The labour Leader thread...

[McPhee]

Labour has never really changed, Jeremy Corbyn is the reality of the Labour party, it has had a couple of decades denying its origins and values but now reverts to type. I expect a rift and 'new labour' dividing off imminently.

Hopefully.

I say that not because I want unbroken Tory rule, but because it's about time Labour made way for some sensible opposition to the Tories. Labour returning to its roots would be a good thing if it made room for this to happen.

It was in the early seventies

After seven years or so in a fairly restrictive boarding school, I discovered good music, beer, bad women and motorcycles.

My fault entirely.

Happens to all the best people.

 

[Caged]

Hopefully.

I say that not because I want unbroken Tory rule, but because it's about time Labour made way for some sensible opposition to the Tories. Labour returning to its roots would be a good thing if it made room for this to happen.

What would you see as policies of sensible opposition that this new party could represent? Old New Labour were just Tory-lite last time round, the centre-right ground doesn't really provide much of a distinction. Unless you're talking about making space so media coverage of a new party can be given column inches rather than space on the political compass, and you'd actually want to see a right wing libertarian option emerge.

 

[McPhee]

What would you see as policies of sensible opposition that this new party could represent? Old New Labour were just Tory-lite last time round, the centre-right ground doesn't really provide much of a distinction. Unless you're talking about making space so media coverage of a new party can be given column inches rather than space on the political compass, and you'd actually want to see a right wing libertarian option emerge.

There is plenty of space on the Left really. Miliband remained largely centrist, seemingly scared of pledging anything too bold (unless he thought it would be broadly popular, ala freezing energy prices and capping rail fares). Under his leadership it was only really on the economy where Labour were 'Tory-lite'.

The shift under Corbyn cannot be understated. There is a huge gap between, for example, suggesting a break-up of energy businesses to encourage better competition, and outright nationalising them. The first is intended to be sympathetic to both consumers and the market, while the latter is intended solely to please consumers with little regard for the market impact.

If this is Labour's future (and past) direction then there is a huge amount of space in which another leftist party can operate; a party that is free of New Labour's reputation for sleaze, scandal, warmongering and (whether rightly or wrongly) economic mismanagement. A party that is free of Labour's unionised, socialist, working-class roots. A party that supports freedom and liberalism, that will oppose the many distasteful, authoritarian laws that have been passed over the last 20 years in the name of justice and national security.

Agree or disagree with the fundamental principles behind such a party, you can't argue that such an opposition isn't sorely needed. Debate encourages progress. Labour were too similar to the Tories under Brown, not strong enough under Miliband and are too far off the mainstream under Labour. How much longer can we go on without effective debate and realistic alternatives to Tory policy?

 

[Caged]

It gets a bit murky when you see the support that people on the right have for large infrastructure being nationalised, though. I'm not convinced there's much space between the Tories and Labour for something like New Labour but without the word Labour in the name.

Happy to be proven wrong though, I'd quite like to see politics mixed up a bit and more coalition government in the future.

 

[McPhee]

Careful. That's the sort of thing that could start a fight.

Aye. When you see a comment like that and nobody replies, it doesn't usually mean people agree. It simply means nobody can be bothered with the resulting argument. Leave well alone.

 

[McPhee]

It gets a bit murky when you see the support that people on the right have for large infrastructure being nationalised, though. I'm not convinced there's much space between the Tories and Labour for something like New Labour but without the word Labour in the name.

Happy to be proven wrong though, I'd quite like to see politics mixed up a bit and more coalition government in the future.

I guess it's difficult to say until we see some actual policies from Corbyn. He might surprise us all and tone his ideas down so they have broader appeal. In the meantime it would be prudent for the remnants of New Labour, and for the Liberal Democrats, to consider Corbyn's win, what that means for left-wing politics and how they can sell those principles to a wider audience.

 

[Aldav]

I guess it's difficult to say until we see some actual policies from Corbyn. He might surprise us all and tone his ideas down so they have broader appeal. In the meantime it would be prudent for the remnants of New Labour, and for the Liberal Democrats, to consider Corbyn's win, what that means for left-wing politics and how they can sell those principles to a wider audience.

But that's exactly the basic dilemma. If he does "tone down" to "broaden" the appeal, then he compromises the policies he's been espousing for decades, which is tantamount to an admission that they're making him unelectable, and has sold out for a chance at power? At the same time, he'd be betraying the 'authenticity' that seems to have been a major draw factor. Everyone's been saying he's "genuine", not a spinning politician. How long will that last if he changes policies now? What price hypocrisy? He's sort of hung himself on his own petard, on that score, and will, show himself up as the same sort of leaf-in-the-wind politician as those he stood against, and all ths rest in the Commons.

