Topics about the Labour Party
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
#441877
Here's the problem. Imagine I'm Labour leader and you're a member. I'm not trying to connect with you. I'm trying to connect with them. Of course though, there's a danger that if I ignore you, you'll go off somewhere else. But I'm not too bothered because there's nobody electable to the left of us, and that's the direction any leakage is going to go.

If you want to rule, you have to represent everyone, not just the people who voted for you, and in time Cameron will be marked as someone who did precisely not that. Remember Mitt Romney with his 47% quote? That did for him quite effectively. You have to convince enough people to vote for you, true, but then you have to do as good a job as possible to convince them to vote for you again.

It's not easy, and I'll not regret the way I cast my vote, but as said elsewhere, we need something that catches public imaginations, and, it must be said, someone with some real bite to them - a bit of a bastard. JC's a smart guy, and he's got principles I broadly agree with. But he's not just bought a knife to a gunfight - he's not bothered to bring a weapon at all.
#441886
Andy McDandy wrote:Here's the problem. Imagine I'm Labour leader and you're a member. I'm not trying to connect with you. I'm trying to connect with them. Of course though, there's a danger that if I ignore you, you'll go off somewhere else. But I'm not too bothered because there's nobody electable to the left of us, and that's the direction any leakage is going to go.
It has been suggested that taking supporters for granted was the mistake Scottish Labour made. Taken to the sorts of extremes that I have been reading from "moderates" it would mean foisting a Hobson's choice of Blairite, "moderate" or "moderniser" on the membership after Corbyn's ousting. That could indeed cause a split and guarantee Tory rule for decades. At the very least a huge drop in party membership and voter turnout.
Andy McDandy wrote: JC's a smart guy, and he's got principles I broadly agree with. But he's not just bought a knife to a gunfight - he's not bothered to bring a weapon at all.
While I don't disagree, from the cries of "revenge reshuffle" and "purge" you would think he had come armed with WMD.
#441890
mikey mikey wrote:
Andy McDandy wrote:Replacement needs to be a consensus builder but at the same time have the charisma to connect.
Just what does "consensus" look like?
Does it include "being tougher on than the Tories on benefits"?(Rachel Reeve)
What about "not cutting university tuition fees"? (Liz Kendall)
Or "an alternative austerity" (Yvette Cooper?)
Despite the fact that 75% of full Labour members are against further RAF action in Syria (and only 13% in favour) does consensus mean going along with Hawkish Hillary?
Consensus building is being willing to compromise and being able to read the public feeling - but crucially to be able to present a solid case that supports that, or present a solid case why you can't go along with it. To the public, and to your party.

Miliband's Labour tried to go along with the 'immigrants bad' mantra when the answer was to reframe the debate. Corbyn is on the right side of the groundswell of public opinion on Syria bombing but made the case poorly. Just 2 examples, but both stumbles.

In short and to be frank whoever is leader, or whoever is the next leader, and their team simply has to do one thing: do better.
#441899
crabcakes_windermere wrote:Consensus building is being willing to compromise
Indeed it is. We have seen what Corbyn, Watson and McDonnell are prepared to compromise on.

I ask myself which of the moderates would be prepared to compromise, on what and how far.

Any guesses? If memory serves Blairites took a very "our way or high way" approach.
#441901
mikey mikey wrote:We have seen what Corbyn, Watson and McDonnell are prepared to compromise on.
We have?
#441904
We're playing "Everybody's a Loser", I would say. Frankly, at times I think we'd be best leaving any threads about the Labour party alone for, I dunno, a few months until everybody can come up with some new arguments. Presently, it's all an exercise in utter futility.

Though if anyone has any Tory-leaning friends, they may want to check all this out they can have a right good chuckle.
Last edited by D.C. Harrison on Tue Jan 12, 2016 8:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#441917
This tweet is everything that's currently wrong in under 140 characters:

Would be nice to have a Labour that could oppose this but arguing among themselves about trident is cool too I guess http://gu.com/p/4fmk6/stw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
#441922
bluebellnutter wrote:
mikey mikey wrote:We have seen what Corbyn, Watson and McDonnell are prepared to compromise on.
We have?
We haven't?
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:Playing fantasy politics now.
Fantasies about how Momentum folks have not been helping in the London Mayor-ship election?

Or the Oldham by-election?
#441932
mikey mikey wrote:
bluebellnutter wrote:
mikey mikey wrote:We have seen what Corbyn, Watson and McDonnell are prepared to compromise on.
We have?
We haven't?
No, I'd say we haven't. We've had Corbyn trying to engineer his way around the fact the Labour party membership didn't back him on Trident by fixing the votes when it comes back again, rather than being prepared to compromise on an issue he's clearly at odds with his own party on.

Perhaps you could list us ten things which those three have compromised on since the leadership election? Jog our memories and all.
#441941
Title from article on Progress Online November 2015

"Compromising Corbyn"
The new leader may compromise on policy, but he will not do so on party reform, writes Conor Pope
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2015/1 ... ng-corbyn/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So that's one.


Where you got ten from only your arse and fingers know.
#441953
lord_kobel wrote:Wait, so you're saying "May" = "Does"?
After he cites the appointment of many "moderates" onto the Shadow cabinet, Conor Pope in his article for Progress Online refers also to the free vote on military intervention in Syria, making the remark that even Ed Milliband used the whip.

He then asks:
So how has it come to this? With the overwhelming mandate he enjoys, why has Corbyn been so quick to accommodate others’ policy positions rather than seek to quickly push through his own agenda?
link above

Had you even read the article?
Last edited by mikey mikey on Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
Brexit Fuckwit Thread

Just picked at random from a BBC SYB: Screenshot[…]

Surely not? Is this "Fake Noos"? https:[…]

Aaron Bastani

Next time I pop into Waterstones I might want to t[…]

David Cameron

Whilst the original Guardian editorial was rather […]