Snap General Election called

[Son of Mathonwy]

Jesus, I feel sorry for Extinction Rebellion (and by implication, the entire biosphere, and all its inhabitants).

They might have hoped their work was done, but no, they're stuck with a bunch of arseholes who act like the problem doesn't exist. Back to work, only this time those arseholes might invent some new laws to prevent people from lying down in front of bulldozers (or that sort of thing).

[Banquo]

Not so convincing, since Labour had the same leadership in 2017.

A good case can be made for the problem here being due to Labour's half-hearted Brexit positioning. Had they taken a clear remain with second referendum position in March this year I think the Lib Dems would never have recovered from their low ebb. And indeed their half-hearted Brexit positioning was probably largely down to Corbyn. I think I made the point a few months back that if only Corbyn had been a remainer, things would have been quite different - ie Labour would never have lost a chunk of support to the Lib Dems. And their "leadership" would have looked better/clearer.

Not directly related, but Jack Straw was adamant that Remain would have won in 2016 had Jezza backed it wholeheartedly, rather than being forced to endorse it; as he said, I've known Jeremy for 50 years and he's never wanted to be in the EU. Conversely, it was McDpnnell who 'created' Labours current position.

More on topic, it was the same leaders in 2017, but they were fresh and different then; familiarity has bred contempt for Jezza imo, and over-indexing on the manifesto appears to have backfired through questions of affordability, doability or even just being confused.

True, Corbyn was fresher then. Also he took the newspapers by surprise since they didn't take him seriously at first.

Corbyn 2019 had had an extra 2.5 years of continual character assassination from most of the newspapers, and not a lot of help from the BBC either.

now only being assassinated by friendly fire.

[Sandydragon]

Unelected is not unelectable. It depends on the circumstances. But, yes, I can imagine better candidates. Would they have won on a remain ticket, with remain split? Maybe, maybe not.

And do you mean Corbyn or any similarly left-wing candidate?

I think a left wing candidate will struggle in general to poll much beyond labours core vote. Add Corbyns perceived lack of patriotism and even labour core voters were pissed off.

So the main problem is the left-wingedness.

I think it’s both. I don’t think that left wing policies appeal to enough of the electorate to gain a victory at a general election, especially without the old safe Scottish seats.

On top of that you have Corbyn and his obvious failings. And that’s before you get to the supporting caste like Dianne Abbott.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I think a left wing candidate will struggle in general to poll much beyond labours core vote. Add Corbyns perceived lack of patriotism and even labour core voters were pissed off.

So the main problem is the left-wingedness.

I think it’s both. I don’t think that left wing policies appeal to enough of the electorate to gain a victory at a general election, especially without the old safe Scottish seats.

On top of that you have Corbyn and his obvious failings. And that’s before you get to the supporting caste like Dianne Abbott.

Hmm. I think then, the next decision the Labour party takes needs to be a good one.

[Digby]

So the main problem is the left-wingedness.

I think it’s both. I don’t think that left wing policies appeal to enough of the electorate to gain a victory at a general election, especially without the old safe Scottish seats.

On top of that you have Corbyn and his obvious failings. And that’s before you get to the supporting caste like Dianne Abbott.

Hmm. I think then, the next decision the Labour party takes needs to be a good one.

Retain Corbyn seems to be that decision, at least until he ensures the next leader and direction of the party keeps them as unelectable as possible.

[Banquo]

I think it’s both. I don’t think that left wing policies appeal to enough of the electorate to gain a victory at a general election, especially without the old safe Scottish seats.

On top of that you have Corbyn and his obvious failings. And that’s before you get to the supporting caste like Dianne Abbott.

Hmm. I think then, the next decision the Labour party takes needs to be a good one.

Retain Corbyn seems to be that decision, at least until he ensures the next leader and direction of the party keeps them as unelectable as possible.

Big fight coming up tween momentum/Corbyn project and the moderates; the former not acknowledging the problem (effectively blaming the press), the latter incandescent (see Stephen Kinnock, Wes Streeting, Lisa Nandy etc) that the party have let their core voters down to such an extent they’d vote for the devil incarnate (in their eyes).

[Digby]

Hmm. I think then, the next decision the Labour party takes needs to be a good one.

