Corbynomics: A Dystopia

setmefree2

antrobus wrote: »

One fundamental problem with that scenario. David Miliband is not a MP,

The other is that the working classes /blue collar workers globally are rejecting the Liberal Elite's view of the world - which is unfettered globalisation and tons of free movement in order to make themselves rich....so David Miliband is yesterday's man....

setmefree2

If you want an insight into how Labour lost in Copeland and struggled in Stoke, you need only look at how the campaigns were waged. And in this you glimpse the worldview that is fast making Labour an irrelevance.
In Copeland, the campaign focused on proposed cuts to the local health service, in which its maternity unit would move 40 miles away. Labour canvassers shoved leaflets through letterboxes featuring quotes from unnamed midwives, warning ‘mothers will die, babies will die, babies will be brain-damaged’ if the Tories got in. The NHS was also a priority in Stoke, but only really to distract from Brexit. Stoke is the ‘Brexit capital of the UK’, whose residents voted for Leave in their thousands. But Snell, a sneering Remainer, has dubbed Brexit ‘a massive pile of !!!!!!’.
These are the two sides of how Labour sees the working class – as vulnerable or as !!!!; as desperately needing health services or the bureaucratic oversight of institutions like the EU. When they’re not bashing working-class people, painting Leavers as thick or racist or both, Labourites coo over them. They can only connect with the gruff oaths of the north by posing as their saviour, their social worker, their white knight pledging to save them from Dickensian destitution by means of OUR NHS. Working people are viewed less as individuals with aspirations to be met, than as people with fears to be exploited. The masses are either barbaric or bovine.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/after-copeland-labours-days-are-numbered/19494#.WLFzy39qiIc

setmefree2

In other news:-

Sadiq Khan sparks huge row by likening Sottish nationalism to racism in 'spectacularly ill-judged' comments

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/sadiq-khan-sparks-huge-row-by-likening-sottish-nationalism-to-racism-a3475926.html

Doshwaster

antrobus wrote: »

One fundamental problem with that scenario. David Miliband is not a MP, and not even eligible for nomination as leader. You would need a sitting Labour MP to resign, and a by-election, before he could even mount a challenge. I'm not convinced that the Corbynistas would allow him to be picked as a candidate, even if there was a constituency that did, and neither am I convinced that Labour would win the by-election.

It would be a high risk for Milliband the Elder. Unless it was an ultra-safe seat (how many of those do Labour have now?), he would't be guaranteed to win, he probably get enough MPs to get nominated as leader but would the party members go for him or whoever is designated as Corbyn's spiritual heir?

Even if he was by some political miracle to become leader before 2020 he would still be facing an almost certain general election defeat and would face calls to resign. If if he wanted to go on why would he want to lead the party for another 5 years in opposition?

It's hard to see where the light is at the end of the tunnel for Labour but Corbyn needs to lead them to the inevitable crushing defeat before many in the party will come to their senses.

setmefree2

The Labour vote started falling in Copeland under Tony Blair’s leadership (see chart below). In 1997, the party attracted just over 24,000 votes. But by 2005, it had dropped by 43% to around 17,000. Under Ed Miliband, the decline continued: This trend is not unique to Copeland. New Labour lost five million voters during its 13 years in power, as the public discovered things were not getting better but worse in many ways.

Income inequality and poverty grew under New Labour. The party introduced tuition fees. It built hospitals under the discredited Private Financial Initiative (PFI) scheme. It lightly regulated the banks and allowed them to gamble away the nation’s future. Private landlords grew rich while councils almost completely stopped building council homes. The party sent soldiers off to die in illegal wars, costing thousands of lives. And it allowed old industries to decline without replacing them.

Corbyn’s critics don’t want to give him the time to overcome this toxic legacy. Instead, many of them want to bring a version of New Labour back from the dead. But this would worsen, not solve, the party’s problems in its heartlands.

https://www.thecanary.co/2017/02/24/new-labour-lost-copeland-not-corbyn-tweets/

antrobus

setmefree2 wrote: »

https://www.thecanary.co/2017/02/24/new-labour-lost-copeland-not-corbyn-tweets/

"Get Involved! – Join Momentum." Is what they proclaim. So that is what they mean by a "free, fair and fearless media".

And as regards this statement;

The Labour vote started falling in Copeland under Tony Blair’s leadership (see chart below). In 1997, the party attracted just over 24,000 votes. But by 2005, it had dropped by 43% to around 17,000.

I would like to point out that Labour got 24,025 votes at Copeland in 1997, and 17,033 votes in 2005, a fall of 6,992 votes which would be a decline of 29.1%. And not "43%". And it might be worth mentioning that since turnout fell, the Labour share of the vote was only down from 58% to 50%.

Whichever ever way you cut it, I think this illustrates the central problem with Corbynomics; an inability to perform basic arithemetic.

mrginge

Thrugelmir wrote: »

As long as the job gets done. Who cares? Nothing wrong in bland. Certainly is competent and tough enough.

Image over substance my good man. That's what they want.

Personally, after sitting through Blair, Brown and Cameron's years of spin I'd rather get away from it, but I guess when identikit politics is the aim, image is all there is left.

StevieJ

setmefree2 wrote: »

The other is that the working classes /blue collar workers globally are rejecting the Liberal Elite's view of the world - which is unfettered globalisation and tons of free movement in order to make themselves rich....so David Miliband is yesterday's man....

Or tomorrows, when the new populism is shown to be a complete sham.

StevieJ

Doshwaster wrote: »

It would be a high risk for Milliband the Elder. Unless it was an ultra-safe seat (how many of those do Labour have now?), he would't be guaranteed to win, he probably get enough MPs to get nominated as leader but would the party members go for him or whoever is designated as Corbyn's spiritual heir?
s.

What about Islington :-)

antrobus

Doshwaster wrote: »

It would be a high risk for Milliband the Elder. Unless it was an ultra-safe seat (how many of those do Labour have now?), he would't be guaranteed to win, ...

Liverpool Walton might be a safe bet. Even under the worst possible scenario, Labour should get at least 150 seats at the next GE. But who knows with a by-election. The things is, the safer the seat, the less likely it would be for the incumbent to stand down.

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/orderedseats.html

Doshwaster wrote: »

...he probably get enough MPs to get nominated as leader but would the party members go for him or whoever is designated as Corbyn's spiritual heir?...

There is always that. Of course, Corbyn's spiritual heir would have to get nominated as well, which might be harder. But the Corbynistas will still be around, and someone might stand against Miliband Mk2 and make a play for their support.

Doshwaster wrote: »

...Even if he was by some political miracle to become leader before 2020 he would still be facing an almost certain general election defeat and would face calls to resign. If if he wanted to go on why would he want to lead the party for another 5 years in opposition?.

He'd have to take a pay cut. He gets USD 600k a year for his current job.

Doshwaster wrote: »

....It's hard to see where the light is at the end of the tunnel for Labour but Corbyn needs to lead them to the inevitable crushing defeat before many in the party will come to their senses.

The 1983 experience.:)

StevieJ wrote: »

What about Islington :-)

Which one. North or South and Finsbury?

Besides, Stoke Central should have been good enough. That's a safe seat.