With regard to the labour party, the problems run much deeper than leadership. It is being steadily overtaken by what is essentially a coalition of left wing activists. The rump of long standing members from the Milliband era are in retreat, resigning their positions in CLP's largely under threat of being run out by momentum. That isn't true everywhere, but it is what I have seen over the past six months.

A lot of members who are active in CLP's are, in my experience, even further to the left than the policy platform adopted by the party. They believe in crazy, crazy stuff. Opening up borders. Abolishing prisons. Mad stuff that is surely electorally suicidal. As has always been the case with the labour party, these activists mainly see the party as a platform for their ideas, which they are so convinced represent universal truths, that they are blinded to the reality of how harmful they would be in terms of electability.

The trade unions don't fulfill the moderating role that they used to within the party, in fact they themselves have largely been taken over by radical activists with the broader trade union membership not being politically engaged. The only time that they will act as a moderating influence on the party is where there is a direct conflict with their members interest, eg Unite over Trident.

These underlying dynamics mean that I am fairly sure that the party is heading towards disaster, and 2017 was simply a high water mark. It will descend in to squabbling between rival extreme left factions, as has been the case in the past, and adopting madder and madder ideas. It is not held together by a coherant and defensible set of ideas, other than blaming the tories for everything. Of course, I could well be wrong in this analysis, but that is what I see.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Jonathan said:

You don't get something for nothing. Maintaining the status-quo costs money. Good ideas cost money short-term, but save long-term.

Not necessarily. But in general yes. My point was despite the government saying they are still on a tight budget, it doesn't mean you can't think of new ideas that over the course of 5 years will be revenue neutral.

What we got from the budget was keep calm and carry on. For a lot of people that is exactly what they didn't want to hear.

True, although with the need to stabilize matters it was about the best they could have managed at the time I think.

Given the thread header... surely this has been reported?

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/940304552447959040

nielh said:

With regard to the labour party, the problems run much deeper than leadership. It is being steadily overtaken by what is essentially a coalition of left wing activists. The rump of long standing members from the Milliband era are in retreat, resigning their positions in CLP's largely under threat of being run out by momentum. That isn't true everywhere, but it is what I have seen over the past six months.

A lot of members who are active in CLP's are, in my experience, even further to the left than the policy platform adopted by the party. They believe in crazy, crazy stuff. Opening up borders. Abolishing prisons. Mad stuff that is surely electorally suicidal. As has always been the case with the labour party, these activists mainly see the party as a platform for their ideas, which they are so convinced represent universal truths, that they are blinded to the reality of how harmful they would be in terms of electability.

The trade unions don't fulfill the moderating role that they used to within the party, in fact they themselves have largely been taken over by radical activists with the broader trade union membership not being politically engaged. The only time that they will act as a moderating influence on the party is where there is a direct conflict with their members interest, eg Unite over Trident.

These underlying dynamics mean that I am fairly sure that the party is heading towards disaster, and 2017 was simply a high water mark. It will descend in to squabbling between rival extreme left factions, as has been the case in the past, and adopting madder and madder ideas. It is not held together by a coherant and defensible set of ideas, other than blaming the tories for everything. Of course, I could well be wrong in this analysis, but that is what I see.

Have you ever read Apocalypse Delayed by Nick Tyrone? You might find the first half interesting (the second half is truly dreadful and not worth the effort).

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

stevef said:

In the 1970s, Labour had a decent leader -Harold Wilson -who had a first degree in economics. He was not on the hard left -he had contempt for Bennism -the word then for Corbynism -nor was he an early Blairite. He was mainstream. As was James Callaghan his successor. As was John Smith in the 1990s. It is to this mainstream-neither of the hard left Corbynistas, or the Blairites on the right of the party, the party of Wilson, Callaghan and Smith that Labour needs to return to. Longstanding Labour voters like me yearns for an end to the factions that Labour has been captured by since 1994.

