Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s GE2019 post mortem

SystemSystem Posts: 12,128
edited December 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s GE2019 post mortem

Proverbial wisdom tells us that success has many fathers, while failure is an orphan. It’s a saying that appears to have by-passed the Labour party at least, since their general response to the election has been to hurl fistfuls of paternity tests at each other in a way that would send Jeremy Kyle off for a cold shower and a lie down.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • First.
  • Top piece as usual Tomas
  • Kaboom.

    Clive Lewis joins race to be Labour leader pledging to 'unleash' party

    Shadow Treasury minister says he wants to go further than Jeremy Corbyn in giving power to Labour

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/19/clive-lewis-joins-race-to-be-labour-leader-pledging-to-unleash-party
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,691
    Are new threads mainly about TSE getting out of minor difficulties he's encountered on the previous one?
  • Excellent header
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,302
    edited December 2019
    Omnium said:

    Are new threads mainly about TSE getting out of minor difficulties he's encountered on the previous one?

    Oh behave.

    Some Tory leavers have assured us all that Priti Patel is a liberal Home Secretary.

    I’m mocking those people.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,662
    One ought to point out that Corbyn's successor is likely to be a Corbynite and its going to be a rough ride, irrespective of the Govt's difficulties to come.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Sarah Greene on Richard Osmans House of Games... 62 good lord
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,691
    @Tomas Forsey/Corporeal

    What you write addresses part of their issue. To my mind though their main issue is that they are a party whose beliefs date to a hundred years ago. Some of the beliefs of that time which they had a big part in championing are so mainstream we wouldn't give them another thought. Some of the beliefs though are clearly obsolete. In particular Labour's economic policy is just ridiculous.

    Labour need to reinvent themselves as a party of the people once again. They need to ditch ALL of the socialist economic nonsense. They also need to ditch all this 'rights' crap.

    Representing the people as they actually are today - and that doesn't mean some weird person who can't work out their sexuality, or sex, or the day of the week - it means Joe Average - look at him, work out what he needs. That is what caused Labour to exist and that is what Labour should be doing.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,753
    Fantastic piece thanks.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,691

    Omnium said:

    Are new threads mainly about TSE getting out of minor difficulties he's encountered on the previous one?

    Oh behave.

    Some Tory leavers have assured us all that Priti Patel is a liberal Home Secretary.

    I’m mocking those people.
    Another pineapple chunk in the wall :)

    I think Priti Patel will surprise you. The fact that someone called 'Priti Patel' is the Home Secretary is in itself a huge step.

    Give her a chance TSE.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    A lovely piece of writing. And deservedly brutal towards its subject matter. Many thanks.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,691

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Are new threads mainly about TSE getting out of minor difficulties he's encountered on the previous one?

    Oh behave.

    Some Tory leavers have assured us all that Priti Patel is a liberal Home Secretary.

    I’m mocking those people.
    Another pineapple chunk in the wall :)

    I think Priti Patel will surprise you. The fact that someone called 'Priti Patel' is the Home Secretary is in itself a huge step.

    Give her a chance TSE.
    She’s a disgraced national security risk.

    She has no place in the cabinet.
    She's compromised herself undoubtedly. She's also in one of the great offices of state. It's not just me therefore that thinks she might be able to do a decent job.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,703
    isam said:

    Sarah Greene on Richard Osmans House of Games... 62 good lord

    Is this a good score, and who is Sarah Greene?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269
    edited December 2019
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154
    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Are new threads mainly about TSE getting out of minor difficulties he's encountered on the previous one?

    Oh behave.

    Some Tory leavers have assured us all that Priti Patel is a liberal Home Secretary.

    I’m mocking those people.
    Another pineapple chunk in the wall :)

    I think Priti Patel will surprise you. The fact that someone called 'Priti Patel' is the Home Secretary is in itself a huge step.

    Give her a chance TSE.
    She’s a disgraced national security risk.

    She has no place in the cabinet.
    She's compromised herself undoubtedly. She's also in one of the great offices of state. It's not just me therefore that thinks she might be able to do a decent job.
    So far, the people who think this are you and Boris Johnson.

    That’s not the most encouraging of thoughts...
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,190
    edited December 2019
    HYUFD said:
    Boris looks like he has furtively slipped the aforementioned wasp down the unwitting Corbyn's trousers!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,927
    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Are new threads mainly about TSE getting out of minor difficulties he's encountered on the previous one?

    Oh behave.

    Some Tory leavers have assured us all that Priti Patel is a liberal Home Secretary.

    I’m mocking those people.
    Another pineapple chunk in the wall :)

    I think Priti Patel will surprise you. The fact that someone called 'Priti Patel' is the Home Secretary is in itself a huge step.

    Give her a chance TSE.
    I would be overjoyed to be wrong about Priti Patel. I hope that the current administration is successful, and brings peace, prosperity and liberty to the British people.

    But her elevation - a woman who ran a parallel foreign policy, and then lied to the Prime Minister about it, not once, but twice - to the role of Home Secretary worries me greatly. It suggest that honesty is not one of the qualities our Prime Minister is looking for.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154
    edited December 2019
    Cyclefree said:
    Ultimately, Labour has become a movement that doesn’t care about its voters, it cares about feeling smug.

    As a result, its voters have abandoned it, and it is left with smugness.

    They cannot see why constantly thinking themselves the right people to rule Britain and naturally superior to everyone else isn’t appealing to their voters. ‘We’re right! They’re just Tory scum! How can people not see this? They must be Tory scum themselves! Well, then they can fuck off and vote for them, we don’t want their support as they are Tory scum.’

    O’Farrell’s memoirs, where he admitted he had become what amounted to a Fascist as a supporter of Militant, were an interesting example of this. But O’Farrell was just an ordinary member. These dafties are running the party.

    And as long as they lead it, it’s going nowhere.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269
    rcs1000 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Are new threads mainly about TSE getting out of minor difficulties he's encountered on the previous one?

    Oh behave.

    Some Tory leavers have assured us all that Priti Patel is a liberal Home Secretary.

    I’m mocking those people.
    Another pineapple chunk in the wall :)

    I think Priti Patel will surprise you. The fact that someone called 'Priti Patel' is the Home Secretary is in itself a huge step.

    Give her a chance TSE.
    I would be overjoyed to be wrong about Priti Patel. I hope that the current administration is successful, and brings peace, prosperity and liberty to the British people.

    But her elevation - a woman who ran a parallel foreign policy, and then lied to the Prime Minister about it, not once, but twice - to the role of Home Secretary worries me greatly. It suggest that honesty is not one of the qualities our Prime Minister is looking for.
    Be fair to the PM. How would he recognise honesty in others when he cannot practise it himself?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154
    Cyclefree said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Are new threads mainly about TSE getting out of minor difficulties he's encountered on the previous one?

    Oh behave.

    Some Tory leavers have assured us all that Priti Patel is a liberal Home Secretary.

    I’m mocking those people.
    Another pineapple chunk in the wall :)

    I think Priti Patel will surprise you. The fact that someone called 'Priti Patel' is the Home Secretary is in itself a huge step.

    Give her a chance TSE.
    I would be overjoyed to be wrong about Priti Patel. I hope that the current administration is successful, and brings peace, prosperity and liberty to the British people.

    But her elevation - a woman who ran a parallel foreign policy, and then lied to the Prime Minister about it, not once, but twice - to the role of Home Secretary worries me greatly. It suggest that honesty is not one of the qualities our Prime Minister is looking for.
    Be fair to the PM. How would he recognise honesty in others when he cannot practise it himself?
    A woman lying to him must also be an uncharacteristic role reversal.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,927
    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Are new threads mainly about TSE getting out of minor difficulties he's encountered on the previous one?

    Oh behave.

    Some Tory leavers have assured us all that Priti Patel is a liberal Home Secretary.

    I’m mocking those people.
    Another pineapple chunk in the wall :)

    I think Priti Patel will surprise you. The fact that someone called 'Priti Patel' is the Home Secretary is in itself a huge step.

    Give her a chance TSE.
    She’s a disgraced national security risk.

    She has no place in the cabinet.
    She's compromised herself undoubtedly. She's also in one of the great offices of state. It's not just me therefore that thinks she might be able to do a decent job.
    Has she shown any evidence of competence in any of her previous roles?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,965
    Thank you Tomas. Much more eloquently put than I managed with my CLP comrades yesterday.
  • Omnium said:

    Are new threads mainly about TSE getting out of minor difficulties he's encountered on the previous one?

    Oh behave.

    Some Tory leavers have assured us all that Priti Patel is a liberal Home Secretary.

    I’m mocking those people.
    Indeed not seen anything to say otherwise yet.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,965
    Doesn't the graph in the header show that Blair held on to the working class vote, and it his successors who have lost it?
  • eekeek Posts: 28,077
    For those that have seen Star Wars wasn’t it brave to kill everyone in quicksand 20 minutes in and repeat a Star Wars Christmas for the following 2 hours
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Are new threads mainly about TSE getting out of minor difficulties he's encountered on the previous one?

