Labour's Love Lost

[Sean of the Shed]

So do you think we need a new thread away from the election one to discuss what went wrong for Labour, what direction it should go in now, what should be their new policies, and what should they do for the next five years as it seems unlikely they will be tackling a national election during that period?
The other, and possibly most important important thing first is who should be leading them? Whoever it is has to be there for the long term and needs to be someone who everyone can get behind.
Any thoughts?

[Sean of the Shed]

And just as I go back to the main menu I see Patrick's thread on "Blue Labour". Surely the last thing needed is a lurch to a soft-right Blairite Tory lite pile of shite.
What the fuck would be the point of mimicking the Tories to win votes from them? Nobody is going to go and see Bjorn Again if actual ABBA are playing up the road.

[Patrick Thistle]

I don't think they're Blairites

[Sean of the Shed]

Maybe not, but just using the prefix 'Blue' seems to be be a hankering to be more Tory but without actually being one. Like watching kiddie-porn but claiming your not a paedo because you haven't actually fucked a minor.

[Bored Of Education]

Here are my aimless meanderings from another place as, I am afraid, I havent got the time or,frankly, energy to analyse it much.

As soon as I knew that the tories were going to win a substantial majority*, I almost felt relieved that Corbyn would be gone (obviously, I would have been ecstatic if he had won). I respected him as a constituency MP and have had flickers of hope during his leadership but that has all dissolved in the last year. Labour, as a party, are always the natural fit for me but I spend an inordinate amount of time thinking "Stupid Labour" and how the PLP reacted to Corbyn's initial leadership victory completely pissed me off. Obviously, the media were always going to lay into him but they gave it the initial ammunition then and have carried on by jumping on the anti-semitism bandwagon (not that there aren't real issues there). It's over Brexit that Corbyn himself completely fucked up though. His stance in 2016 was obvious as he is part of the Bennite anti-European argument which, while I don't agree with, at all I at least understand. I would've preferred Labour to come out for a second referendum obviously (and they still wouldn't have lost by much more) but either way, they had to make a stand. The fence-sitting was a disaster. Aside from that, it was an excellent manifesto - pretty badly delivered - and, of course, they should have been able to crucify the Tories over the NHS. However, you can't beat a lowest common denominator catchphrase like "Get Brexit Done" in this country. It's not genius but it is the sort of bite-size crap that will be swallowed easily. For the future, I don't want to see Momentum broken up particularly, I would love to see more manifestos like that but better delivered with a better leader. I obviously certainly don't want a swing back to the centre. Interesting to see McDonnell gone, I assumed he would be caretaker manager before a younger newer leader. I haven't really got a favourite as yet and there is no need to rush into anything with five years. Mind you, having said that, without McDonnell, there isn't anyone to start actually opposing Johnson so someone is needed fairly soon with Corbyn being a busted flush. However, what I don't want is a potential leader being passed over because they are too young, inexperienced or too low a profile. There's five years, it's not a Swinson situation.

*The penny dropped exactly a week before the election but I thought it was going to be 62 seats but, from Farage's capitulation, the writing was on the wall.

[Nefertiti2]

I posted this on the other thread but it should be here too

[DCI Harry Batt]

I don't quite follow you, BoE. Labour did come out for a second referendum.

[Nefertiti2]

This too

[URL]https://twitter.com/jonburkeuk/status/1206004311043518464?s=21[/URL]

[Sean of the Shed]

I know that there's five years before an election, but the leadership issue cannot be dwelled on for too long. Despite the fact that there is little hope of stopping any Tory policy being swept through Parliament there needs to be a strong voice at the dispatch box highlighting every flaw in those policies.
I feel Corbyn felt obliged to carry on because Watson left the deputy leader position at a time when it was completely impossible to replace him, but it can really only be a short term measure.

[tee rex]

I know that there's five years before an election, but the leadership issue cannot be dwelled on for too long. Despite the fact that there is little hope of stopping any Tory policy being swept through Parliament there needs to be a strong voice at the dispatch box highlighting every flaw in those policies.

But how many defeats did Johnson suffer in Parliament? He set a world record, and he was doomed. Except he obviously wasn't, because Parliament barely mattered in the end. All he really needed was to get the votes for an election on his terms, which - after a game of chicken that clearly didn't do any lasting damage - he duly got. The opposition, including Tories who later quit or were dumped, chalked up plenty of wins and headlines, that aren't now even a footnote in history. He could wave his willy at the despatch box and it wouldn't make any difference. He practically did.

Who Labour are, and who they want to be (and be for) is the question that has been staring them in the face post-Thatcher, and it's not going to be resolved any time soon. There will be plenty of "opposition" wins in the coming months (in short: Brexit, economy, told you so) but that's opposition, not Labour.

[Bored Of Education]

I don't quite follow you, BoE. Labour did come out for a second referendum.