Corbyn did not dare to present a Corbynista manifesto to voters in June 2017. Instead he stole Blair's 1997 slogan "For the Many, not the Few", made the Blairite promise that income tax and NI for 90% would not rise, and pretended that he could fund vast spending promises on a tax revenue that would be no greater than which was available to Blair and Brown.Even Corporation Tax would not rise higher than it was under Gordon Brown. Not only did he run away from his own fabled principles by not presenting a Corbynista manifesto, but he conned millions into believing in a Mr Micawber in reverse economics which suggested that you can spend ten shillings and sixpence when you only get 4 shillings and tuppence in revenue.

Now Labour is stuck with Corbyn until 2022 for his vanity loves the Stalinist adoration, the songs and poems to his name. But he is unlikely to win the 2022 election, and it would be even worse if he did because his failure would be so spectacular, he would disappoint so many expectations, his bubble would burst with such a spectacular "pop", that Labour would be out at the following election with a landslide, and out of power for a generation.

Not just a decent leader. Denis Healy, Roy Mason, Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams, Barbara Castle, Tony Crosland, Peter Shore, David Owen, Richard Crossman, Michael Foot, it was a party full of talent and ideas, some barmy but most pretty mainstream and focussed on the people they were wanting to serve. The comparison with the current shadow cabinet (or even the present cabinet) is pretty painful. Public service no longer attracts the talent it did.

It was just such a shame such 'talent' made such a mess of the economy in the 1970s

But the Tories were in office for half of the 1970s.

And introduced the most massive reorganisation of English local government since, probably, the Normans, much of which was subsequently undone, primarily under Thatcher.

ydoethur said:

nielh said:

With regard to the labour party, the problems run much deeper than leadership. It is being steadily overtaken by what is essentially a coalition of left wing activists. The rump of long standing members from the Milliband era are in retreat, resigning their positions in CLP's largely under threat of being run out by momentum. That isn't true everywhere, but it is what I have seen over the past six months.

A lot of members who are active in CLP's are, in my experience, even further to the left than the policy platform adopted by the party. They believe in crazy, crazy stuff. Opening up borders. Abolishing prisons. Mad stuff that is surely electorally suicidal. As has always been the case with the labour party, these activists mainly see the party as a platform for their ideas, which they are so convinced represent universal truths, that they are blinded to the reality of how harmful they would be in terms of electability.

The trade unions don't fulfill the moderating role that they used to within the party, in fact they themselves have largely been taken over by radical activists with the broader trade union membership not being politically engaged. The only time that they will act as a moderating influence on the party is where there is a direct conflict with their members interest, eg Unite over Trident.

These underlying dynamics mean that I am fairly sure that the party is heading towards disaster, and 2017 was simply a high water mark. It will descend in to squabbling between rival extreme left factions, as has been the case in the past, and adopting madder and madder ideas. It is not held together by a coherant and defensible set of ideas, other than blaming the tories for everything. Of course, I could well be wrong in this analysis, but that is what I see.

Have you ever read Apocalypse Delayed by Nick Tyrone? You might find the first half interesting (the second half is truly dreadful and not worth the effort).

Thanks, it looks like an interesting book, but I fear it will just be too depressing.

justin124 said:

OldKingCole said:

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

stevef said:

In the 1970s, Labour had a decent leader -Harold n spend ten shillings and sixpence when you only get 4 shillings and tuppence in revenue.

Now Labour is stuck with Corbyn until 2022 for his vanity loves the Stalinist adoration, the songs and poems to his name. But he is unlikely to win the 2022 election, and it would be even worse if he did because his failure would be so spectacular, he would disappoint so many expectations, his bubble would burst with such a spectacular "pop", that Labour would be out at the following election with a landslide, and out of power for a generation.

Not just a decent leader. Denis Healy, Roy Mason, Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams, Barbara Castle, Tony Crosland, Peter Shore, David Owen, Richard Crossman, Michael Foot, it was a party full of talent and ideas, some barmy but most pretty mainstream and focussed on the people they were wanting to serve. The comparison with the current shadow cabinet (or even the present cabinet) is pretty painful. Public service no longer attracts the talent it did.