Retain Corbyn seems to be that decision, at least until he ensures the next leader and direction of the party keeps them as unelectable as possible.

Big fight coming up tween momentum/Corbyn project and the moderates; the former not acknowledging the problem (effectively blaming the press), the latter incandescent (see Stephen Kinnock, Wes Streeting, Lisa Nandy etc) that the party have let their core voters down to such an extent they’d vote for the devil incarnate (in their eyes).

I don't know that Nandy and Kinnock would have seen a much better outcome if they'd gone with a much stronger message on respecting the referendum and promising to leave, I've not read anything by Streeting

[Sandydragon]

So the main problem is the left-wingedness.

I think it’s both. I don’t think that left wing policies appeal to enough of the electorate to gain a victory at a general election, especially without the old safe Scottish seats.

On top of that you have Corbyn and his obvious failings. And that’s before you get to the supporting caste like Dianne Abbott.

Hmm. I think then, the next decision the Labour party takes needs to be a good one.

No argument there. The opposition needs to be effective and that will be hard against such a big government majority, albeit one built on sand I think.

If Labour wants to win a general election, it needs to move more to the centre.

[Banquo]

Retain Corbyn seems to be that decision, at least until he ensures the next leader and direction of the party keeps them as unelectable as possible.

Big fight coming up tween momentum/Corbyn project and the moderates; the former not acknowledging the problem (effectively blaming the press), the latter incandescent (see Stephen Kinnock, Wes Streeting, Lisa Nandy etc) that the party have let their core voters down to such an extent they’d vote for the devil incarnate (in their eyes).

I don't know that Nandy and Kinnock would have seen a much better outcome if they'd gone with a much stronger message on respecting the referendum and promising to leave, I've not read anything by Streeting

Once again I'm wondering what the point you are trying to make is?

Kinnock said there were three things wrong with Labour and recent campaign- Brexit approach (not respecting the vote despite 2017 manifesto), Corbyn (and his coterie to some extent), and the credibility of the promises being made. Streeting was similar, but x 10 in ferocity around Corbyn and Momentum's influence.

[Digby]

Big fight coming up tween momentum/Corbyn project and the moderates; the former not acknowledging the problem (effectively blaming the press), the latter incandescent (see Stephen Kinnock, Wes Streeting, Lisa Nandy etc) that the party have let their core voters down to such an extent they’d vote for the devil incarnate (in their eyes).

I don't know that Nandy and Kinnock would have seen a much better outcome if they'd gone with a much stronger message on respecting the referendum and promising to leave, I've not read anything by Streeting

Once again I'm wondering what the point you are trying to make is?

Kinnock said there were three things wrong with Labour and recent campaign- Brexit approach (not respecting the vote despite 2017 manifesto), Corbyn and his coterie, and the credibility of the promises being made. Streeting was similar, but x 10 in ferocity around Corbyn and Momentum's influence.

That I know Nandy and Kinnock were (very) unhappy with the party position on Brexit, and that actually wasn't an easy thing for Corbyn to fix. Whichever way Corbyn jumped he was going to pay a penalty, though trying to sit on the fence claiming he was looking to unite a nation clearly didn't work either. Essentially Nandy and Kinnock can complain away, but a decent chunk of their complaint ignores Labour is remain at a member level, and with many voters.

Clearly we see they have a point around Corbyn as a leader, though they've done nothing about that, as many Tory remainers voted Tory specifically because of Corbyn, but to further highlight where Kinnock and Nandy don't have a point many of those Tory remainers wouldn't have voted Labour if Labour had a scion of Blair in place but were a leave party.

I can't say I take to either Kinnock or Nandy, especially when they could have jumped ship if things were that bad

[Stom]

Labour needs to stay to the left. It just needs to communicate it clearly and honestly, and get rid of unpopular/confusing policies.

Nationalisations should be fully costed and the benefit to the masses should be made clear.

The tax system should be made extremely clear - I'd create a tax calculator and put it online so the majority of people can see that a Labour government wouldn't cost them any extra money.

The party needs to overhaul the way it advertises. It needs to think like a business, not like a pressure group.