    Oh behave.

    Some Tory leavers have assured us all that Priti Patel is a liberal Home Secretary.

    I’m mocking those people.
    Another pineapple chunk in the wall :)

    I think Priti Patel will surprise you. The fact that someone called 'Priti Patel' is the Home Secretary is in itself a huge step.

    Give her a chance TSE.
    She’s a disgraced national security risk.

    She has no place in the cabinet.
    She's compromised herself undoubtedly. She's also in one of the great offices of state. It's not just me therefore that thinks she might be able to do a decent job.
    She's a disgraced national security risk appointed by a disgraced national security risk.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Labour seem to be intent on picking a leader who is able to lose both battles and wars.

    After the 1992 General Election, some political scientists implied that Britain was becoming a one party state, then The Tories discovered Baxter Basics. John Smith and Tony Blair found ways to make Labour electable.

    I'm not sure if Labour have someone with above average political talent who could haul them out of the morass in the short term. The Party Machine and The NEC is packed with Corbyn's appointees. Can Labour find someone who will remove Momentum, Milne, Murphy and McCluskey from positions of power?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873
    Structurally a mess and emotionally manipulative. No, not Labour, Star Wars. But I still liked and enjoyed it a lot, which puts it in a far better position than the Labour Party right now.
  • Doesn't the graph in the header show that Blair held on to the working class vote, and it his successors who have lost it?

    Good point. 2005 was his final election and had the same number as 1997.
  • Alistair said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Are new threads mainly about TSE getting out of minor difficulties he's encountered on the previous one?

    Oh behave.

    Some Tory leavers have assured us all that Priti Patel is a liberal Home Secretary.

    I’m mocking those people.
    Another pineapple chunk in the wall :)

    I think Priti Patel will surprise you. The fact that someone called 'Priti Patel' is the Home Secretary is in itself a huge step.

    Give her a chance TSE.
    She’s a disgraced national security risk.

    She has no place in the cabinet.
    She's compromised herself undoubtedly. She's also in one of the great offices of state. It's not just me therefore that thinks she might be able to do a decent job.
    She's a disgraced national security risk appointed by a disgraced national security risk.
    But Johnson fired disgraced national security risk Liam Fox so its all a wash in the end.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873
    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:
    Ultimately, Labour has become a movement that doesn’t care about its voters, it cares about feeling smug.

    As a result, its voters have abandoned it, and it is left with smugness.

    They cannot see why constantly thinking themselves the right people to rule Britain and naturally superior to everyone else isn’t appealing to their voters. .
    It's possible for a party to think that and still win elections - Labour are combining that thought without even being able to justify it on the basis of popularity. Lest we forget, the Tories are by far the most popular political party in the UK (though not in some parts of it of course). If you are going to have that arrogance you need to either disguise it, or back it up with success.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,965
    Priti Patel is keeping the seat warm for Victoria Atkins.

    (I could add that she is well equipped for keeping seats warm, but that would be an inappropriate thing to say.)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873
    Alistair said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Are new threads mainly about TSE getting out of minor difficulties he's encountered on the previous one?

    Oh behave.

    Some Tory leavers have assured us all that Priti Patel is a liberal Home Secretary.

    I’m mocking those people.
    Another pineapple chunk in the wall :)

    I think Priti Patel will surprise you. The fact that someone called 'Priti Patel' is the Home Secretary is in itself a huge step.

    Give her a chance TSE.
    She’s a disgraced national security risk.

    She has no place in the cabinet.
    She's compromised herself undoubtedly. She's also in one of the great offices of state. It's not just me therefore that thinks she might be able to do a decent job.
    She's a disgraced national security risk appointed by a disgraced national security risk.
    Nah, one of them is a risky national security disgrace, that's completely different.
  • kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:
    Ultimately, Labour has become a movement that doesn’t care about its voters, it cares about feeling smug.

    As a result, its voters have abandoned it, and it is left with smugness.

    They cannot see why constantly thinking themselves the right people to rule Britain and naturally superior to everyone else isn’t appealing to their voters. .
    It's possible for a party to think that and still win elections - Labour are combining that thought without even being able to justify it on the basis of popularity. Lest we forget, the Tories are by far the most popular political party in the UK (though not in some parts of it of course). If you are going to have that arrogance you need to either disguise it, or back it up with success.
    Its remarkable comparing how both parties have reacted to the election result.

    The Tories have won a thumping majority and reacted with humility. The line to take is that they appreciate voters "lent" them their votes and will work hard to make sure they can justify getting the votes again next time.

    Labour have had their worst result since before WWII and have reacted with arrogance saying "we won the argument" and that their policies and manifesto were popular.

    Go figure. I know which I think is the smarter response to the results.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,190
    edited December 2019
    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:
    Ultimately, Labour has become a movement that doesn’t care about its voters, it cares about feeling smug.

    As a result, its voters have abandoned it, and it is left with smugness.

    They cannot see why constantly thinking themselves the right people to rule Britain and naturally superior to everyone else isn’t appealing to their voters. ‘We’re right! They’re just Tory scum! How can people not see this? They must be Tory scum themselves! Well, then they can fuck off and vote for them, we don’t want their support as they are Tory scum.’

    O’Farrell’s memoirs, where he admitted he had become what amounted to a Fascist as a supporter of Militant, were an interesting example of this. But O’Farrell was just an ordinary member. These dafties are running the party.

    And as long as they lead it, it’s going nowhere.
    Being neither of the Boris or Corbyn persuasions, the vacuum in the centre of British politics is rather disconcerting.

    The obvious path out would be Labour sans Momentum. If this becomes increasingly unlikely and with the LDs dead in the water, I cannot yet see what the alternative way forward might be.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873
    My favourite part of the Labour post mortem is the demand that people not rush to judgement in seeking the causes of their loss, except for the part where it was immediately decided what the narrative was going to be for the true believers who know for certain the problem is definitely not certain things.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,214
    edited December 2019

    Omnium said:

    Are new threads mainly about TSE getting out of minor difficulties he's encountered on the previous one?

    Oh behave.

    Some Tory leavers have assured us all that Priti Patel is a liberal Home Secretary.

    I’m mocking those people.
    Indeed not seen anything to say otherwise yet.
    She's voted for mass surveillance, against same sex marriage, to restrict trade union activities, to repeal the human rights act...
    https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24778/priti_patel/witham/votes
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,147
    A very good header. Once again we're already back in the game of the Labour remnants in the Commons and elsewhere getting all steamed up over food bank Britain and child migrants as the baby eaters ruin the nation they think they care about. They really have no interest whatsoever in the average voter and their concerns as they pretend their manifesto was both popular and costed while showing no sign of being even a faintly credible opposition to the new government. The leadership contenders are so far only lacking Claudia Webbe amongst their number as the icing on the cake while they pile in against the only living leader they had who actually won elections. It's like watching a macabre farce that lacks any semblance of humour.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873
    I think the point about Labour's stance nullifying Corbyn's few strengths is a good one. His clarity and principles, his sincerity, they are strong images. But his own stance was transparently a cynical political manuevere, albeit one that kind of made sense to try to keep his party coalition together. But given he had taken sides before, his declaration he wouldn't do so and presenting that as a point of principle was patently false - he became the same old type of misleading politician as any other.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,965
    rkrkrk said:

    Omnium said:

    Are new threads mainly about TSE getting out of minor difficulties he's encountered on the previous one?

    Oh behave.

    Some Tory leavers have assured us all that Priti Patel is a liberal Home Secretary.

    I’m mocking those people.
    Indeed not seen anything to say otherwise yet.
    She's voted for mass surveillance, against same sex marriage, to restrict trade union activities, to repeal the human rights act...
    https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24778/priti_patel/witham/votes
    The Daily Mail in human form.
  • I don’t believe Labour lost because of immigration. Not in the least because Labour opted for McCluskey’s preferred stricter approach to immigration in the manifesto meeting. Labour will never out Tories the Tories on this issue, and that isn’t a winning strategy either.

    Corbyn’s biggest weakness were the following:

    1. His lack of competence
    2. His lack of self-awareness
    3. His stubbornness
    4. His sense of moral superiority which prevented him from doing what all leaders must do - convince voters of their arguments. Corbyn’s ‘your with or your against me’ mentality prevents this dialogue from occurring.
    5. The lack of competence of those running his operation outside McDonnell (mainly Murphy, Milne, Murray et al)
    6. His baggage on issues related to national security
    7. The anti-semitism crisis which undermined Labour‘s image as an anti-racist party
    8. The 2019 manifesto, which devolved into a large wish list instead of providing a vision and a strategy as to what Labour wanted to achieve in office and how it would achieve it. So much of their campaign was focused in free giveaways Labour failed to articulate what they stood for and their values - something they at least attempted to do in 2017.

    Lefties on twitter are not really relevant to Labour’s issues. They skew younger, and are generally different from the demographic that makes up Labour’s membership which is, like other parties made up of older white people, who are relatively well off.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,555

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:
    Ultimately, Labour has become a movement that doesn’t care about its voters, it cares about feeling smug.

