Next Labour Leader?

[E10 Rifle]

Next Labour Leader?

This thread is, literally, the death of Blairism. It will be ritually buried in due course. Sorry Bored, take the nil for the team.

[Lucy Waterman]

Next Labour Leader?

E10 Rifle wrote: I know, but a definition of "What the voters want", what "voters" you mean and what policies this entails has been absent in recent months. It's why Anyone But Corbyn failed.

There's been a lot of research coming from various sources since the election, all of it pointing in broadly the same directions. I'm not sure the best plan is to wait until 2020 before deciding it was right.

[E10 Rifle]

Next Labour Leader?

Have you got some links? I mean, I know there's evidence to suggest that welfare and immigrant bashing can be popular, though whether that means voters think that Labour are better at that than the Tories, I dunno. I'd like to read the research to be honest.

[Lucy Waterman]

Next Labour Leader?

There's the Fabians analysis, the Cruddas research and the Ashcroft polling, off the top of my head.

[Bizarre Löw Triangle]

Next Labour Leader?

Lucy Waterman wrote:

There's been a lot of research coming from various sources since the election, all of it pointing in broadly the same directions. I'm not sure the best plan is to wait until 2020 before deciding it was right.

A worse plan is to simply repeat the failed politics that voters rejected in 2010 and 2015 IMO.

[E10 Rifle]

Next Labour Leader?

Lucy, what policies do you think we should adopt?

[Come along, Min]

Next Labour Leader?



death of Blairism

[Lucy Waterman]

Next Labour Leader?

E10 Rifle wrote: Lucy, what policies do you think we should adopt?

I think we should protect the BBC and the welfare state, narrow the gap between rich and poor and get more people into full time employment at decent wages. And I think we need to get the voters to trust us to do these things by containing them in a programme that addresses their concerns - doesn't pander to them, but acknowledges them - over welfare, immigration and the deficit.

We also need to build a consensus that would support such a programme by dissolving rather than inflaming tensions with business and the media. Which doesn't mean stiffing the unions or turning our back on Leveson.

And we need to do all this without talking like wonks or demagogues.

[anton pulisov]

Next Labour Leader?

The BBC's character assisnation is continuing on Newsnight.

[Vicarious Thrillseeker]

Next Labour Leader?

Antonio Pulisao wrote: The BBC's character assassination is continuing on Newsnight.

First time I've seen Newsnight for a while - I don't think I'll be watching it again.

[E10 Rifle]

Next Labour Leader?

I think we should protect the BBC and the welfare state, narrow the gap between rich and poor and get more people into full time employment at decent wages. And I think we need to get the voters to trust us to do these things by containing them in a programme that addresses their concerns - doesn't pander to them, but acknowledges them - over welfare, immigration and the deficit.

We also need to build a consensus that would support such a programme by dissolving rather than inflaming tensions with business and the media. Which doesn't mean stiffing the unions or turning our back on Leveson.

And we need to do all this without talking like wonks or demagogues.

See, that's not far off what Corbyn's actually done, except, perhaps, the "inflaming tensions with business and the media" bit. Though I'd argue that even a modestly meek social-democratic programme these days would do that, as we saw with poor old Ed Miliband. Both the general election this year and the current hysteria around Corbyn would suggest that we're currently dealing with opponents (in media and Tory party) who are, to use some of your favourite terms, demented loonies.

[Bizarre Löw Triangle]

Next Labour Leader?

Lucy Waterman wrote:

Lucy, what policies do you think we should adopt?

I think we should protect the BBC and the welfare state, narrow the gap between rich and poor and get more people into full time employment at decent wages. And I think we need to get the voters to trust us to do these things by containing them in a programme that addresses their concerns - doesn't pander to them, but acknowledges them - over welfare, immigration and the deficit.

We also need to build a consensus that would support such a programme by dissolving rather than inflaming tensions with business and the media. Which doesn't mean stiffing the unions or turning our back on Leveson.

And we need to do all this without talking like wonks or demagogues.

Can you clarify what you mean by "aknowledging concerns over immigration" means and what that would look like, policy-wise?

Is it saying "yes, immigration is obviously terrible" then just not doing anything about it?

[Lucy Waterman]

Next Labour Leader?

For me it would involve policies and rhetoric that strike a balance between the need to reassure the public while not infringing upon the rights, lives and self-respect of migrants.

I can't be more specific, it's not an area I feel any expertise in.

[San Bernardhinault]

Next Labour Leader?

I was going ask a similar thing about the deficit. Is there anything to say other than "Don't be fucking daft. Borrowing is cheap as dishwater these days. You cut the deficit when borrowing costs rise, but with an economy in the shitter and interest rates at 0.5% why the fuck wouldn't you borrow?"

[Vicarious Thrillseeker]

Next Labour Leader?

San Bernardhinault wrote: I was going ask a similar thing about the deficit. Is there anything to say other than "Don't be fucking daft. Borrowing is cheap as dishwater these days. You cut the deficit when borrowing costs rise, but with an economy in the shitter and interest rates at 0.5% why the fuck wouldn't you borrow?"

Paul Krugman on Labour's economic stance

[Bored Of Education]

Next Labour Leader?

Jimski wrote:

Surely if there was any wider public appetite for a Blairite/Labour Moderate, we'd have seen it in the "registered supporter" votes.

I think the Blairites believe that the Labour Party shouldn't try to represent its own supporters and members, but rather represent an imaginary voter floating somewhere over middle England.

Is that still Mondeo man? I only ask as I like the new Mindeo

[Bored Of Education]

Next Labour Leader?

Out of interest, anything on social or affordable housing, Lucy?