Yes,I am surprised that wasnt picked the original time I wrote it. I meant revoking Brexit. My keyboard is malfunctioning which is causing me to lose my train of thought

[Sean of the Shed]

But how many defeats did Johnson suffer in Parliament? He set a world record, and he was doomed. Except he obviously wasn't, because Parliament barely mattered in the end. All he really needed was to get the votes for an election on his terms, which - after a game of chicken that clearly didn't do any lasting damage - he duly got. The opposition, including Tories who later quit or were dumped, chalked up plenty of wins and headlines, that aren't now even a footnote in history. He could wave his willy at the despatch box and it wouldn't make any difference. He practically did.

Who Labour are, and who they want to be (and be for) is the question that has been staring them in the face post-Thatcher, and it's not going to be resolved any time soon. There will be plenty of "opposition" wins in the coming months (in short: Brexit, economy, told you so) but that's opposition, not Labour.

Any opposition wins in the new parliament would require almost 50 Tories to vote against the party. Seeing as they have purged a lot of the more centrist and remain MPs from their ranks I'd be surprised to see them losing a vote even if they didn't invoke the whip. Right now I could even see foxhunting getting through.

[San Bernardhinault]

It's not my party or field of expertise, but I'm reminded of the comment the other day that by the time the next election comes around, literally the only "non-Tory" leader to win a general election in the previous half century will be Tony Blair.

Basically, with the electoral system as it is there may not have been, and may not be, anything anyone could do to fix it. Britain is structurally electorally Conservative.

[tee rex]

To clarify, I didn't mean wins in Parliament, obviously they won't get those. Rather, general opposition to the coming mess.

Which could be a mixed blessing, as the old "let's not get distracted by internal arguments" line will be seductive, as Labour (i.e. the not-government) go up in the polls when Labour need to have those arguments.

[Sean of the Shed]

Fair enough.

[Bored Of Education]

It's not my party or field of expertise, but I'm reminded of the comment the other day that by the time the next election comes around, literally the only "non-Tory" leader to win a general election in the previous half century will be Tony Blair.

Those quotation marks are doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence..etc.etc.

Already, in the post-mortem, I am hearing lots of talk about needing a Labour Party and a new leader who can get rid of the Tories and about making Labour electable again. Not one thing yet on having a Labour Party and a new leader that makes Britain a better, more equitable and fairer place for everyone (the latter doesn't necessarily follow on from the former). Don't get me wrong, I really want the Tories out and, on balance, would prefer a Labour government instead but what I really want is a better, more equitable and fairer society for all that that provides for all including, if not especially, the poor, the old and the disadvantaged.

[ursus arctos]

That is exactly what is going with Biden candidacy over here.

[MsD]

I posted this earlier, as I'm sick of Blair's popularity being overstated.

A reminder that Blair did not rescue Labour from a morass of leftwing whatever. John Smith was riding high in the polls as Leader, Blair rode in on his coat-tails. He combined an avuncular, trustworthy image with quite radical policies. We fully expected to walk the general election with him at the helm. We reluctantly picked Blair as we were grief-stricken, sick of losing elections and people, and he seemed keen, energetic and maybe could deliver the victory we'd done the groundwork for.

I consider myself privileged to have witnessed John Smith's speech to Conference in 1992, and to have shaken his hand in the bar of the Empire.

When we lost John Smith, we lost a leader who would have taken Labour and Britain down the path of radical and necessary reform of our constitution and political culture.

We did quite well in 92, but lost (apparently) due to Kinnock being ginger and Welsh. Even Spitting Image couldn't make John Smith look bad.

Obviously we can't resurrect him, but I'm not having it that we need another Blair. I think the public might have mistrusted him and seen him as smarmy, if John Smith hadn't prepared the way.

What I want in a leader: integrity, commitment, a team player rather than a dictator. Empathy and warmth. Good presentation skills. Then it's up to us to work together and combat the onslaught of lies. Infighting damages the whole party.

[MsD]

Also, the Party got more votes under Corbyn than under Blair at each election except 1997 and YES I KNOW it has to translate into seats, but it's still interesting to look at the figures, when people are calling Corbyn's leadership a disaster. To get 10.3m votes against a vicious smear campaign, or two vicious smear campaigns, actually - one from the Tories, one from the centrists - is some achievement. Not good enough, yeah, I know, but if centrists hadn't sniped and kept on with the antisemitic/"cultist" claims, we'd have stood a chance.

Edit: important to note, we lost the Scottish Labour votes and seats along the way, so Blair enjoyed a boost there.

1997 11.5m
2001 9.1m
2005: 9.5m
2010: 8.6m
2015: 9.3m
2017: 12.9m
2019: 10.3m

So, our priorities I think are to select a good leader and leadership TEAM, and work out a strategy to combat smears, lies and troll farms.

Re. antisemitism, we are not going through this shit again, and if we don't watch it our new leader will be declared "tainted by association with the world's biggest Nazi, Jeremy Corbyn" until they're forced out or damaged. We need to get the results of the IHRC report and go through them, expel anyone guilty of antisemitism, report to the police any hate crime.
Then, we need to look at who's made false allegations. If someone's claimed to have received thousands of emails, they should be able to produce them and a cyber forensic team need to examine them.
Anyone who's falsely accused Labour members also needs to go, and possibly face legal action.

[elguapo4]

Well said, John Smith has been sadly forgotten by Labour history.