But so many socialist parties seem unable to do this worldwide, it feels built in.

[Banquo]

I don't know that Nandy and Kinnock would have seen a much better outcome if they'd gone with a much stronger message on respecting the referendum and promising to leave, I've not read anything by Streeting

Once again I'm wondering what the point you are trying to make is?

Kinnock said there were three things wrong with Labour and recent campaign- Brexit approach (not respecting the vote despite 2017 manifesto), Corbyn and his coterie, and the credibility of the promises being made. Streeting was similar, but x 10 in ferocity around Corbyn and Momentum's influence.

That I know Nandy and Kinnock were (very) unhappy with the party position on Brexit, and that actually wasn't an easy thing for Corbyn to fix. Whichever way Corbyn jumped he was going to pay a penalty, though trying to sit on the fence claiming he was looking to unite a nation clearly didn't work either. Essentially Nandy and Kinnock can complain away, but a decent chunk of their complaint ignores Labour is remain at a member level, and with many voters.

Clearly we see they have a point around Corbyn as a leader, though they've done nothing about that, as many Tory remainers voted Tory specifically because of Corbyn, but to further highlight where Kinnock and Nandy don't have a point many of those Tory remainers wouldn't have voted Labour if Labour had a scion of Blair in place but were a leave party.

I can't say I take to either Kinnock or Nandy, especially when they could have jumped ship if things were that bad

oh I agree that many MPs from Labour have failed to budge Corbyn - though they did try but failed. Ironically Corbyn wanted to retain a more leave stance but was stopped by conference and McDonnell. The point I seem to be struggling to get across is that in the centre of the party is saying Corbyn and policies as well as brexit was a toxic mix , whereas the other camp just blames brexit and the media.

[Banquo]

Labour needs to stay to the left. It just needs to communicate it clearly and honestly, and get rid of unpopular/confusing policies.

Nationalisations should be fully costed and the benefit to the masses should be made clear.

The tax system should be made extremely clear - I'd create a tax calculator and put it online so the majority of people can see that a Labour government wouldn't cost them any extra money.

The party needs to overhaul the way it advertises. It needs to think like a business, not like a pressure group.

But so many socialist parties seem unable to do this worldwide, it feels built in.

It needs to understand what people need and not enforce ideology like nationalisation, which voters up north think is both irrelevant to them and a busted flush. They need to listen to their longstanding MPs from those areas rather than ingenues with a BA in politics. The policies and approach from metropolitans are a turn off to a lot, inc Brexit.

[Sandydragon]

Labour needs to stay to the left. It just needs to communicate it clearly and honestly, and get rid of unpopular/confusing policies.

Nationalisations should be fully costed and the benefit to the masses should be made clear.

The tax system should be made extremely clear - I'd create a tax calculator and put it online so the majority of people can see that a Labour government wouldn't cost them any extra money.

The party needs to overhaul the way it advertises. It needs to think like a business, not like a pressure group.

But so many socialist parties seem unable to do this worldwide, it feels built in.

I wish you well in perpetual opposition.

[Sandydragon]

Labour needs to stay to the left. It just needs to communicate it clearly and honestly, and get rid of unpopular/confusing policies.

Nationalisations should be fully costed and the benefit to the masses should be made clear.

The tax system should be made extremely clear - I'd create a tax calculator and put it online so the majority of people can see that a Labour government wouldn't cost them any extra money.

The party needs to overhaul the way it advertises. It needs to think like a business, not like a pressure group.

But so many socialist parties seem unable to do this worldwide, it feels built in.

It needs to understand what people need and not enforce ideology like nationalisation, which voters up north think is both irrelevant to them and a busted flush. They need to listen to their longstanding MPs from those areas rather than ingenues with a BA in politics. The policies and approach from metropolitans are a turn off to a lot, inc Brexit.

This. Lots of champagne socialists preaching to the working class is just a bit sad. Do something meaningful instead, like promote employment. The left is welded to ideology and in many cases to failed mantras of the past.

[Sandydragon]

Once again I'm wondering what the point you are trying to make is?

Kinnock said there were three things wrong with Labour and recent campaign- Brexit approach (not respecting the vote despite 2017 manifesto), Corbyn and his coterie, and the credibility of the promises being made. Streeting was similar, but x 10 in ferocity around Corbyn and Momentum's influence.