It was just such a shame such 'talent' made such a mess of the economy in the 1970s

But the Tories were in office for half of the 1970s.

'And introduced the most massive reorganisation of English local government since, probably, the Normans, much of which was subsequently undone, primarily under Thatcher.'

Indeed so. The Heath Government inherited a Balance of Payments Surplus and a Budget Surplus in June 1970.By March 1974 , it had managed to squander both - and to bequeath to Labour a rapidly rising inflation rate of 13.5%.

Wasn't there the small matter of taking us into the EEC (as was) too? Mind, that has been easier to reverse than buggering up the county boundaries. Tho'd have thunk it?

@paulwaugh: Brexiteer backlash starts in earnest. Lord Lawson tells Theresa May to get off her "knees" and stop "begging" Brussels for a trade deal.

HYUFD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Just hoping Corbyn will get too old and go away won't defeat Corbynism. In fact his replacement might not be so thick and so stubborn. McDonnell is far more dangerous for exactly those reasons.

The Tories do a piss poor job of explaining why Corbynism will be such a disaster.

Compare how they destroyed Ed Miliband straight away. They didn't let him frame the rules of the game, they picked up on any nonsense ideas and attacked the potential downsides.

Blair and Bad Al did the same when they were in power.

Why would anyone under 40 who does not remember the strikes and high inflation and inefficient industries and relatively low GDP per capita of the UK in the 70s be concerned about Corbynism? After all he is offering them free tuition fees, no student debt, a big pay rise if they work in the public sector, cheaper rail tickets and electricity and housing all paid for by borrowing and the rich

I'm well over 40 and I will just say to anyone under 40 reading that the seventies were nowhere near as bad as they get painted, and very few of the problems that there were originated in the Labour Party.

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

DavidL said:

stevef said:

In the 1970s, Labour had a decent leader -Harold Wilson -who had a first degree in economics. He was not on the hard left -he had contempt for Bennism -the word then for Corbynism -nor was he an early Blairite. He was mainstream. As was James Callaghan his successor. As was John Smith in the 1990s. It is to this mainstream-neither of the hard left Corbynistas, or the Blairites on the right of the party, the party of Wilson, Callaghan and Smith that Labour needs to return to. Longstanding Labour voters like me yearns for an end to the factions that Labour has been captured by since 1994.

Corbyn did not dare to present a Corbynista manifesto to voters in June 2017. Instead he stole Blair's 1997 slogan "For the Many, not the Few", made the Blairite promise that income tax and NI for 90% would not rise, and pretended that he could fund vast spending promises on a tax revenue that would be no greater than which was available to Blair and Brown.Even Corporation Tax would not rise higher than it was under Gordon Brown. Not only did he run away from his own fabled principles by not presenting a Corbynista manifesto, but he conned millions into believing in a Mr Micawber in reverse economics which suggested that you can spend ten shillings and sixpence when you only get 4 shillings and tuppence in revenue.

Now Labour is stuck with Corbyn until 2022 for his vanity loves the Stalinist adoration, the songs and poems to his name. But he is unlikely to win the 2022 election, and it would be even worse if he did because his failure would be so spectacular, he would disappoint so many expectations, his bubble would burst with such a spectacular "pop", that Labour would be out at the following election with a landslide, and out of power for a generation.

Not just a decent leader. Denis Healy, Roy Mason, Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams, Barbara Castle, Tony Crosland, Peter Shore, David Owen, Richard Crossman, Michael Foot, it was a party full of talent and ideas, some barmy but most pretty mainstream and focussed on the people they were wanting to serve. The comparison with the current shadow cabinet (or even the present cabinet) is pretty painful. Public service no longer attracts the talent it did.

It was just such a shame such 'talent' made such a mess of the economy in the 1970s

But the Tories were in office for half of the 1970s.

Only under Heath, Thatcher had to beat both him and Labour to change the direction of the country