If the Labour Party didn't exist, would anyone today invent it?

kinger101

westernpromise wrote: »

Yet 60% of those who voted in two Labour leadership elections voted for him. What does that say about what the Labour Party is for?

I think it has been generally tacitly agreed in this thread that there's nothing the Tories need interludes of Labour government to accomplish. If the Tories can legalise gay marriage, they can do anything. The reverse is not true. Labour has always needed the Tories in power to do things it knows are necessary but cannot bring itself to do, or is incompetent to do - fix the economy, sort out the unions, and so on. Once back in power it then fails to repeal any of the things it opposes because laws controlling unions are necessary, but it could never itself have passed any of them. Labour needs episodes of Tory government. It needs and wants to lose.

This is because Labour's structural, perhaps existential problem is that it exists ultimately to spend. Take away the underlying presumption that there are always people you can tax, and replace it with one that we're so structurally !!!! deep in debt we have no way forward, and what has it to say on anything?

So in 2010 and again in 2015 Labour had nothing to say - literally in Ed Miliband's case, when he forgot to mention the economy in his conference speech.

Labour now has a party leader in denial about this yet who apparently reflects the attitudes of 60% of the members. The 60% regard the other 40% as Tories, like to kid themselves Blair wasn't a Labour PM, and meanwhile most of the ground that 40% would like to occupy is owned by May's Tories.

It was always clear even in 1997 that the Tories would be back in power at some point because Labour would wreck the economy and would need them back in power to fix it. No such rescue seems likely for Labour.

It's also pretty certain that one day the Labour party will be back in power. There will become a time when the the Conservatives will become too unpalatable. The first thing it needs to do is fix its system of appointing a leader, so that the decision is made by the PLP rather than those who want it to be in continual opposition.

It's track record with the economy will always be it's biggest weakness, but issues of fairness in our society have not gone away. Though ironically, it was probably Brown's tax credit system that has allowed many of the most exploitative companies to thrive.

EDIT: On a side note, the UK has only had two notable leaders who've shifted the political consensus since 1945. One was Labour (Clement Attlee) and the other was Conservative (Thatcher). The other PMs have mostly just administered a system which is the result of Attlee and Thatcher. The conservatives have just been more successful at it.

Conrad

kinger101 wrote: »

It's track record with the economy will always be it's biggest weakness, but issues of fairness in our society have not gone away.

The public is ever more aware that fairness is not a concept owned by the left and that fairness is all too often warped out of shape by the left, for example where ooman rights lawyers make definite bad egg terrorists millionaires out of the State purse, or where newcomers get to jump queues and best the welfare system whereas citizens having paid in all their lives get next to nothing when they fall ill if they had the good responsible forward thinking to try and pay off their mortgage.


Time and time again the left seem to throw their passions into backing those that don't play by the rules the rest of us do


Is it fair to argue we must add to the £1.6 trillion public debt and pass it onto our kids? Every single day the left argues for more spending, it's their go to lazy answer to all ills and its frankly childish

kinger101

Conrad wrote: »

The public is ever more aware that fairness is not a concept owned by the left and that fairness is all too often warped out of shape by the left, for example where ooman rights lawyers make definite bad egg terrorists millionaires out of the State purse, or where newcomers get to jump queues and best the welfare system whereas citizens having paid in all their lives get next to nothing when they fall ill if they had the good responsible forward thinking to try and pay off their mortgage.


Time and time again the left seem to throw their passions into backing those that don't play by the rules the rest of us do


Is it fair to argue we must add to the £1.6 trillion public debt and pass it onto our kids? Every single day the left argues for more spending, it's their go to lazy answer to all ills and its frankly childish

If you spoke to the average person in the street about your terrorist case, they'd wonder what on earth you were talking about. I'm unsure what this has to do with the Labour party given the payout was made under the Coalition government, whom no doubt received Counsel's opinion on the matter. Even governments can't choose to ignore current law. In this case I understand they didn't want the case in court for state security reasons.

I can't recall if I've ever voted for Labour BTW, but if I have, I'm sure it's only once. But I agree with the debt point. If a party of the left wants to distribute wealth, it shouldn't be between generations. I think the the last Labour government's most bat5h1t crazy policy was the child saving schemes they funded out of public borrowing. They might as well have just taken out a credit card in every newborn child's name.

antrobus

kinger101 wrote: »

It's also pretty certain that one day the Labour party will be back in power. There will become a time when the the Conservatives will become too unpalatable....

The only certainties are death and taxes.

The Conservatives may well become too unpalatable at some point in the future. There is no guarantee as to which party will be around to replace them.

kinger101 wrote: »

... The first thing it needs to do is fix its system of appointing a leader, so that the decision is made by the PLP rather than those who want it to be in continual opposition....

Not sure that's ever going to happen. The way the current Labour leadership election process works is this; the PLP control the nomination process, a candidate needs to be nominated by 15% of the PLP to get nominated.* What normally happens is that certain MPs nominate the token leftist in order to encourage 'debate', and the wider membership then get to choose between the nominees.

In 2010 the token leftist nominated was Diane Abbott. She then came bottom of the poll. In 2015 the token leftist nominated was Jeremy Corbyn, and he went on and flippin won it. I think that had a lot to do with Milibean's £3 memberships and an influx of neo-Trots who saw their opportunity. Others might disagree.

I'm sure that in any future leadership election MPs may well be reluctant to continue with this tradition. Which is why there is an attempt to lower the nomination threshold, why there are rumours of deselection attempts, and why (of course) Corbyn is reluctant to resign.

But I don't think it will ever become the case that only the PLP gets to decide. Even the flippin Conservatives let their membership make the final decision.