That I know Nandy and Kinnock were (very) unhappy with the party position on Brexit, and that actually wasn't an easy thing for Corbyn to fix. Whichever way Corbyn jumped he was going to pay a penalty, though trying to sit on the fence claiming he was looking to unite a nation clearly didn't work either. Essentially Nandy and Kinnock can complain away, but a decent chunk of their complaint ignores Labour is remain at a member level, and with many voters.

Clearly we see they have a point around Corbyn as a leader, though they've done nothing about that, as many Tory remainers voted Tory specifically because of Corbyn, but to further highlight where Kinnock and Nandy don't have a point many of those Tory remainers wouldn't have voted Labour if Labour had a scion of Blair in place but were a leave party.

I can't say I take to either Kinnock or Nandy, especially when they could have jumped ship if things were that bad

oh I agree that many MPs from Labour have failed to budge Corbyn - though they did try but failed. Ironically Corbyn wanted to retain a more leave stance but was stopped by conference and McDonnell. The point I seem to be struggling to get across is that in the centre of the party is saying Corbyn and policies as well as brexit was a toxic mix , whereas the other camp just blames brexit and the media.

The default is to blame the media. Yet other Labour leaders have managed the media well and the simple fact is that if you look like a throwback to the 70s you will get mocked by a large section of the media and public.

With so many issues to look at today, all Labour could offer were outdated policies that were changed for a bloody good reason, they didn’t work. No one who experienced British Rail wants that back.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I think it’s both. I don’t think that left wing policies appeal to enough of the electorate to gain a victory at a general election, especially without the old safe Scottish seats.

On top of that you have Corbyn and his obvious failings. And that’s before you get to the supporting caste like Dianne Abbott.

Hmm. I think then, the next decision the Labour party takes needs to be a good one.

No argument there. The opposition needs to be effective and that will be hard against such a big government majority, albeit one built on sand I think.

If Labour wants to win a general election, it needs to move more to the centre.

A few points:

1) Nandy and Kinnock are talking rubbish. Labour would have lost even more votes if it had become a Brexit party (albeit a softer one) - its voters are primarily for remain. They had to offer a second referendum (IMO), or lose half their votes to the Lib Dems. Their main problem (IMO) was not to move decisively to a second referendum position earlier. By the time they did it, they'd lost a huge number of voters and not all came back. I don't think the "neutral on the referendum" position was a big problem (broad church and all that), but the months wasted getting there was.

2) Labour would get more votes if it moved towards the centre, but how far is a big question. It's pointless moving to the (New Labour/Lib Dem/Tory-lite) centre - the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. But a slightly less aggressive approach would be better. And certainly an attempt to appear more centrist would be good (an impossible task for Corbyn).

3) If you believe Mells' graphs on the previous page, Labour's economic policy was not a big factor in people not voting for Labour, so I'd argue that many of their left-wing economic policies are (at the very least) not a problem for voters.

4) I do blame the media for a lot of the supposed "leadership" issues with Labour. When people say they didn't like the Labour leadership, I think they're not so much saying that their leadership qualities are bad - they're saying they simply don't like or respect Corbyn (et al). And this essentially emotional position is something that is very much influenced by the newspaper that your household gets. If you take a random tabloid, it's far more likely to contain right-wing propaganda than the opposite; read that for a few years, telling you Corbyn is a twat 100% of the time, you can't help but believe it a little.

5) Whoever Labour picks - unless it is a centrist, and therefore not such a worry for the billionaire newspaper owners - will have their character assassinated from the second they arrive in the position. This is a problem. Therefore, Labour need to pick someone sharp, without any significant chinks in their armour, and who looks like they could take Johnson on. From my POV, at this early stage, Starmer looks most promising.

[Banquo]

Hmm. I think then, the next decision the Labour party takes needs to be a good one.

No argument there. The opposition needs to be effective and that will be hard against such a big government majority, albeit one built on sand I think.

If Labour wants to win a general election, it needs to move more to the centre.