    As a result, its voters have abandoned it, and it is left with smugness.

    They cannot see why constantly thinking themselves the right people to rule Britain and naturally superior to everyone else isn’t appealing to their voters. .
    It's possible for a party to think that and still win elections - Labour are combining that thought without even being able to justify it on the basis of popularity. Lest we forget, the Tories are by far the most popular political party in the UK (though not in some parts of it of course). If you are going to have that arrogance you need to either disguise it, or back it up with success.
    Its remarkable comparing how both parties have reacted to the election result.

    The Tories have won a thumping majority and reacted with humility. The line to take is that they appreciate voters "lent" them their votes and will work hard to make sure they can justify getting the votes again next time.

    Labour have had their worst result since before WWII and have reacted with arrogance saying "we won the argument" and that their policies and manifesto were popular.

    Go figure. I know which I think is the smarter response to the results.
    Beauty is the eye of the beholder. Boris legging it up to gloat in Sedgefield and his smugness today, don’t smack hugely of humility.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    Priti Patel being an explicitly illiberal Home Secretary will matter more in keeping the Tories' new constituencies sweet than any amount of new NHS funding...
  • Labour caring about food bank Britain isn’t really a big issue. What they need to do is expand their focus from the very poorest in society to squeezed middle voters and aspirational working classes. If anything, if Labour’s ‘giveaway’ polices had focused on groups who are actually marginalised, instead of middle class boomer women they might have come away less damaged. It’s one thing to advocate the state as a safety/support net for those in need. It’s another thing to promote the role of the state to supporting those who already doing well.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,190

    I don’t believe Labour lost because of immigration. Not in the least because Labour opted for McCluskey’s preferred stricter approach to immigration in the manifesto meeting. Labour will never out Tories the Tories on this issue, and that isn’t a winning strategy either.

    Corbyn’s biggest weakness were the following:

    1. His lack of competence
    2. His lack of self-awareness
    3. His stubbornness
    4. His sense of moral superiority which prevented him from doing what all leaders must do - convince voters of their arguments. Corbyn’s ‘your with or your against me’ mentality prevents this dialogue from occurring.
    5. The lack of competence of those running his operation outside McDonnell (mainly Murphy, Milne, Murray et al)
    6. His baggage on issues related to national security
    7. The anti-semitism crisis which undermined Labour‘s image as an anti-racist party
    8. The 2019 manifesto, which devolved into a large wish list instead of providing a vision and a strategy as to what Labour wanted to achieve in office and how it would achieve it. So much of their campaign was focused in free giveaways Labour failed to articulate what they stood for and their values - something they at least attempted to do in 2017.

    Lefties on twitter are not really relevant to Labour’s issues. They skew younger, and are generally different from the demographic that makes up Labour’s membership which is, like other parties made up of older white people, who are relatively well off.

    McCluskey may be the useless Scouse power broker behind the Corbyn throne, but to move towards any positive trajectory his flatulent fat rump needs to be kicked into touch.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,231
    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:
    Ultimately, Labour has become a movement that doesn’t care about its voters, it cares about feeling smug.

    As a result, its voters have abandoned it, and it is left with smugness.

    They cannot see why constantly thinking themselves the right people to rule Britain and naturally superior to everyone else isn’t appealing to their voters. .
    It's possible for a party to think that and still win elections - Labour are combining that thought without even being able to justify it on the basis of popularity. Lest we forget, the Tories are by far the most popular political party in the UK (though not in some parts of it of course). If you are going to have that arrogance you need to either disguise it, or back it up with success.
    Its remarkable comparing how both parties have reacted to the election result.

    The Tories have won a thumping majority and reacted with humility. The line to take is that they appreciate voters "lent" them their votes and will work hard to make sure they can justify getting the votes again next time.

    Labour have had their worst result since before WWII and have reacted with arrogance saying "we won the argument" and that their policies and manifesto were popular.

    Go figure. I know which I think is the smarter response to the results.
    Beauty is the eye of the beholder. Boris legging it up to gloat in Sedgefield and his smugness today, don’t smack hugely of humility.
    Gloating how?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154
    edited December 2019
    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:
    Ultimately, Labour has become a movement that doesn’t care about its voters, it cares about feeling smug.

    As a result, its voters have abandoned it, and it is left with smugness.

    They cannot see why constantly thinking themselves the right people to rule Britain and naturally superior to everyone else isn’t appealing to their voters. .
    It's possible for a party to think that and still win elections - Labour are combining that thought without even being able to justify it on the basis of popularity. Lest we forget, the Tories are by far the most popular political party in the UK (though not in some parts of it of course). If you are going to have that arrogance you need to either disguise it, or back it up with success.
    Its remarkable comparing how both parties have reacted to the election result.

    The Tories have won a thumping majority and reacted with humility. The line to take is that they appreciate voters "lent" them their votes and will work hard to make sure they can justify getting the votes again next time.

    Labour have had their worst result since before WWII and have reacted with arrogance saying "we won the argument" and that their policies and manifesto were popular.

    Go figure. I know which I think is the smarter response to the results.
    Beauty is the eye of the beholder. Boris legging it up to gloat in Sedgefield and his smugness today, don’t smack hugely of humility.
    No. But if he couples that with not patronizing his voters and actually giving them things they want, it would be a bloody good start from their point of view, wouldn’t you agree?

    Corbyn’s Labour, however, told voters what they wanted, and then called them racist and stupid when they disagreed and asked for something else.

    Whether Johnson will keep any of his promises is another question entirely. My guess would be he won’t, but even if he keeps just a few of them it still gives the Tories an edge on a continuity Corbyn candidate.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,965

    Priti Patel being an explicitly illiberal Home Secretary will matter more in keeping the Tories' new constituencies sweet than any amount of new NHS funding...

    And this is what Labour's hand-wringing faction simply don't get. When your local patch is infested with yobs and scrotes you want the feckers locked up, not regarded as victims.

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,190
    Lord Zac is a 'leading conservationist' according to the BBC Radio 2 news. Well?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873


    Lefties on twitter are not really relevant to Labour’s issues.

    When will they realise that though?
    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:
    Ultimately, Labour has become a movement that doesn’t care about its voters, it cares about feeling smug.

    As a result, its voters have abandoned it, and it is left with smugness.

    They cannot see why constantly thinking themselves the right people to rule Britain and naturally superior to everyone else isn’t appealing to their voters. .
    It's possible for a party to think that and still win elections - Labour are combining that thought without even being able to justify it on the basis of popularity. Lest we forget, the Tories are by far the most popular political party in the UK (though not in some parts of it of course). If you are going to have that arrogance you need to either disguise it, or back it up with success.
    Its remarkable comparing how both parties have reacted to the election result.

    The Tories have won a thumping majority and reacted with humility. The line to take is that they appreciate voters "lent" them their votes and will work hard to make sure they can justify getting the votes again next time.

    Labour have had their worst result since before WWII and have reacted with arrogance saying "we won the argument" and that their policies and manifesto were popular.

    Go figure. I know which I think is the smarter response to the results.
    Beauty is the eye of the beholder. Boris legging it up to gloat in Sedgefield and his smugness today, don’t smack hugely of humility.
    They are, for now, attempting to affect an air of humilty, which is probably the right approach. Having won a huge victory they will likely not act with humility in legislative terms in the slightest, and of course they are riding smugly high after a victory, but even attempting to project an appearance of humilty shows a certain level of recognition that they don't want to immediately go nuts. That level of recognition is at least something. Some in Labour are at the recognition stage, where they know they have an issue, they know what the issue is, and they hope to do something about it even if they actually won't want to change much at all. Others in Labour are only at the stage where they think they have to say they have an issue to resolve, but their actions suggest they don't believe they do.

    And the gloating in Sedgefield doesn't speak to humilty one way or another, it was clearly just for the fun of it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154

    I don’t believe Labour lost because of immigration. Not in the least because Labour opted for McCluskey’s preferred stricter approach to immigration in the manifesto meeting. Labour will never out Tories the Tories on this issue, and that isn’t a winning strategy either.

    Corbyn’s biggest weakness were the following:

    1. His lack of competence
    2. His lack of self-awareness
    3. His stubbornness
    4. His sense of moral superiority which prevented him from doing what all leaders must do - convince voters of their arguments. Corbyn’s ‘your with or your against me’ mentality prevents this dialogue from occurring.
    5. The lack of competence of those running his operation outside McDonnell (mainly Murphy, Milne, Murray et al)
    6. His baggage on issues related to national security
    7. The anti-semitism crisis which undermined Labour‘s image as an anti-racist party
    8. The 2019 manifesto, which devolved into a large wish list instead of providing a vision and a strategy as to what Labour wanted to achieve in office and how it would achieve it. So much of their campaign was focused in free giveaways Labour failed to articulate what they stood for and their values - something they at least attempted to do in 2017.

    Lefties on twitter are not really relevant to Labour’s issues. They skew younger, and are generally different from the demographic that makes up Labour’s membership which is, like other parties made up of older white people, who are relatively well off.