[Lucy Waterman]

Next Labour Leader?

E10 Rifle wrote:

I think we should protect the BBC and the welfare state, narrow the gap between rich and poor and get more people into full time employment at decent wages. And I think we need to get the voters to trust us to do these things by containing them in a programme that addresses their concerns - doesn't pander to them, but acknowledges them - over welfare, immigration and the deficit.

We also need to build a consensus that would support such a programme by dissolving rather than inflaming tensions with business and the media. Which doesn't mean stiffing the unions or turning our back on Leveson.

And we need to do all this without talking like wonks or demagogues.

See, that's not far off what Corbyn's actually done, except, perhaps, the "inflaming tensions with business and the media" bit. Though I'd argue that even a modestly meek social-democratic programme these days would do that, as we saw with poor old Ed Miliband. Both the general election this year and the current hysteria around Corbyn would suggest that we're currently dealing with opponents (in media and Tory party) who are, to use some of your favourite terms, demented loonies.

Corbyn's approach - and the backing he's received - seems to be based on the idea of preference shaping rather than preference accommodation. Which doesn't work.

And he has to build consensus if he wants to win. Starting things off by refusing to engage with the media is an indication that this is not something he is interested in.

[ad hoc]

Next Labour Leader?

Lucy Waterman wrote:
Corbyn's approach - and the backing he's received - seems to be based on the idea of preference shaping rather than preference accommodation. Which doesn't work.

Hang on a second. Since when does it not work? The whole role of a leader (or any sort) is to "preference shape" surely? I recognise that since Blair we've moved into a world where political leaders just base policy on what they see on the front page of the Daily Mail (witness Cameron's wild mood swings on refugees in the last few weeks), but policy should not be about focus groups and editorials in dodgy papers. I think it's about time that political leaders (of any stripe) started to think that actually leading might not be a bad idea.

[Lucy Waterman]

Next Labour Leader?

ad hoc wrote:

Corbyn's approach - and the backing he's received - seems to be based on the idea of preference shaping rather than preference accommodation. Which doesn't work.

Hang on a second. Since when does it not work? The whole role of a leader (or any sort) is to "preference shape" surely?

Throughout the last thirty years it has been shown to be not merely a flawed strategy, but one that leads to electoral disaster in every instance.

I recognise that since Blair we've moved into a world where political leaders just base policy on what they see on the front page of the Daily Mail (witness Cameron's wild mood swings on refugees in the last few weeks), but policy should not be about focus groups and editorials in dodgy papers. I think it's about time that political leaders (of any stripe) started to think that actually leading might not be a bad idea.

Well, it's not impossible that it could work. It did for Thatcher in 79 (though she presented herself as far more of a consensualist then than she would subsequently become). But you would need a supportive media and business community, a disastrous government failing specifically on the issue for which you have a different answer, and a public who voted previously against their own interests on what they themselves would identify as their most important issues.

[Vulgarian Visigoth]

Next Labour Leader?

I've used the parallel with Podemos in Spain before as both cases present similarities in terms of their impact ansd their attempts at reviving social democratic policies.

Well, Podemos tried to do exactly what Lucy is proposing - trying to appeal to the concerns of the average citizen to the point of avoiding the use of the L-word and alienating some of their core support. Guess what? They still got called Soviets by the right wing media who used the ghosts of Cuba and Venezuela to try and scare the electorate. So as you can see it's a game you can't win. You can't base your campaign in trying to prove you don't beat your wife.

[ad hoc]

Next Labour Leader?

Lucy Waterman wrote:

Corbyn's approach - and the backing he's received - seems to be based on the idea of preference shaping rather than preference accommodation. Which doesn't work.

Hang on a second. Since when does it not work? The whole role of a leader (or any sort) is to "preference shape" surely?

Throughout the last thirty years it has been shown to be not merely a flawed strategy, but one that leads to electoral disaster in every instance.

Then let's give up on parliamentary politics altogether and just form policy based on what people seem to want (in this era of big data and so on we should be able to find that out pretty easily. "People who selected revoke gay marriage rights also selected imprison all immigrants"). As far as I understand you "strategy" is all about electoral success anyway, so when you say "flawed strategy and electoral failure", what's the first bit?

[ad hoc]

Next Labour Leader?

To give a very recent pair of counter examples, using a right wing leader as it happens:

1. Angela Merkel uses her power (and support of others) to bully and crush Greece. This was senseless and stupid and economically madness. We are told that this is because it kept her voters happy (I mean she's not an idiot, so she knows full well that the decision to bugger Greece was the worst option on the table)

2. Angela Merkel responds to the refugee crisis by making it clear that Germany can and will accept many many more immigrants (than previously and than everyone else). This decision is not only morally right but also actually very beneficial to the German economy. It may well prove to be electorally very problematic. But it's leadership. The first example was - for want of a better word -"followership"

If "democracy" is to come down to essentially following public opinion and not making an attempt to lead and influence that opinion, then democracy is dead.

[Jimski]

Next Labour Leader?

It's not actually true though. As I said above, the Tories essentially do what they like, popular or not, and use the media and clever spin to get a whole lot of people to think they agree with it. (i.e. policies designed to make the rich richer at the expense of the poor = "austerity".) This economic competency thing is built on lies, yet people will say they trust the Tories on economics.

[Bizarre Löw Triangle]

Next Labour Leader?

Lucy Waterman wrote:
Throughout the last thirty years it has been shown to be not merely a flawed strategy, but one that leads to electoral disaster in every instance.

When has that been tried by a mainstream party in the last 30 years? For at least the last decade, focusgroupthink has held sway.