A few points:

1) Nandy and Kinnock are talking rubbish. Labour would have lost even more votes if it had become a Brexit party (albeit a softer one) - its voters are primarily for remain. They had to offer a second referendum (IMO), or lose half their votes to the Lib Dems. Their main problem (IMO) was not to move decisively to a second referendum position earlier. By the time they did it, they'd lost a huge number of voters and not all came back. I don't think the "neutral on the referendum" position was a big problem (broad church and all that), but the months wasted getting there was.

2) Labour would get more votes if it moved towards the centre, but how far is a big question. It's pointless moving to the (New Labour/Lib Dem/Tory-lite) centre - the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. But a slightly less aggressive approach would be better. And certainly an attempt to appear more centrist would be good (an impossible task for Corbyn).

3) If you believe Mells' graphs on the previous page, Labour's economic policy was not a big factor in people not voting for Labour, so I'd argue that many of their left-wing economic policies are (at the very least) not a problem for voters.

4) I do blame the media for a lot of the supposed "leadership" issues with Labour. When people say they didn't like the Labour leadership, I think they're not so much saying that their leadership qualities are bad - they're saying they simply don't like or respect Corbyn (et al). And this essentially emotional position is something that is very much influenced by the newspaper that your household gets. If you take a random tabloid, it's far more likely to contain right-wing propaganda than the opposite; read that for a few years, telling you Corbyn is a twat 100% of the time, you can't help but believe it a little.

5) Whoever Labour picks - unless it is a centrist, and therefore not such a worry for the billionaire newspaper owners - will have their character assassinated from the second they arrive in the position. This is a problem. Therefore, Labour need to pick someone sharp, without any significant chinks in their armour, and who looks like they could take Johnson on. From my POV, at this early stage, Starmer looks most promising.

So the Labour moderate MPs are wrong (and these are ones who all won their seats)- they are all pretty much saying the same thing; Brexit policy + Corbyn + credibility of Manifesto promises cost them. I suppose they were between the rock and a hard place given the 'split' in where their power base comes from.Remain/Metropolitan Leave/Red Wall Towns. It wasn't so much of an issue for the Tories, who had a similar but lesser Remain voter issue, because Labours leadership and policies were so toxic to their Remain voters.

Your arguments are virtually identical to Richard Burgon's, and suspect the metaphor for the upcoming chat in Labour will be Burgon v Wes Streeting

[Son of Mathonwy]

No argument there. The opposition needs to be effective and that will be hard against such a big government majority, albeit one built on sand I think.

If Labour wants to win a general election, it needs to move more to the centre.

A few points:

1) Nandy and Kinnock are talking rubbish. Labour would have lost even more votes if it had become a Brexit party (albeit a softer one) - its voters are primarily for remain. They had to offer a second referendum (IMO), or lose half their votes to the Lib Dems. Their main problem (IMO) was not to move decisively to a second referendum position earlier. By the time they did it, they'd lost a huge number of voters and not all came back. I don't think the "neutral on the referendum" position was a big problem (broad church and all that), but the months wasted getting there was.

2) Labour would get more votes if it moved towards the centre, but how far is a big question. It's pointless moving to the (New Labour/Lib Dem/Tory-lite) centre - the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. But a slightly less aggressive approach would be better. And certainly an attempt to appear more centrist would be good (an impossible task for Corbyn).

3) If you believe Mells' graphs on the previous page, Labour's economic policy was not a big factor in people not voting for Labour, so I'd argue that many of their left-wing economic policies are (at the very least) not a problem for voters.

4) I do blame the media for a lot of the supposed "leadership" issues with Labour. When people say they didn't like the Labour leadership, I think they're not so much saying that their leadership qualities are bad - they're saying they simply don't like or respect Corbyn (et al). And this essentially emotional position is something that is very much influenced by the newspaper that your household gets. If you take a random tabloid, it's far more likely to contain right-wing propaganda than the opposite; read that for a few years, telling you Corbyn is a twat 100% of the time, you can't help but believe it a little.

5) Whoever Labour picks - unless it is a centrist, and therefore not such a worry for the billionaire newspaper owners - will have their character assassinated from the second they arrive in the position. This is a problem. Therefore, Labour need to pick someone sharp, without any significant chinks in their armour, and who looks like they could take Johnson on. From my POV, at this early stage, Starmer looks most promising.

