RugbyRebels

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Further proof it wasn’t just Brexit:

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.

Mellsblue wrote:Further proof it wasn’t just Brexit:

Yup, pretty clear. whilst Labours ambiguity annoyed everyone, it’s clear that they list votes across the board. Corbyn unpopularity has to be a key factor.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Read the polling. Corbyn was and is seen as a joke. Many traditional Tory supporters would have voted for a Blair type labour leader, but could not bring themselves to vote for Corbyn and his bunch of nutters. It’s staring you in the face, corbyn is unelectable.

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.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Further proof it wasn’t just Brexit:

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.

In 2017 May was a disaster and Corbyn still had that Oh Jeremy Corbyn aura about him. He also convinced a lot of leavers and remainers that he was on their side. He was found out and his personal polling was atrocious.

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Further proof it wasn’t just Brexit:

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.

If I were to want a Labour government the. Jess Phillips would be my choice. I don’t think Kier Starmer will cut through as well.

Regarding the manifesto, the only things that stick in my mind is various flavours of nationalisation, which isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, and the nonsense broadband offer. It felt like Boris spending pledges rattled the labour leadership and forced them to promise more and more, to the point where it’s just became unbelievable (even for a manifesto).

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: 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.

And 2.5 years of getting a pasting for not taking anti semnitism seriously.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Read the polling. Corbyn was and is seen as a joke. Many traditional Tory supporters would have voted for a Blair type labour leader, but could not bring themselves to vote for Corbyn and his bunch of nutters. It’s staring you in the face, corbyn is unelectable.

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.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:
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.

And 2.5 years of getting a pasting for not taking anti semnitism seriously.

It was poorly handled for a while. Not 2.5 years though.

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).

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: 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.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: 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.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: 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.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: 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.

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: 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).

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: 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

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: 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.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
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.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:
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

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.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
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.

Stom wrote: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.

Stom wrote: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.

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote: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.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: 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.