    McCluskey may be the useless Scouse power broker behind the Corbyn throne, but to move towards any positive trajectory his flatulent fat rump needs to be kicked into touch.
    He might well be after today’s calamity. Hard to see how he doesn’t face some very awkward questions over what’s happened.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,555

    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:
    Ultimately, Labour has become a movement that doesn’t care about its voters, it cares about feeling smug.

    As a result, its voters have abandoned it, and it is left with smugness.

    They cannot see why constantly thinking themselves the right people to rule Britain and naturally superior to everyone else isn’t appealing to their voters. .
    It's possible for a party to think that and still win elections - Labour are combining that thought without even being able to justify it on the basis of popularity. Lest we forget, the Tories are by far the most popular political party in the UK (though not in some parts of it of course). If you are going to have that arrogance you need to either disguise it, or back it up with success.
    Its remarkable comparing how both parties have reacted to the election result.

    The Tories have won a thumping majority and reacted with humility. The line to take is that they appreciate voters "lent" them their votes and will work hard to make sure they can justify getting the votes again next time.

    Labour have had their worst result since before WWII and have reacted with arrogance saying "we won the argument" and that their policies and manifesto were popular.

    Go figure. I know which I think is the smarter response to the results.
    Beauty is the eye of the beholder. Boris legging it up to gloat in Sedgefield and his smugness today, don’t smack hugely of humility.
    Gloating how?
    Why Sedgefield?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,190
    ydoethur said:

    I don’t believe Labour lost because of immigration. Not in the least because Labour opted for McCluskey’s preferred stricter approach to immigration in the manifesto meeting. Labour will never out Tories the Tories on this issue, and that isn’t a winning strategy either.

    Corbyn’s biggest weakness were the following:

    1. His lack of competence
    2. His lack of self-awareness
    3. His stubbornness
    4. His sense of moral superiority which prevented him from doing what all leaders must do - convince voters of their arguments. Corbyn’s ‘your with or your against me’ mentality prevents this dialogue from occurring.
    5. The lack of competence of those running his operation outside McDonnell (mainly Murphy, Milne, Murray et al)
    6. His baggage on issues related to national security
    7. The anti-semitism crisis which undermined Labour‘s image as an anti-racist party
    8. The 2019 manifesto, which devolved into a large wish list instead of providing a vision and a strategy as to what Labour wanted to achieve in office and how it would achieve it. So much of their campaign was focused in free giveaways Labour failed to articulate what they stood for and their values - something they at least attempted to do in 2017.

    Lefties on twitter are not really relevant to Labour’s issues. They skew younger, and are generally different from the demographic that makes up Labour’s membership which is, like other parties made up of older white people, who are relatively well off.

    McCluskey may be the useless Scouse power broker behind the Corbyn throne, but to move towards any positive trajectory his flatulent fat rump needs to be kicked into touch.
    He might well be after today’s calamity. Hard to see how he doesn’t face some very awkward questions over what’s happened.
    One can but hope.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,231
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:
    Ultimately, Labour has become a movement that doesn’t care about its voters, it cares about feeling smug.

    As a result, its voters have abandoned it, and it is left with smugness.

    They cannot see why constantly thinking themselves the right people to rule Britain and naturally superior to everyone else isn’t appealing to their voters. .
    It's possible for a party to think that and still win elections - Labour are combining that thought without even being able to justify it on the basis of popularity. Lest we forget, the Tories are by far the most popular political party in the UK (though not in some parts of it of course). If you are going to have that arrogance you need to either disguise it, or back it up with success.
    Its remarkable comparing how both parties have reacted to the election result.

    The Tories have won a thumping majority and reacted with humility. The line to take is that they appreciate voters "lent" them their votes and will work hard to make sure they can justify getting the votes again next time.

    Labour have had their worst result since before WWII and have reacted with arrogance saying "we won the argument" and that their policies and manifesto were popular.

    Go figure. I know which I think is the smarter response to the results.
    Beauty is the eye of the beholder. Boris legging it up to gloat in Sedgefield and his smugness today, don’t smack hugely of humility.
    Gloating how?
    Why Sedgefield?
    You first?
  • Priti Patel being an explicitly illiberal Home Secretary will matter more in keeping the Tories' new constituencies sweet than any amount of new NHS funding...

    And this is what Labour's hand-wringing faction simply don't get. When your local patch is infested with yobs and scrotes you want the feckers locked up, not regarded as victims.

    I don’t think they want them regarded as ‘victims’ but think rehabilitation will in the long term reduce crime. Obviously it’s not a popular view, but I think it comes from a place of wanting people to not become career criminals and keep re-offending and thereby blighting their communities.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,965
    I'm waiting for someone to say that our biggest error in the campaign was to allow the LibDems to dominate the narrative on gender-neutral school uniforms.

    And that's why we lost Blyth Valley.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873

    I don’t believe Labour lost because of immigration. Not in the least because Labour opted for McCluskey’s preferred stricter approach to immigration in the manifesto meeting. Labour will never out Tories the Tories on this issue, and that isn’t a winning strategy either.

    Corbyn’s biggest weakness were the following:

    1. His lack of competence
    2. His lack of self-awareness
    3. His stubbornness
    4. His sense of moral superiority which prevented him from doing what all leaders must do - convince voters of their arguments. Corbyn’s ‘your with or your against me’ mentality prevents this dialogue from occurring.
    5. The lack of competence of those running his operation outside McDonnell (mainly Murphy, Milne, Murray et al)
    6. His baggage on issues related to national security
    7. The anti-semitism crisis which undermined Labour‘s image as an anti-racist party
    8. The 2019 manifesto, which devolved into a large wish list instead of providing a vision and a strategy as to what Labour wanted to achieve in office and how it would achieve it. So much of their campaign was focused in free giveaways Labour failed to articulate what they stood for and their values - something they at least attempted to do in 2017.

    Lefties on twitter are not really relevant to Labour’s issues. They skew younger, and are generally different from the demographic that makes up Labour’s membership which is, like other parties made up of older white people, who are relatively well off.

    2 and 4 kind of overlap. Corbyn's certainty goes beyond the assurance of the ideologue seen often in politics, but to a truly deep level of arrogance about his own moral rightness. Boris is bad from a different direction of course.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873
    ydoethur said:

    I don’t believe Labour lost because of immigration. Not in the least because Labour opted for McCluskey’s preferred stricter approach to immigration in the manifesto meeting. Labour will never out Tories the Tories on this issue, and that isn’t a winning strategy either.

    Corbyn’s biggest weakness were the following:

    1. His lack of competence
    2. His lack of self-awareness
    3. His stubbornness
    4. His sense of moral superiority which prevented him from doing what all leaders must do - convince voters of their arguments. Corbyn’s ‘your with or your against me’ mentality prevents this dialogue from occurring.
    5. The lack of competence of those running his operation outside McDonnell (mainly Murphy, Milne, Murray et al)
    6. His baggage on issues related to national security
    7. The anti-semitism crisis which undermined Labour‘s image as an anti-racist party
    8. The 2019 manifesto, which devolved into a large wish list instead of providing a vision and a strategy as to what Labour wanted to achieve in office and how it would achieve it. So much of their campaign was focused in free giveaways Labour failed to articulate what they stood for and their values - something they at least attempted to do in 2017.

    Lefties on twitter are not really relevant to Labour’s issues. They skew younger, and are generally different from the demographic that makes up Labour’s membership which is, like other parties made up of older white people, who are relatively well off.

    McCluskey may be the useless Scouse power broker behind the Corbyn throne, but to move towards any positive trajectory his flatulent fat rump needs to be kicked into touch.
    He might well be after today’s calamity. Hard to see how he doesn’t face some very awkward questions over what’s happened.
    Is it possible to get rid of these powerful Union barons?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154
    edited December 2019

    ydoethur said:

    I don’t believe Labour lost because of immigration. Not in the least because Labour opted for McCluskey’s preferred stricter approach to immigration in the manifesto meeting. Labour will never out Tories the Tories on this issue, and that isn’t a winning strategy either.

    Corbyn’s biggest weakness were the following:

    1. His lack of competence
    2. His lack of self-awareness
    3. His stubbornness
    4. His sense of moral superiority which prevented him from doing what all leaders must do - convince voters of their arguments. Corbyn’s ‘your with or your against me’ mentality prevents this dialogue from occurring.
    5. The lack of competence of those running his operation outside McDonnell (mainly Murphy, Milne, Murray et al)
    6. His baggage on issues related to national security
    7. The anti-semitism crisis which undermined Labour‘s image as an anti-racist party
    8. The 2019 manifesto, which devolved into a large wish list instead of providing a vision and a strategy as to what Labour wanted to achieve in office and how it would achieve it. So much of their campaign was focused in free giveaways Labour failed to articulate what they stood for and their values - something they at least attempted to do in 2017.

    Lefties on twitter are not really relevant to Labour’s issues. They skew younger, and are generally different from the demographic that makes up Labour’s membership which is, like other parties made up of older white people, who are relatively well off.