* I think it's 15%. They do keep fiddling with the rules.

kinger101 wrote: »

....It's track record with the economy will always be it's biggest weakness, but issues of fairness in our society have not gone away. Though ironically, it was probably Brown's tax credit system that has allowed many of the most exploitative companies to thrive....

Living down Bungler Brown's track record will take some time.

kinger101 wrote: »

...EDIT: On a side note, the UK has only had two notable leaders who've shifted the political consensus since 1945. One was Labour (Clement Attlee) and the other was Conservative (Thatcher). The other PMs have mostly just administered a system which is the result of Attlee and Thatcher. The conservatives have just been more successful at it.

Yes. The answer to the question, who was the greatest post 45 PM, the answer would be Attlee, or Thatcher, or ...... mmm, that's about it. But simply administering a system effectively isn't a bad achievement, it's soddin it up that you want to avoid, and one or two have managed that.

Andy_L

antrobus wrote: »

In 2010 the token leftist nominated was Diane Abbott. She then came bottom of the poll. In 2015 the token leftist nominated was Jeremy Corbyn, and he went on and flippin won it. I think that had a lot to do with Milibean's £3 memberships and an influx of neo-Trots who saw their opportunity.

or an influx of Tories who saw their opportunity to saddle the Labour Party with an unelectable leader.

kinger101

antrobus wrote: »

The only certainties are death and taxes.

The Conservatives may well become too unpalatable at some point in the future. There is no guarantee as to which party will be around to replace them.




Not sure that's ever going to happen. The way the current Labour leadership election process works is this; the PLP control the nomination process, a candidate needs to be nominated by 15% of the PLP to get nominated.* What normally happens is that certain MPs nominate the token leftist in order to encourage 'debate', and the wider membership then get to choose between the nominees.

In 2010 the token leftist nominated was Diane Abbott. She then came bottom of the poll. In 2015 the token leftist nominated was Jeremy Corbyn, and he went on and flippin won it. I think that had a lot to do with Milibean's £3 memberships and an influx of neo-Trots who saw their opportunity. Others might disagree.

I'm sure that in any future leadership election MPs may well be reluctant to continue with this tradition. Which is why there is an attempt to lower the nomination threshold, why there are rumours of deselection attempts, and why (of course) Corbyn is reluctant to resign.

But I don't think it will ever become the case that only the PLP gets to decide. Even the flippin Conservatives let their membership make the final decision.

* I think it's 15%. They do keep fiddling with the rules.



Living down Bungler Brown's track record will take some time.



Yes. The answer to the question, who was the greatest post 45 PM, the answer would be Attlee, or Thatcher, or ...... mmm, that's about it. But simply administering a system effectively isn't a bad achievement, it's soddin it up that you want to avoid, and one or two have managed that.

Yep, the £3 votes and the "diversity of candidates" nonsense started the mess. The token lefty thing effectively removed the only check the PLP had on candidate selection. Somehow they need to change to nomination process to get a two-candidate list for party members to vote on. No party should have a leader in which it's own MPs have no confidence.

I think it's going to be difficult but not impossible to claw back control of the party, but it will have to be done for the party to field a leader whom is electable.

kinger101

Andy_L wrote: »

or an influx of Tories who saw their opportunity to saddle the Labour Party with an unelectable leader.

As things turned out, no assistantance from the Tories was required.

MyOnlyPost

westernpromise wrote: »

Yet 60% of those who voted in two Labour leadership elections voted for him. What does that say about what the Labour Party is for?

I do like how you select your arguments with blinkers on. What proportion of the Conservative membership is over 65? Does this mean that the party only represents pensioners and only pensioners vote for it? Just remind us how many party members voted for May to be leader? At least Labour held a democratice leadership contest that went to the membership.

I am a swing voter, for choice I wouldn't have voted at all since 1997 as I wasn't happy with my local candidates or the wider political parties. I live in one of those towns where you could pin a rosette on a donkey and it would win so the opposition candidates are fodder. However until the government makes voting compulsory and adds the "none of the above" box I shall contine to vote for the least offensive option at each election.

None of the major political parties are fit for purpose, the electoral system is archaic, the vast majority of politicians don't represent the masses and the quality of some of the people attracted to politics is abysmal, hence the endless scandals and snouts in troughs. Until something is done to radically overhaul British politics it will continue ad infinitum

It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. Douglas Adams

The desire to be a politician should bar you for life from ever becoming one. Billy Connolly

Conrad

Over on The Guardian, Mary Creagh has been given the opportunity of writing an article about the huge offence she endured when labelled hysterical.


As one comment puts it - no wonder Labour have lost touch with working people that endure the real harsh realities of life.


I liked this comment here;


As Bill Maher so pointedly observed: "In 2016, conservatives won the White House and won majorities in both houses, and almost 2/3 of governorships and state legislatures. Whereas liberals, on the other hand, caught Steve Martin calling Carrie Fisher 'beautiful' in a tweet, and made him take it down."

Conrad

kinger101 wrote: »

If you spoke to the average person in the street about your terrorist case, they'd wonder what on earth you were talking about. I'm unsure what this has to do with the Labour party given the payout was made under the Coalition government,

Compensation fought long and hard for by left wing ooman rights lawyers, some of whom become Labour MP's and big wigs such as Chakrabarty.


People are dismayed by these greedy seekers of compassion status, that amass power and wealth by choosing to throw their energies and passions behind those most of us would deport in a seconds notice, or chasing down soldiers for profit.


The public view the left and all these defenders of charlatans and spongers as one and the same, that's the point