So the Labour moderate MPs are wrong (and these are ones who all won their seats)- they are all pretty much saying the same thing; Brexit policy + Corbyn + credibility of Manifesto promises cost them. I suppose they were between the rock and a hard place given the 'split' in where their power base comes from.Remain/Metropolitan Leave/Red Wall Towns. It wasn't so much of an issue for the Tories, who had a similar but lesser Remain voter issue, because Labours leadership and policies were so toxic to their Remain voters.

Your arguments are virtually identical to Richard Burgon's, and suspect the metaphor for the upcoming chat in Labour will be Burgon v Wes Streeting

Brexit policy + Corbyn + credibility of Manifesto promises
So that's three different things.

Just to be clear, when you say Brexit policy, you mean they think Labour should have been pro Brexit? Tough one, but surely on balance, a vote loser for them, albeit not in Nandy's seat.

Corbyn was a problem. They hoped he could cut through in the election campaign like last time, but it didn't make enough of a difference. So, Corbyn was definitely a weakness. Not sure who would have stepped in, and whether they actually have any charisma (Labour's not exactly loaded with that at present).

Manifesto promises. Well no, I don't think this was a major issue (as surveys have indicated). I would think a lot of people voted Labour because of the manifesto, although you will always find some who hold the opposite view.

Speaking of Nandy, she wrote a little piece in the Mirror yesterday. She said "Labour wins when we are rooted in our communities and work to deliver on their priorities." Which is pretty easy to say, but she didn't actually spell out what those priorities actually are, or what policies should logically follow from them. And what if different communities want different things? So, not much of substance.

[morepork]

The myth of centrism devours another healthy debate and shits out fear on the heads of voters.

I sometimes think maybe we deserve idiots like Trump and Boris.

[Digby]

The myth of centrism devours another healthy debate and shits out fear on the heads of voters.

I sometimes think maybe we deserve idiots like Trump and Boris.

You're welcome to vote for the lefty, though if we're comparing the USA and the UK then Corbyn is no Sanders, just if you want to vote as far left as Corbyn in a country like the UK you'll achieve a decades long worst voting outcome, even up against a thoroughly disliked austerity conservative government

[morepork]

The myth of centrism devours another healthy debate and shits out fear on the heads of voters.

I sometimes think maybe we deserve idiots like Trump and Boris.

You're welcome to vote for the lefty, though if we're comparing the USA and the UK then Corbyn is no Sanders, just if you want to vote as far left as Corbyn in a country like the UK you'll achieve a decades long worst voting outcome, even up against a thoroughly disliked austerity conservative government

That leaves “bearing down on immigration “ as the counter weight to a left-leaning economic philosophy. Hardly a gentle pull to the centre.

[Son of Mathonwy]

The myth of centrism devours another healthy debate and shits out fear on the heads of voters.

I sometimes think maybe we deserve idiots like Trump and Boris.

You're welcome to vote for the lefty, though if we're comparing the USA and the UK then Corbyn is no Sanders, just if you want to vote as far left as Corbyn in a country like the UK you'll achieve a decades long worst voting outcome, even up against a thoroughly disliked austerity conservative government

I think we can safely say that the circumstances of this election were quite unusual, so how can you justify blaming the election result on the economic direction Labour has taken? In Mell's graphs it was the least influential of the three factors.

[Sandydragon]

The myth of centrism devours another healthy debate and shits out fear on the heads of voters.

I sometimes think maybe we deserve idiots like Trump and Boris.

Neither of whom I’d describe as centrist. To win a majority to need to appeal to a wide range of voters. Corbyn failed to appeal to all of Labours core support let alone anyone else.

[morepork]

The myth of centrism devours another healthy debate and shits out fear on the heads of voters.

I sometimes think maybe we deserve idiots like Trump and Boris.

Neither of whom I’d describe as centrist. To win a majority to need to appeal to a wide range of voters. Corbyn failed to appeal to all of Labours core support let alone anyone else.

Right, meaning the centre is a myth. Voters want a bloke wot is at least casually racist, which is exactly what both countries got. That ain’t no centre.