    McCluskey may be the useless Scouse power broker behind the Corbyn throne, but to move towards any positive trajectory his flatulent fat rump needs to be kicked into touch.
    He might well be after today’s calamity. Hard to see how he doesn’t face some very awkward questions over what’s happened.
    One can but hope.
    Why just hope? Anyone can raise a concern about financial irregularities at a union:

    https://www.gov.uk/complain-trade-union
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,147

    Priti Patel being an explicitly illiberal Home Secretary will matter more in keeping the Tories' new constituencies sweet than any amount of new NHS funding...

    And this is what Labour's hand-wringing faction simply don't get. When your local patch is infested with yobs and scrotes you want the feckers locked up, not regarded as victims.

    You're clearly a f*ck*** Tory - why don't you come and join us? :)
  • ydoethur said:

    I don’t believe Labour lost because of immigration. Not in the least because Labour opted for McCluskey’s preferred stricter approach to immigration in the manifesto meeting. Labour will never out Tories the Tories on this issue, and that isn’t a winning strategy either.

    Corbyn’s biggest weakness were the following:

    1. His lack of competence
    2. His lack of self-awareness
    3. His stubbornness
    4. His sense of moral superiority which prevented him from doing what all leaders must do - convince voters of their arguments. Corbyn’s ‘your with or your against me’ mentality prevents this dialogue from occurring.
    5. The lack of competence of those running his operation outside McDonnell (mainly Murphy, Milne, Murray et al)
    6. His baggage on issues related to national security
    7. The anti-semitism crisis which undermined Labour‘s image as an anti-racist party
    8. The 2019 manifesto, which devolved into a large wish list instead of providing a vision and a strategy as to what Labour wanted to achieve in office and how it would achieve it. So much of their campaign was focused in free giveaways Labour failed to articulate what they stood for and their values - something they at least attempted to do in 2017.

    Lefties on twitter are not really relevant to Labour’s issues. They skew younger, and are generally different from the demographic that makes up Labour’s membership which is, like other parties made up of older white people, who are relatively well off.

    McCluskey may be the useless Scouse power broker behind the Corbyn throne, but to move towards any positive trajectory his flatulent fat rump needs to be kicked into touch.
    He might well be after today’s calamity. Hard to see how he doesn’t face some very awkward questions over what’s happened.
    Labour need to get rid of Murphy, Milne fast. If McCluskey can get booted out by Unite even better. Having a guy who has....well ‘interesting’ views on Stalin is not progressive in any way, shape of form.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,147
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:
    Ultimately, Labour has become a movement that doesn’t care about its voters, it cares about feeling smug.

    As a result, its voters have abandoned it, and it is left with smugness.

    They cannot see why constantly thinking themselves the right people to rule Britain and naturally superior to everyone else isn’t appealing to their voters. .
    It's possible for a party to think that and still win elections - Labour are combining that thought without even being able to justify it on the basis of popularity. Lest we forget, the Tories are by far the most popular political party in the UK (though not in some parts of it of course). If you are going to have that arrogance you need to either disguise it, or back it up with success.
    Its remarkable comparing how both parties have reacted to the election result.

    The Tories have won a thumping majority and reacted with humility. The line to take is that they appreciate voters "lent" them their votes and will work hard to make sure they can justify getting the votes again next time.

    Labour have had their worst result since before WWII and have reacted with arrogance saying "we won the argument" and that their policies and manifesto were popular.

    Go figure. I know which I think is the smarter response to the results.
    Beauty is the eye of the beholder. Boris legging it up to gloat in Sedgefield and his smugness today, don’t smack hugely of humility.
    Gloating how?
    Why Sedgefield?
    Why on earth not? A big gain in what used to be a stronghold. The Tony Blair link is something Labour should reflect on. But they won't.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873

    Priti Patel being an explicitly illiberal Home Secretary will matter more in keeping the Tories' new constituencies sweet than any amount of new NHS funding...

    And this is what Labour's hand-wringing faction simply don't get. When your local patch is infested with yobs and scrotes you want the feckers locked up, not regarded as victims.

    I don’t think they want them regarded as ‘victims’ but think rehabilitation will in the long term reduce crime. Obviously it’s not a popular view, but I think it comes from a place of wanting people to not become career criminals and keep re-offending and thereby blighting their communities.
    There's an argument to be made there, certainly, and I personally think the balance should be more in that direction than the hang em and flog em approach, though it must be a balance, but a bit like on benefits areas where it is most relevant are often much much harder in their views on these things.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154
    edited December 2019

    I'm waiting for someone to say that our biggest error in the campaign was to allow the LibDems to dominate the narrative on gender-neutral school uniforms.

    And that's why we lost Blyth Valley.

    TBF, I have to say at least Labour are sort of accepting now that Corbyn was a problem. However, they cannot say they weren’t warned before they elected him (twice):

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/18/jeremy-corbyn-antisemitism-claims-ludicrous-and-wrong

    (Incidentally, Corbyn’s claims about Eisen in that article are patently false. Eisen has been a Holocaust denier for decades.)

    At the same time, as your posts note, there is a tendency to throw the whole blame on Corbyn and his cabal and ignore the real problem - even when you get past his racist scumbaggery, the policies he stood on simply were not of interest to voters.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,190
    edited December 2019
    ydoethur said:

    I don’t believe Labour lost because of immigration. Not in the least because Labour opted for McCluskey’s preferred stricter approach to immigration in the manifesto meeting. Labour will never out Tories the Tories on this issue, and that isn’t a winning strategy either.

    Corbyn’s biggest weakness were the following:

    1. His lack of competence
    2. His lack of self-awareness
    3. His stubbornness
    4. His sense of moral superiority which prevented him from doing what all leaders must do - convince voters of their arguments. Corbyn’s ‘your with or your against me’ mentality prevents this dialogue from occurring.
    5. The lack of competence of those running his operation outside McDonnell (mainly Murphy, Milne, Murray et al)
    6. His baggage on issues related to national security
    7. The anti-semitism crisis which undermined Labour‘s image as an anti-racist party
    8. The 2019 manifesto, which devolved into a large wish list instead of providing a vision and a strategy as to what Labour wanted to achieve in office and how it would achieve it. So much of their campaign was focused in free giveaways Labour failed to articulate what they stood for and their values - something they at least attempted to do in 2017.

    Lefties on twitter are not really relevant to Labour’s issues. They skew younger, and are generally different from the demographic that makes up Labour’s membership which is, like other parties made up of older white people, who are relatively well off.

    McCluskey may be the useless Scouse power broker behind the Corbyn throne, but to move towards any positive trajectory his flatulent fat rump needs to be kicked into touch.
    He might well be after today’s calamity. Hard to see how he doesn’t face some very awkward questions over what’s happened.
    I hadn't seen The Ivy story. McCluskey has long since enjoyed the Boris Johnson lifestyle. From the impressive grace and favour home to the alleged (and I stress alleged) trophy m******s/es. It is an absolute piss-take! At least Boris doesn't pretend he is anything other than an entitled bon viveur.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,147

    Labour caring about food bank Britain isn’t really a big issue. What they need to do is expand their focus from the very poorest in society to squeezed middle voters and aspirational working classes. If anything, if Labour’s ‘giveaway’ polices had focused on groups who are actually marginalised, instead of middle class boomer women they might have come away less damaged. It’s one thing to advocate the state as a safety/support net for those in need. It’s another thing to promote the role of the state to supporting those who already doing well.

    Tha was kind of my point - Labour do think 'food banks', 'bedroom tax' ..... etc. etc are killer blows so they keep on and on and on about them. They're right - it's killing them. :)
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,965

    Priti Patel being an explicitly illiberal Home Secretary will matter more in keeping the Tories' new constituencies sweet than any amount of new NHS funding...

    And this is what Labour's hand-wringing faction simply don't get. When your local patch is infested with yobs and scrotes you want the feckers locked up, not regarded as victims.

    I don’t think they want them regarded as ‘victims’ but think rehabilitation will in the long term reduce crime. Obviously it’s not a popular view, but I think it comes from a place of wanting people to not become career criminals and keep re-offending and thereby blighting their communities.
    We could go for a two-pronged approach -

    Tough on crime
    Tough on the causes of crime

  • kle4 said:

    I don’t believe Labour lost because of immigration. Not in the least because Labour opted for McCluskey’s preferred stricter approach to immigration in the manifesto meeting. Labour will never out Tories the Tories on this issue, and that isn’t a winning strategy either.

    Corbyn’s biggest weakness were the following:

    1. His lack of competence
    2. His lack of self-awareness
    3. His stubbornness
    4. His sense of moral superiority which prevented him from doing what all leaders must do - convince voters of their arguments. Corbyn’s ‘your with or your against me’ mentality prevents this dialogue from occurring.
    5. The lack of competence of those running his operation outside McDonnell (mainly Murphy, Milne, Murray et al)
    6. His baggage on issues related to national security
    7. The anti-semitism crisis which undermined Labour‘s image as an anti-racist party
    8. The 2019 manifesto, which devolved into a large wish list instead of providing a vision and a strategy as to what Labour wanted to achieve in office and how it would achieve it. So much of their campaign was focused in free giveaways Labour failed to articulate what they stood for and their values - something they at least attempted to do in 2017.

