Labour isn't Working - Thread 33

[Nuthatch26]

A chat thread for those who don't like this Labour government. 💙

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Previous thread
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5528337-labour-isnt-working-thread-32?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

True. It would be a further hole. I will just avoid taking that thread seriously instead ;

I was wondering when TB would stick his head above the parapet. A lot of discussions on the leadership over the past few weeks, but the major Labour grandee remaining silent.

Now we know. I guess the good news for Starmer from what I can tell is that he isn't throwing his weight behind any particular leader nor suggesting the leadership change is the highest priority.

The bad news is that he appears to be suggesting that major changes in terms of policy are needed - to me this equates to the title of the thread - "Labour is not currently working".

"Harman has repeatedly tried to explain away the continuing absence of a female leader by claiming that radical Labour women have “consciously challenged the structures of the party and the way it works, striving to change the way we do politics”. By contrast, she says, women in the Tory Party win by “playing men at their game, on their terms”. As, presumably, have those women who have achieved leadership positions at various times in the Liberal Democrats, the Greens, the Scottish National Party (oops!), Sinn Féin, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Ireland, India, New Zealand…"

Puts the boot in on Labour women who use ’sexism’ as the reason they are criticised. Mahmood and Cooper conspicuous by their absence in this article!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/e5edac0c35b5fde6

Blair with his Institute for Global Change is never far away. He has piped up because of the absolutely dire situation the party is in.

Like him or loathe him he is a diplomat and some would say a statesman. I personally feel that Blair would, like Labour supporters on this thread, prefer Starmer to limp on for the sake of stability.

I do think policies matter more than personality too, but that if you become the story for too long, as Starmer has, then a leader change is needed as well. Surely Blair can see that, even if I agree a leader change without a platform change isn’t going to work.

absolutely mainstream parties should be looking at the copyable, popular elements of reform, etc. the thing is it’s gone on too long now, we are likely already at the point where a lot of people are set on voting for them.

"Taxing too much, spending too much and borrowing too much". You don't have to like Blair to know that it's true. But it's just the same old shit, they'd prefer it not to be true so that is how they are going to play it.

100%

They will create any ropey old argument to defend their continued state support.
Some of them dont even try to create an argument…

I got the impression that he wasn't really that fussed about who was leader, but more about what the policies were and whether they would work for the country. Who implements them is secondary to this.

If he wanted to wield the axe against Starmer or endorse him he could have done that, but didn't. I think he recognises the futility of another leadership change without policy improvements, which would probably lead to yet another leadership change in short order, or even Reform getting in.

There is a question maybe over who would be the best leader to come up with this policy though.

There's a lot not to like about Tony Blair, but one thing I feel is that his political instincts are spot on.

How do the backbenchers return to their constituencies hold their surgeries. Listen to their people and carry on nodding dumbly shouting AYE when they go back to Westminster. Their own families must query the policies. I'd hate to be a labour MP and would cross the floor. SOD the whip.

Tony Blair will only endorse a centrist leader. That person now is Starmer. He could not support Streeting right now after him calling Brexit a “catastrophic mistake”.

He is also a great diplomat, he is not going to pour fuel on the fire that is the infighting Labour Party at the moment.

“I think he recognises the futility of another leadership change without policy improvements, which would probably lead to yet another leadership change in short order, or even Reform getting in”. I totally agree with this.

I am not a Blairite. Never have been but I do agree with your judgment on his political instincts also.

Afternoon. 😁

I haven't RTFT thread, but will catch up later.
I haven't read or heard any news while I've been away, switched the radio on for the first time this morning and heard Blair explaining how shit this govt are. Nearly spat my tea. 😂
I bet Bollard was choking on his cornflakes this am.

I'm not a fan of TB, with good reason, but I agreed with every word he said. It must be hard for him to watch this car crash after winning three consecutive terms back in the day. His wish list seems very similar to Kemi's offer.

Yes, there is some heavy overlap on the Venn diagram between Badenoch and Blair's policy preferences. If he had mentioned stamp duty it would have been a full house.

I think he's just trying to warn against a lurch to the left, which seems inevitable if there's a leadership contest from the noises Labour are making. TB has a good nose, and can see where things are headed if Labour don't change course.

Yes, it's nervous times, isn't it? I'm glad he made an intervention but I'm not sure if the right people are listening.

😂

Brilliant! 🤣🤣🤣

😂😂😂

Yep. Plus drop his digital ID which is fine by me

There's a poster on here "Alexandra" something who goes about trying to defend the Labour party every single day.

Oh, now, I know we aren't suppose to talk about specific posters, but I don't think she is ever rude and will listen to what others have to say, and seems quite sad that Labour are self imploding. But yes, there are Labour supporters and it must be hard as nails to keep the faith right now.

This is the first time I've ever properly disagreed with you. 😂
I won't explain why as I'll get deleted.

I know my random interludes are sometimes not welcome

just curious if anyone wants to comment on this

I had half a conversation today which I brought back to the work topic at hand very quickly. I'll just tell you the statement. We were talking about using a different consultant because the one we favour is looking to move - however, he has apparently raised concerns because he's moving to a part of the country where they have been protesting about asylum hotels

The person speaking to me said this

"I think as a gay couple they need to think very carefully about living in the type of area that objects to asylum seekers. It's not right for LGBTQ to live in those sorts of places".

There was a lot going through my head with that statement. But I just said "right, now about this xx " - meaning the work task at hand.

Can I ask what anyone else thinks about this comment? Thanks.

Oh, well...I will just desist before there is a run of deletions. I don't pay much attention so it wouldn't be out of character to be largely oblivious about this stuff.

Although, in the spirit of today's vibe on MN, you do realise we will have to fight with knives now we disagree on something 😁

So, the premise is, because people object to people illegally entering the country and being housed in their neighbourhoods -and they will protest about it - that they will also be homophobic?

Sounds like the nuke button for a work place conversation.

I don't think that one follows the other. When you look at the British attitude surveys and look at something like same sex marriages, then about 20% of the public still object. Whereas 54% of people object to migrants being house in local hotels (probably a far higher figure where they have a lot of them).

So there's not the same kind of objection to assume one necessitates the other. But then I don't know anyone protesting outside migrant hotels. So this is just a best guess based on figures that might look different in reality.

On Labour generally, I think there’s room to go down yet for the party if anyone is still backing Labour. Not quite at the bottom of where they could go.

It’s something to see the infighting between factions and again with old (New) Labour, who up until recently appeared to be an mn favourite with SureStart etc and a promise of more of the same to the 90s / 00s. Now that’s toast too.

It gets easier to zone out as it is definitely their mess rn.