn and co doing anything particularly bad lately, it seems they've learned not to keep his bad stories in the press for days on end. He is actually slightly better than when he started.
Unless there's proof that UKIP could take a heartland seat, with no leader in waiting labour supporters will wait for tories to mess up and hope the polls are wrong by a lot.
The prospect of the Russians manipulating their man into the Oval Office is something from a Hollywood script. What we do not yet know is whether the Donald is really the Manchurian Candidate, or whether he is Pinnochio, with no strings.
Apparently the sticking point is with Lance Stoll's Williams contract that specifies the experience required of his team mate (and Stroll is basically bankrolling the whole team next season). Maybe Di Resta will be good enough, but if not then Merc are going to struggle to get Bottas out and may have no choice but to go with the rookie Wherlein on a one year deal. You'd probably favour Vettel for the drive in 2018, assuming the new car is as dominant as the old one was.
Thank you. A longer and more erudite version of my views. With Jeremy, the labour party are f*cked.
As I say, these people don't care about right and wrong, they care about ideology. Doesn't matter who gets hurt in the process.
No doubt I shall get lots of abuse for pointing this out - or at least I hope so, because abuse from somebody like the poster in question is a badge of honour. However, I also need to go shopping, so I offer my apologies if there is no immediate reply to any points dragged up.
Most people don't pay much attention to politics, and insofar as they pay attention its generally only in the most superficial terms.(*) The general impression of Corbyn/McDonnell is that their instincts are that the UK and the West more generally are always in the wrong; this is why Cameron's "do up your tie and sing the national anthem" line was so effective.
Once the public makes up their mind about the general character of a politician it's very hard to shift. I can remember only one that changed significantly, and that was from positive to negative.
(*) This is why research often shows that an unpopular party's policies are popular until they are linked to the party in question, and no further.
Probably Leigh will tell us. The only party that could win places like Leigh -- other than Labour -- is UKIP. What is going to happen to the Labour seats that voted Leave holds the key to the immediate future. (Borough of Wigan was 64 per cent Leave).
Balls is down and out, surely. When Labour returns to power, it will be with a Change candidate, not a Hillary. Balls is a Hillary.
As Trump showed, the right candidate can put together an unlikely coalition. Labour under the right leader could come right back -- though I am not convinced Starmer is the right candidate.
https://twitter.com/indypolitics/status/807508012755746817
But this is the PLP we are talking about, who have shown they don't have a spine between them when it comes to these things.
Trump was right, if Hillary won Goldman Sachs would be running the country.
In all seats, there is a sizable market for a credible alternative Goverrnment. Some have a smaller market than others, and in places it's not enough to win. Sleaford may well be one such place. But Sleaford has Remainers, it has council estates, it has people below the median wage, and it had Miliband voters. You might get squeezed if the Lib Dems start in second (as in Richmond) which is more understandable.
But the message of Sleaford (and Witney, where Labour also started second) is that Corbyn's Labour cannot - at all - attract the credible alternative government market. And if it can't in Sleaford, there is no reason to expect it to do so in the marginals, where that market is larger but not fundamentally different.
In all honesty though, even most labour supporters on here are anti corbyn, so we're a bit of an echo chamber - do corbynistas tend to think they will win, that losing rather than compromising is ok, that the tories are imminently about to split?
Both Japan and Italy combined Parliamentary democracy with one-party rule over two generations. We can do the same. The Tories do need to replace TM with Bozza pronto tho'.
As discussed on previous threads, Labour are pursuing a 0% strategy now. They don't speak for the 52% or the 48%.
That is the first problem. The second problem is that Corbyn doesn't care.
Labour was only ever a host for his SWC project. Electoral success is not a necessary component of his vision.
I particularly agree with the penultimate paragraph - having posted something similar yesterday evening!
The late David MacKay (formerly Government Chief Scientific Adviser under Cameron, so hardly a Corbynista) came to a similar conclusion.
The Don is obviously & generously taking into account the views & wishes of the majority.
The public are like that too of course. Tell us a policy we might like it, until we find out who proposed it, and when our party steals it, it's a good idea again.
It's a shortish priced winner.
GO CORBYN.
I cannot see Labour retaking Nuneaton or Loughborough, to name a couple of former marginals near me, while pursuing policies that the Corbynites desire.
Bosworth is one of the 25 LD target seats though, with 22.3% at 2015 a reasonable starting point. Some Lab to LD switching here is very possible.
Mr. Putney, jein. I do think there's a small but credible chance McLaren could make a great leap forward next season.
I do sometimes wonder what qualifies as a " ..LD target seat."
Even in the good times, the LDs had no seats in the Eurosceptic East Midlands (save Leicester S after a by-election).
You might as well get in on the ground floor with new technologies.
Brave...
I don't agree with this. Tories shouldn't make the mistake of trying to see UKIP as some sort of disguised-Tory party, and certainly shouldn't be hoping they overtake Labour. Nuttall will be aiming to take Labour voters by shifting to a very authoritarian social position and leftwards on economics. This is a shift in populist movements we are seeing everywhere - the FN being the classic example, but even in former neoliberal parties like the PVV, Wilders has taken a more protectionist and leftwing turn.
Not clear to me why a pro-market, pro-free trade party like the Tories would want anything to do with that.
I thought that they would secretly acknowledge that he is a dud, but that isn't what they think.
That is our problem.
Therefore the only way to get a change of leader is with Corbyn's consent - his choice of candidate on the ballot to offer a left policy position but delivered by a PM in waiting.
I know many on here think we'd still get walloped under that scenario, but I think that would give us a fighting chance of leading the next government.
QTWTAIY
There is a level of complacency about the Tories right now, they seem to believe they can get away with anything because they will still beat Corbyn in 2020 whatever they do. That is probably correct but the strategy is totally reliant on Corbyn still being there.
May's support is currently about a mile wide and an inch deep. A couple of years from now we will be knee-deep in Brexit related problems - even the most enthusiastic Leavers know the short term is going to be messy and unpleasant and the electorate, by and large, don't take the long-term view.
The Tories have, for better or worse, now owned Brexit and are moving away from the liberal modernising image of Cameron and Osborne. A new more appealing Labour face exploiting those problems could do very well. 3 and a half years is a long time in politics and we have a highly volatile and fickle electorate.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-petrol-car-ban-no-combustion-diesel-vehicles-2030-a7354281.html
My guess is it is before the War.