    Lefties on twitter are not really relevant to Labour’s issues. They skew younger, and are generally different from the demographic that makes up Labour’s membership which is, like other parties made up of older white people, who are relatively well off.

    2 and 4 kind of overlap. Corbyn's certainty goes beyond the assurance of the ideologue seen often in politics, but to a truly deep level of arrogance about his own moral rightness. Boris is bad from a different direction of course.
    Yep, he’s deeply unpleasant IMO. He has that same messiah complex that Blair had, but at least Blair won elections and understood that you can’t do anything without power. Meanwhile Corbyn’s Guardian column was the most self indulgent piece of garbage I’ve ever read in my life. Someone who doesn’t really want the responsibility of power, but permanently going to rallies and stop the war coalition protests.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,147

    I'm waiting for someone to say that our biggest error in the campaign was to allow the LibDems to dominate the narrative on gender-neutral school uniforms.

    And that's why we lost Blyth Valley.

    When you say 'we' which gender are you trying to offend?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154

    ydoethur said:

    I don’t believe Labour lost because of immigration. Not in the least because Labour opted for McCluskey’s preferred stricter approach to immigration in the manifesto meeting. Labour will never out Tories the Tories on this issue, and that isn’t a winning strategy either.

    Corbyn’s biggest weakness were the following:

    1. His lack of competence
    2. His lack of self-awareness
    3. His stubbornness
    4. His sense of moral superiority which prevented him from doing what all leaders must do - convince voters of their arguments. Corbyn’s ‘your with or your against me’ mentality prevents this dialogue from occurring.
    5. The lack of competence of those running his operation outside McDonnell (mainly Murphy, Milne, Murray et al)
    6. His baggage on issues related to national security
    7. The anti-semitism crisis which undermined Labour‘s image as an anti-racist party
    8. The 2019 manifesto, which devolved into a large wish list instead of providing a vision and a strategy as to what Labour wanted to achieve in office and how it would achieve it. So much of their campaign was focused in free giveaways Labour failed to articulate what they stood for and their values - something they at least attempted to do in 2017.

    Lefties on twitter are not really relevant to Labour’s issues. They skew younger, and are generally different from the demographic that makes up Labour’s membership which is, like other parties made up of older white people, who are relatively well off.

    McCluskey may be the useless Scouse power broker behind the Corbyn throne, but to move towards any positive trajectory his flatulent fat rump needs to be kicked into touch.
    He might well be after today’s calamity. Hard to see how he doesn’t face some very awkward questions over what’s happened.
    I hadn't seen The Ivy story. McCluskey has long since enjoyed the Boris Johnson lifestyle. From the impressive grace and favour home to the alleged (and I stress alleged) trophy mistress/es. It is an absolute piss-take! At least Boris doesn't pretend he is anything other than an entitled bon viveur.
    I was thinking of his defeat in the Turley libel action, and his decision to pay the whole cost from union funds.
  • felix said:

    Labour caring about food bank Britain isn’t really a big issue. What they need to do is expand their focus from the very poorest in society to squeezed middle voters and aspirational working classes. If anything, if Labour’s ‘giveaway’ polices had focused on groups who are actually marginalised, instead of middle class boomer women they might have come away less damaged. It’s one thing to advocate the state as a safety/support net for those in need. It’s another thing to promote the role of the state to supporting those who already doing well.

    Tha was kind of my point - Labour do think 'food banks', 'bedroom tax' ..... etc. etc are killer blows so they keep on and on and on about them. They're right - it's killing them. :)
    Ah, I see. My apologies for misunderstanding.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556

    Priti Patel being an explicitly illiberal Home Secretary will matter more in keeping the Tories' new constituencies sweet than any amount of new NHS funding...

    And this is what Labour's hand-wringing faction simply don't get. When your local patch is infested with yobs and scrotes you want the feckers locked up, not regarded as victims.

    Yep. So naturally there's a good chance Labour will charge headlong into that bear trap and spend the next 5 years telling the public in great detail just how tough Priti is being on the poor misunderstood muggers and burglars...
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,231

    Omnium said:

    Are new threads mainly about TSE getting out of minor difficulties he's encountered on the previous one?

    Oh behave.

    Some Tory leavers have assured us all that Priti Patel is a liberal Home Secretary.

    I’m mocking those people.
    Not sure why being a liberal Home Sec is automatically a virtue.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154

    kle4 said:

    I don’t believe Labour lost because of immigration. Not in the least because Labour opted for McCluskey’s preferred stricter approach to immigration in the manifesto meeting. Labour will never out Tories the Tories on this issue, and that isn’t a winning strategy either.

    Corbyn’s biggest weakness were the following:

    1. His lack of competence
    2. His lack of self-awareness
    3. His stubbornness
    4. His sense of moral superiority which prevented him from doing what all leaders must do - convince voters of their arguments. Corbyn’s ‘your with or your against me’ mentality prevents this dialogue from occurring.
    5. The lack of competence of those running his operation outside McDonnell (mainly Murphy, Milne, Murray et al)
    6. His baggage on issues related to national security
    7. The anti-semitism crisis which undermined Labour‘s image as an anti-racist party
    8. The 2019 manifesto, which devolved into a large wish list instead of providing a vision and a strategy as to what Labour wanted to achieve in office and how it would achieve it. So much of their campaign was focused in free giveaways Labour failed to articulate what they stood for and their values - something they at least attempted to do in 2017.

    Lefties on twitter are not really relevant to Labour’s issues. They skew younger, and are generally different from the demographic that makes up Labour’s membership which is, like other parties made up of older white people, who are relatively well off.

    2 and 4 kind of overlap. Corbyn's certainty goes beyond the assurance of the ideologue seen often in politics, but to a truly deep level of arrogance about his own moral rightness. Boris is bad from a different direction of course.
    Yep, he’s deeply unpleasant IMO. He has that same messiah complex that Blair had, but at least Blair won elections and understood that you can’t do anything without power. Meanwhile Corbyn’s Guardian column was the most self indulgent piece of garbage I’ve ever read in my life. Someone who doesn’t really want the responsibility of power, but permanently going to rallies and stop the war coalition protests.
    I’ve been saying for years Corbyn was Blair without the charm or intellect (or indeed voter appeal).

    Good to know Labour members have finally appreciated my prescience
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873

    kle4 said:

    I don’t believe Labour lost because of immigration. Not in the least because Labour opted for McCluskey’s preferred stricter approach to immigration in the manifesto meeting. Labour will never out Tories the Tories on this issue, and that isn’t a winning strategy either.

    Corbyn’s biggest weakness were the following:

    1. His lack of competence
    2. His lack of self-awareness
    3. His stubbornness
    4. His sense of moral superiority which prevented him from doing what all leaders must do - convince voters of their arguments. Corbyn’s ‘your with or your against me’ mentality prevents this dialogue from occurring.
    5. The lack of competence of those running his operation outside McDonnell (mainly Murphy, Milne, Murray et al)
    6. His baggage on issues related to national security
    7. The anti-semitism crisis which undermined Labour‘s image as an anti-racist party
    8. The 2019 manifesto, which devolved into a large wish list instead of providing a vision and a strategy as to what Labour wanted to achieve in office and how it would achieve it. So much of their campaign was focused in free giveaways Labour failed to articulate what they stood for and their values - something they at least attempted to do in 2017.

    Lefties on twitter are not really relevant to Labour’s issues. They skew younger, and are generally different from the demographic that makes up Labour’s membership which is, like other parties made up of older white people, who are relatively well off.

    2 and 4 kind of overlap. Corbyn's certainty goes beyond the assurance of the ideologue seen often in politics, but to a truly deep level of arrogance about his own moral rightness. Boris is bad from a different direction of course.
    Yep, he’s deeply unpleasant IMO. He has that same messiah complex that Blair had, but at least Blair won elections and understood that you can’t do anything without power. Meanwhile Corbyn’s Guardian column was the most self indulgent piece of garbage I’ve ever read in my life. Someone who doesn’t really want the responsibility of power, but permanently going to rallies and stop the war coalition protests.
    He should infuriate people who actually want to help people, rather than just talk about helping them. All we can say is that there is a reason he sat on the backbenches for decades, and he should have stayed there. Good luck to Labour in changing course (and that's not really in policy terms necessarily, just away from poseurs toward those who actually can help people).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I don’t believe Labour lost because of immigration. Not in the least because Labour opted for McCluskey’s preferred stricter approach to immigration in the manifesto meeting. Labour will never out Tories the Tories on this issue, and that isn’t a winning strategy either.