But worse, he's been rebelling even against the "broader" policies of his own party his entire career. Yet now, he adopts them? The accusation then will be that he sold out the instant he got a whiff of power. I doubt anybody else will buy it, and he'll betray and offend his current base.

 

[clv101]

Given the leadership election result it's clear Corbyn does represent the views of labour party members, affiliates and supporters.

What I find interesting is how little support Liz Kendell and her backers (Simon Danczuk, Margaret Hodge, Tristram Hunt, Chuka Umunna etc...) got. Such a small number of people support them that these MP clearly shouldn't be in the Labour Party!

The fundamental question is whether the Labour Party is couple hundred MPs or a few hundred thousand members? This election has shown that many Labour MP aren't aligned with the members.

As for the 2020 general election, I think the most important point to realise is that Corbyn's Labour can win without converting a single Tory, UKIP or LibDem voter, or even convincing a single swing voter. The largest section of the electorate (33.9% compared with Cameron's winning share of 24.4%) did not vote. Corbyn's Labour can win by convincing a good chunk of those (young?) did not voters to vote for him.

 

[Caged]

Yeah I can't see Corbyn changing his stance fundamentally. It will force people to have a think as to whether they are Labour or whether actually they are better suited to a different party, which is good.

If we accept that Corbyn is going to catch flack from the Telegraph etc. for as long as he is leader of the opposition for being a raging leftie about to give the country away or whatever their whinge is this week, then at least that's only one line of attack. Why open himself up to more by changing what he claims to stand for? That sort of thing could even force the Guardian into having an opinion.

As for the 2020 general election, I think the most important point to realise is that Corbyn's Labour can win without converting a single Tory, UKIP or LibDem voter, or even convincing a single swing voter. The largest section of the electorate (33.9% compared with Cameron's winning share of 24.4%) did not vote. Corbyn's Labour can win by convincing a good chunk of those (young?) did not voters to vote for him.

That very much depends on the constituencies they are divided into. If they are all 23 year old PR and media account managers living in Clapham then it won't help.

 

[McPhee]

I'm not aware of any seat in the country where non-voters couldn't tip the balance. At the top end for turnout the chances are dubious as turnout would have to be in the high 90's with all of the new voters backing Labour, but across much of the country getting another 10-15 points would completely change things. That's against 66.1% average turnout, so not even a high percentage of non voters would be needed.

The big question is, can anyone get those people to vote? And if so, will the majority vote the 'right' way.

 

[Duke]

Given the leadership election result it's clear Corbyn does represent the views of labour party members, affiliates and supporters.

But not voters, which is what counts.

 

[Aldav]

As for the 2020 general election, I think the most important point to realise is that Corbyn's Labour can win without converting a single Tory, UKIP or LibDem voter, or even convincing a single swing voter. The largest section of the electorate (33.9% compared with Cameron's winning share of 24.4%) did not vote. Corbyn's Labour can win by convincing a good chunk of those (young?) did not voters to vote for him.

If he does win, will the last one out please turn off the lights?

 

[Sliver]

But not voters, which is what counts.

Voters like you maybe. Labour like the Tory's cycle in and out of government, it's just a matter of time till this current Tory rabble gets kicked out.

 

[ron3003]

If he does win, will the last one out please turn off the lights?

The lights will already be off before any 2020 election due to ongoing lack of investment in infrastructure and the Tory's present assault on the renewable sector.

 

[easyrider]

I want renationalised rail...and public transport..


The current model doesn't work.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

I want renationalised rail...and public transport..

Anyone who wants public transport renationalised clearly isn't old enough to remember how bad it was run when it was nationalised.

 

[Danthus]

Anyone who wants public transport renationalised clearly isn't old enough to remember how bad it was run when it was nationalised.

Since when did it mean it will be as bad?

 

[RDM]

I want renationalised rail...and public transport..


The current model doesn't work.

How would you like to see it paid for?

What tax rises or service cuts would you like to see so we can afford to nationalise and run public transport?

 

[Danthus]

But not voters, which is what counts.

They are voters.

 

[easyrider]

Anyone who wants public transport renationalised clearly isn't old enough to remember how bad it was run when it was nationalised.

Just because it was bad in the past doesn't mean things cannot be learnt from and implemented in a new way...while still publically owned...

Train prices are a joke currently..I mean laughable...