[Lucy Waterman]

John Smith did a lot to help Labour, not least in introducing OMOV. He may well have won in 97, but it's easy to underestimate in our memories how unshakeable the Tory establishment seemed after the 92 defeat.

To put Smith into context, the first by election after Blair became leader saw a swing to Labour of almost 30%. It was the first Labour by election gain of the Parliament, following three Tory losses to the Lib Dems.

[Bored Of Education]

Yes, good points well made. I know that we disagree on Kinnock but, yes, the smears on him were that he was Welsh,ginger and pompous rather than any real and reasonable criticisms of him - in a similar vein as Foot's donkey jacket was the smear on him. Whatever my criticisms of Kinnock, he - nor Foot nor Corbyn - would have ever done what Blair did. Actually, would Kinnock have brought in PPPs and academies? I genuinely don't know.

Well said, John Smith has been sadly forgotten by Labour history.

I am not at all sure that is true.

[Lucy Waterman]

Quite something from MsD's data that Labour got only around 600,000 more this week than Major got in 97.

[MsD]

I'm not misremembering John Smith's popularity, by the way. He was way ahead in the polls and people just liked him and trusted him more than Kinnock.

Here are the Guardian voting intentions between 92-95. Watch it switch.

End of fieldwork/ election date

CON

LAB

LIB DEM

OTHER

CON LEAD OVER LABOUR (percentage points)

Sample

Fieldwork dates

09-05-1992	45%	34%	17%	4%	9%	1,399	8-9 May, 1992
07-06-1992	45%	36%	16%	4%	9%	1,438	6-7 June, 1992
04-07-1992	45%	36%	15%	5%	9%	1,438	3-4 July, 1992
08-08-1992	41%	36%	17%	5%	5%	1,467	7-8 Aug, 1992
05-09-1992	39%	35%	19%	6%	4%	1,424	4-5 Sep 1992
10-10-1992	38%	38%	19%	5%	0%	1,445	9-10 Oct, 1992
07-11-1992	36%	40%	19%	5%	-4%	1,441	6-7 Nov, 1992
05-12-1992	36%	41%	18%	5%	-5%	1,410	4-5 Dec, 1992
09-01-1993	39%	37%	18%	6%	2%	1,463	8-9 Jan, 1993
06-02-1993	37%	39%	18%	5%	-2%	1,365	5-6 Feb, 1993
06-03-1993	36%	41%	18%	5%	-5%	1,432	5-6 March, 1993
03-04-1993	34%	39%	21%	5%	-5%	1,427	2-3 April, 1993
08-05-1993	32%	38%	24%	6%	-6%	1,458	7-8 May, 1993
05-06-1993	31%	38%	26%	6%	-7%	1,390	4-5 June, 1993
03-07-1993	32%	37%	25%	6%	-5%	1,424	2-3 July, 1993
07-08-1993	30%	36%	27%	6%	-6%	1,446	6-7 Aug, 1993
11-09-1993	29%	40%	26%	5%	-11%	1,403	10-11 Sep 1993
09-10-1993	36%	39%	20%	4%	-3%	1,391	8-9 Oct, 1993
06-11-1993	34%	38%	24%	4%	-4%	1,400	5-6 Nov, 1993
04-12-1993	31%	42%	23%	4%	-11%	1,451	3-4 Dec, 1993
08-01-1994	31%	43%	21%	5%	-12%	1,460	7-8 Jan, 1994
12-02-1994	30%	44%	21%	5%	-14%	1,434	11-12 Feb, 1994
12-03-1994	29%	44%	22%	5%	-15%	1,384	11-12 Mar, 1994
09-04-1994	30%	42%	22%	5%	-12%	1,407	8-9 April, 1994
07-05-1994	29%	44%	24%	4%	-15%	1,438	6-7 May, 1994
21-05-1994	30%	44%	20%	6%	-14%	1,420	20-21 May, 1994
09-07-1994	31%	44%	21%	4%	-13%	1,426	8-9 July, 1994
06-08-1994	28%	49%	19%	5%	-21%	1,431	5-6 Aug, 1994
10-09-1994	33%	45%	18%	4%	-12%	1,437	9-10 Sep 1994
08-10-1994	32%	49%	15%	4%	-17%	1,464	7-8 Oct, 1994
05-11-1994	31%	49%	16%	3%	-18%	1,392	4-5 Nov, 1994
03-12-1994	31%	49%	17%	4%	-18%	1,450	2-3 Dec, 1994
14-01-1995	30%	48%	18%	4%	-18%	1,455	13-14 Jan, 1995
11-02-1995	31%	49%	17%	4%	-18%	1,427	10-11 Feb, 1995
11-03-1995	27%	52%	17%	4%	-25%	1,447	10-11 Mar, 1995
08-04-1995	26%	51%	18%	5%	-25%	1,358	7-8 April, 1995
13-05-1995	29%	48%	19%	4%	-19%	1,428	12-13 May,1995
10-06-1995	24%	53%	19%	4%	-29%	1,416	9-10 June, 1995

[MsD]

Sorry, I can't format that better, but you can copy and paste in Excel or Word.