    Corbyn’s biggest weakness were the following:

    1. His lack of competence
    2. His lack of self-awareness
    3. His stubbornness
    4. His sense of moral superiority which prevented him from doing what all leaders must do - convince voters of their arguments. Corbyn’s ‘your with or your against me’ mentality prevents this dialogue from occurring.
    5. The lack of competence of those running his operation outside McDonnell (mainly Murphy, Milne, Murray et al)
    6. His baggage on issues related to national security
    7. The anti-semitism crisis which undermined Labour‘s image as an anti-racist party
    8. The 2019 manifesto, which devolved into a large wish list instead of providing a vision and a strategy as to what Labour wanted to achieve in office and how it would achieve it. So much of their campaign was focused in free giveaways Labour failed to articulate what they stood for and their values - something they at least attempted to do in 2017.

    Lefties on twitter are not really relevant to Labour’s issues. They skew younger, and are generally different from the demographic that makes up Labour’s membership which is, like other parties made up of older white people, who are relatively well off.

    McCluskey may be the useless Scouse power broker behind the Corbyn throne, but to move towards any positive trajectory his flatulent fat rump needs to be kicked into touch.
    He might well be after today’s calamity. Hard to see how he doesn’t face some very awkward questions over what’s happened.
    I hadn't seen The Ivy story. McCluskey has long since enjoyed the Boris Johnson lifestyle. From the impressive grace and favour home to the alleged (and I stress alleged) trophy mistress/es. It is an absolute piss-take! At least Boris doesn't pretend he is anything other than an entitled bon viveur.
    I was thinking of his defeat in the Turley libel action, and his decision to pay the whole cost from union funds.
    Just seen that story, what an absolute crock that is. It's crazy.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,190
    edited December 2019
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I don’t believe Labour lost because of immigration. Not in the least because Labour opted for McCluskey’s preferred stricter approach to immigration in the manifesto meeting. Labour will never out Tories the Tories on this issue, and that isn’t a winning strategy either.

    Corbyn’s biggest weakness were the following:

    1. His lack of competence
    2. His lack of self-awareness
    3. His stubbornness
    4. His sense of moral superiority which prevented him from doing what all leaders must do - convince voters of their arguments. Corbyn’s ‘your with or your against me’ mentality prevents this dialogue from occurring.
    5. The lack of competence of those running his operation outside McDonnell (mainly Murphy, Milne, Murray et al)
    6. His baggage on issues related to national security
    7. The anti-semitism crisis which undermined Labour‘s image as an anti-racist party
    8. The 2019 manifesto, which devolved into a large wish list instead of providing a vision and a strategy as to what Labour wanted to achieve in office and how it would achieve it. So much of their campaign was focused in free giveaways Labour failed to articulate what they stood for and their values - something they at least attempted to do in 2017.

    Lefties on twitter are not really relevant to Labour’s issues. They skew younger, and are generally different from the demographic that makes up Labour’s membership which is, like other parties made up of older white people, who are relatively well off.

    McCluskey may be the useless Scouse power broker behind the Corbyn throne, but to move towards any positive trajectory his flatulent fat rump needs to be kicked into touch.
    He might well be after today’s calamity. Hard to see how he doesn’t face some very awkward questions over what’s happened.
    I hadn't seen The Ivy story. McCluskey has long since enjoyed the Boris Johnson lifestyle. From the impressive grace and favour home to the alleged (and I stress alleged) trophy mistress/es. It is an absolute piss-take! At least Boris doesn't pretend he is anything other than an entitled bon viveur.
    I was thinking of his defeat in the Turley libel action, and his decision to pay the whole cost from union funds.
    I don't think the loss of the Turley action will cause him any concern. Presumably the Union will foot the entire bill.

    I utterly detest the man.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    edited December 2019
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    I don’t believe Labour lost because of immigration. Not in the least because Labour opted for McCluskey’s preferred stricter approach to immigration in the manifesto meeting. Labour will never out Tories the Tories on this issue, and that isn’t a winning strategy either.

    Corbyn’s biggest weakness were the following:

    1. His lack of competence
    2. His lack of self-awareness
    3. His stubbornness
    4. His sense of moral superiority which prevented him from doing what all leaders must do - convince voters of their arguments. Corbyn’s ‘your with or your against me’ mentality prevents this dialogue from occurring.
    5. The lack of competence of those running his operation outside McDonnell (mainly Murphy, Milne, Murray et al)
    6. His baggage on issues related to national security
    7. The anti-semitism crisis which undermined Labour‘s image as an anti-racist party
    8. The 2019 manifesto, which devolved into a large wish list instead of providing a vision and a strategy as to what Labour wanted to achieve in office and how it would achieve it. So much of their campaign was focused in free giveaways Labour failed to articulate what they stood for and their values - something they at least attempted to do in 2017.

    Lefties on twitter are not really relevant to Labour’s issues. They skew younger, and are generally different from the demographic that makes up Labour’s membership which is, like other parties made up of older white people, who are relatively well off.

    2 and 4 kind of overlap. Corbyn's certainty goes beyond the assurance of the ideologue seen often in politics, but to a truly deep level of arrogance about his own moral rightness. Boris is bad from a different direction of course.
    Yep, he’s deeply unpleasant IMO. He has that same messiah complex that Blair had, but at least Blair won elections and understood that you can’t do anything without power. Meanwhile Corbyn’s Guardian column was the most self indulgent piece of garbage I’ve ever read in my life. Someone who doesn’t really want the responsibility of power, but permanently going to rallies and stop the war coalition protests.
    I’ve been saying for years Corbyn was Blair without the charm or intellect (or indeed voter appeal).

    Good to know Labour members have finally appreciated my prescience
    I’m not a Labour member anymore, but I am thinking of rejoining to vote in the leadership contest.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,965
    felix said:

    Labour caring about food bank Britain isn’t really a big issue. What they need to do is expand their focus from the very poorest in society to squeezed middle voters and aspirational working classes. If anything, if Labour’s ‘giveaway’ polices had focused on groups who are actually marginalised, instead of middle class boomer women they might have come away less damaged. It’s one thing to advocate the state as a safety/support net for those in need. It’s another thing to promote the role of the state to supporting those who already doing well.

    Tha was kind of my point - Labour do think 'food banks', 'bedroom tax' ..... etc. etc are killer blows so they keep on and on and on about them. They're right - it's killing them. :)
    A fixation on the bottom 10% isn't going to win us an election.


    As I said in a post the other day, we need to address what matters to the middle 80%.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,190

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    I don’t believe Labour lost because of immigration. Not in the least because Labour opted for McCluskey’s preferred stricter approach to immigration in the manifesto meeting. Labour will never out Tories the Tories on this issue, and that isn’t a winning strategy either.

    Corbyn’s biggest weakness were the following:

    1. His lack of competence
    2. His lack of self-awareness
    3. His stubbornness
    4. His sense of moral superiority which prevented him from doing what all leaders must do - convince voters of their arguments. Corbyn’s ‘your with or your against me’ mentality prevents this dialogue from occurring.
    5. The lack of competence of those running his operation outside McDonnell (mainly Murphy, Milne, Murray et al)
    6. His baggage on issues related to national security
    7. The anti-semitism crisis which undermined Labour‘s image as an anti-racist party
    8. The 2019 manifesto, which devolved into a large wish list instead of providing a vision and a strategy as to what Labour wanted to achieve in office and how it would achieve it. So much of their campaign was focused in free giveaways Labour failed to articulate what they stood for and their values - something they at least attempted to do in 2017.

    Lefties on twitter are not really relevant to Labour’s issues. They skew younger, and are generally different from the demographic that makes up Labour’s membership which is, like other parties made up of older white people, who are relatively well off.

    2 and 4 kind of overlap. Corbyn's certainty goes beyond the assurance of the ideologue seen often in politics, but to a truly deep level of arrogance about his own moral rightness. Boris is bad from a different direction of course.
    Yep, he’s deeply unpleasant IMO. He has that same messiah complex that Blair had, but at least Blair won elections and understood that you can’t do anything without power. Meanwhile Corbyn’s Guardian column was the most self indulgent piece of garbage I’ve ever read in my life. Someone who doesn’t really want the responsibility of power, but permanently going to rallies and stop the war coalition protests.
    I’ve been saying for years Corbyn was Blair without the charm or intellect (or indeed voter appeal).

    Good to know Labour members have finally appreciated my prescience
    I’m not a Labour member anymore, but I am thinking of rejoining to vote in the leadership contest.
    Neither am I, but I voted for Ed and not David last time which should preclude me from ever making such a foolish future selection.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154
    kle4 said:

    He should infuriate people who actually want to help people, rather than just talk about helping them. All we can say is that there is a reason he sat on the backbenches for decades, and he should have stayed there. Good luck to Labour in changing course (and that's not really in policy terms necessarily, just away from poseurs toward those who actually can help people).

    No, they do need a policy change. They need to ditch things like:

    1) Free broadband
    2) the destruction of private pensions
    3) massive bribes to self-interested bleaters
    4) Dithering on major constitutional issues
    5) Huge unfunded spending increases on things they cannot quite define.

    Labour’s last two manifestoes have been a mess. They got lucky in 2017 because the Tory manifesto was a worse mess. With Johnson cleverly learning from this and going policy light, the inadequacy of their proposals was brutally revealed.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154

    I don't think the loss of the Turley action will cause him any concern. Presumably the Union will foot the bill.

    I utterly detest the man.

    If Walker is not a member then it should not be footing the bill. I would say as an official in a (different) union, that is a clear misuse of union funds and potentially a criminal offence. They were co-defendants and costs and damages should be split equally.

    Where it becomes complex is I don’t know if Walker was or is a union member.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    He should infuriate people who actually want to help people, rather than just talk about helping them. All we can say is that there is a reason he sat on the backbenches for decades, and he should have stayed there. Good luck to Labour in changing course (and that's not really in policy terms necessarily, just away from poseurs toward those who actually can help people).

    No, they do need a policy change. They need to ditch things like:

    1) Free broadband
    2) the destruction of private pensions
    3) massive bribes to self-interested bleaters
    4) Dithering on major constitutional issues
    5) Huge unfunded spending increases on things they cannot quite define.

    Labour’s last two manifestoes have been a mess. They got lucky in 2017 because the Tory manifesto was a worse mess. With Johnson cleverly learning from this and going policy light, the inadequacy of their proposals was brutally revealed.
    Oh, I personally think policy is an issue as well, but it is not the most critical issue was my point - it might be possible to win with only minor policy changes, which is good since the members won't permit a big chance, but they've no option but to not go for Corbyn mk 2.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873
    This is the key for me when it comes to leadership - it's the leader's job to deal with problems, not just whine about them.
    https://twitter.com/cjayanetti/status/1207669648520560642
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,329
    I am sure more information will come out in time related to religious groups supporting Labour but I think part of the significant issue is the identity politics leading to 85% of Muslims voting labour last time. This feeds into the research that shows far left anti Semitism has soared

    https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/antisemitism-on-the-far-left-has-overtaken-antisemitism-on-the-far-right-according-to-research-1.493759

    Roughly 1/6th of Labour support will be from the Muslim vote, and maybe the same from the hard left.

    Then you have 1.2 million people working in the NHS and a million in primary and secondary education. I think the NHS works heavily skew labour and teaching slightly less so.

    Finally the rest of the public sector also probably skews heavily labour.

    So a manifesto that is antisemitic, promotes nationalisation, and heavy spending on NHS and hospitals looks like the way forward.



  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,190
    ydoethur said:

    I don't think the loss of the Turley action will cause him any concern. Presumably the Union will foot the bill.

    I utterly detest the man.

    If Walker is not a member then it should not be footing the bill. I would say as an official in a (different) union, that is a clear misuse of union funds and potentially a criminal offence. They were co-defendants and costs and damages should be split equally.

    Where it becomes complex is I don’t know if Walker was or is a union member.
    Wouldn't it be nice if some seriously fraudulent activity has come to pass. I also think that of Johnson and Arcuri too. Sadly probably not in either case.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    edited December 2019
    Costs in that libel case in excess of £1m.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/19/ex-labour-mp-anna-turley-awarded-libel-damages-over-union-story?CMP=share_btn_tw

    I have seen a suggestion from a Sunday Times journalist that the costs might be closer to £2m. McCluskey take a bow for fouling up big time.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,927

    Priti Patel being an explicitly illiberal Home Secretary will matter more in keeping the Tories' new constituencies sweet than any amount of new NHS funding...

    And this is what Labour's hand-wringing faction simply don't get. When your local patch is infested with yobs and scrotes you want the feckers locked up, not regarded as victims.

    That's what Blunkett and Straw recognised. But Labour's job is always reconciling two very different constituencies: the wealthy urban internationalists and those shut out of the capitalist system.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154
    dr_spyn said:

    Costs in that libel case in excess of £1m.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/19/ex-labour-mp-anna-turley-awarded-libel-damages-over-union-story?CMP=share_btn_tw

    I have seen a suggestion from a Times journalist that the costs might be closer to £2m. McCluskey take a bow for fouling up big time.

    Ouch. That’s gonna hurt. What happens if - even if they are within their rights to pay the costs - staff have to be let go to make ends meet?

    ydoethur said:

    I don't think the loss of the Turley action will cause him any concern. Presumably the Union will foot the bill.

    I utterly detest the man.

    If Walker is not a member then it should not be footing the bill. I would say as an official in a (different) union, that is a clear misuse of union funds and potentially a criminal offence. They were co-defendants and costs and damages should be split equally.

    Where it becomes complex is I don’t know if Walker was or is a union member.
    Wouldn't it be nice if some seriously fraudulent activity has come to pass. I also think that of Johnson and Arcuri too. Sadly probably not in either case.
    We should be so fecking lucky.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    Great thread by Tomas. Brilliant piece.

    I have no idea what Labour are going to do. At present they seem to be in a hole, the digging of which was often their own. It's so bloody deep I'm not entirely sure they will ever get out.

    There are currently too many irreconcilables. Fissures so great no one may span them in a generation, in a century.

    There is one unthinkable solution.

    Split.
  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106


    Not sure why being a liberal Home Sec is automatically a virtue.

    Michael Howard was an outstanding HS.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,503
    From a slightly different starting point, i think that's a very fair article - thanks Tomas.
  • Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:
    Ultimately, Labour has become a movement that doesn’t care about its voters, it cares about feeling smug.

    As a result, its voters have abandoned it, and it is left with smugness.

    They cannot see why constantly thinking themselves the right people to rule Britain and naturally superior to everyone else isn’t appealing to their voters. .
    It's possible for a party to think that and still win elections - Labour are combining that thought without even being able to justify it on the basis of popularity. Lest we forget, the Tories are by far the most popular political party in the UK (though not in some parts of it of course). If you are going to have that arrogance you need to either disguise it, or back it up with success.
    Its remarkable comparing how both parties have reacted to the election result.

    The Tories have won a thumping majority and reacted with humility. The line to take is that they appreciate voters "lent" them their votes and will work hard to make sure they can justify getting the votes again next time.

    Labour have had their worst result since before WWII and have reacted with arrogance saying "we won the argument" and that their policies and manifesto were popular.

    Go figure. I know which I think is the smarter response to the results.
    Beauty is the eye of the beholder. Boris legging it up to gloat in Sedgefield and his smugness today, don’t smack hugely of humility.
    Don't be a sore loser. Celebrating victory isn't gloating.

    What did Boris say while he was in Sedgefield? Did he say "ha ha look at us we won the war criminals old seat" or did he say "thank you for lending us your vote"? One is humble, one is gloating, and without seeing him speak there I can guess which way he will have gone.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873
    edited December 2019

    Great thread by Tomas. Brilliant piece.

    I have no idea what Labour are going to do. At present they seem to be in a hole, the digging of which was often their own. It's so bloody deep I'm not entirely sure they will ever get out.

    There are currently too many irreconcilables. Fissures so great no one may span them in a generation, in a century.

    There is one unthinkable solution.

    Split.

    The time for that has come and gone. That people are being encouraged to join it now to secure the 'right' leader is in recognition that it's Labour or nothing for most people. Had the LDs not had a terrible result maybe things would have been different, but they did have a terrible result so everyone is staying. What are they going to do if Corbyn Mk 2 is elected? Leave? Whoever it is won't have the same baggage as Corbyn (given McDonnell and Abbot are not standing and Williamson cannot stand), so even if it is someone who has learned no lessons and wants to do exactly as Corbyn did, those who are unhappy will say they need to give that person a chance. Next thing you know it is 2023 and we are going to the polls under that leader.

    It's hope now. That Boris opening up the spending taps won't buy loyalty, that Brexit will be calamitous, and a change of face will do enough of a job for Labour. All those could be true, but it will be tricky.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,190
    ydoethur said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Costs in that libel case in excess of £1m.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/19/ex-labour-mp-anna-turley-awarded-libel-damages-over-union-story?CMP=share_btn_tw

    I have seen a suggestion from a Times journalist that the costs might be closer to £2m. McCluskey take a bow for fouling up big time.

    Ouch. That’s gonna hurt. What happens if - even if they are within their rights to pay the costs - staff have to be let go to make ends meet?

    ydoethur said:

    I don't think the loss of the Turley action will cause him any concern. Presumably the Union will foot the bill.

    I utterly detest the man.

    If Walker is not a member then it should not be footing the bill. I would say as an official in a (different) union, that is a clear misuse of union funds and potentially a criminal offence. They were co-defendants and costs and damages should be split equally.

    Where it becomes complex is I don’t know if Walker was or is a union member.
    Wouldn't it be nice if some seriously fraudulent activity has come to pass. I also think that of Johnson and Arcuri too. Sadly probably not in either case.
    We should be so fecking lucky.
    I can't see McCluskey worrying too much if 50 to 100 salaried staff have to be sacrificed if it means he can continue to dine out at The Ivy.

    That it were always the way, sadly. A distant relative of mine by marriage was Clive Jenkins' very attractive young mistress in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,965
    SunnyJim said:


    Not sure why being a liberal Home Sec is automatically a virtue.

    Michael Howard was an outstanding HS.
    But didn't he threaten to overrule someone?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Backed and laid Clive Lewis today to build up my modest green.
This discussion has been closed.