To despair about the state of the Labour Party ?

[Bertoldbrecht]

I’m a long time labour/ remain voter in the north west. Never joined the party although considered doing so to get a vote in the leadership election. Liked Corbyn initially on a superficial basis but knew realistically he hadn’t got a cat in hells chance of winning an election. Too much baggage to endear him to the average voter and the media accusations of him being ‘hard left’ or a ‘stalinist’ were the final nail in the coffin whether they were true or not.
I was relieved that Keir Starmer won. I suspect that if his leadership team get the policies right he will appeal to wavering voters as did Tony Blair but sadly the vitriol directed at him by some members is unbelievable. So much hostility and hatred because he’s not outright attacking the tories for their handling of the covid crisis. I think he’s showing pragmatism and reading the mood of the country correctly, it feels like we’ve got an adult in charge of the opposition rather than a student rabble rouser whose principles were well intentioned but unrealistic. I just don’t get why some members can’t just unify behind him and get on with challenging the Tory government rather than undermining a leader that the major of the party have selected by a pretty large majority.
So do most labour members/ supporters dislike him or is it just a vocal minority who can’t get over Corbyn ?

GhostofFrankGrimes wouldn't call renationalisation a crumb. Can you share some of his neoliberalism values, if you make a statement you need to back it up.

I'm talking about Labour's new direction not Starmer in isolation. Corbyn was as close to traditional Labour (i.e Socialist principles) as I have known. It was argued that Corbyn, in part was unelectable because of the likes of policies on nationalisation - so it will be interesting to see how Starmer sells exactly the same things to the same people. I think it will become clear in time that Starmer's Labour will be much closer to Blarism i.e heart in the right place but too much pandering to a diluted form of Thatcherism. It's why many traditional Labour voters rejected Blairism in the end and is the reason they are likely to be sceptical about proclamations of nationalisation from a new leader supported by centrists that disliked Corbyn's socialism in the first place. Quite the conudrum.

those of us who consider ourselves socialists don't want policies that appeal to people who have always voted Tory. No offence but we have different political views to you and wanted to see this represented. That's why we are disappointed

But you will continue to be disappointed
Even if we threw out fptp more people wanted Conservatives than Labour.

If you are talking about representation then don’t forget it might not work exactly in your favour.

Remember the 2017 election when UKIP (12.6% of the vote) came in 3rd with its amount of votes but gained only one seat as opposed to Liberal Democrat’s (7.9% of the vote) but gained 8 seats.or the SNP (3%) yet gained 46 seats.

Sometimes you have to be careful of what you wish for

think it will become clear in time that Starmer's Labour will be much closer to Blarism i.e heart in the right place but too much pandering to a diluted form of Thatcherism.

So you are merely speculating?

So you are merely speculating?

Given the desire by the right of the party to see off Corbynism the direction of travel seems fairly obvious. If you think Starmer's Labour is going to be closer to Corbynism than Blairism I'm happy to be enlightened.

I’d love to vote Labour but they make it so bloody hard for me. I started to feel optimistic about the party again after Jeremy Corbin left, but then Starmer was voted in, so that’s that.

GhostofFrankGrimes fair enough but you have nothing concrete to back up what you say.

The way I remember the time of HW was huge strikes, rubbish on the streets, shortages due to dock strikes
hmmm and the 3 day week - oh wait, that was under the Tories.
There were a lot of strikes in the 1970s (though not as many as some people would have you believe) under governments of both colours. Thatcher changed all that by destroying trade unions and getting so many people fired that workers no longer had any power.

As we can see from this thread, most people are never going to change their minds.

Therefore, they're likely to always vote, not necessarily for the same party every time, but for whoever represents their beliefs at that time.

I've heard the most ridiculous codswallop from far left members about "politically educating" the voters. The arrogance!! (ofc we should be taught more about politics in school but that's not what they mean)

So the clear answer is: look at what your crucial voters prefer (crucial to getting a majority, I mean), position yourself as that, then govern in line with what you really think once you're there.

It's obvious. And it's not misleading, because what you will in do power is predictable based on what your party's previously done.

All the arguing is just a waste of hot air. And it puts people off because it gets aggressive so often.

Want a memory - how about the recession in 1987 ? Fair square slap bang in the middle of the Golden Age Of Thatcher.

Like I said, our memories are "curated" by our media.

I’m much more optimistic since Starmer’s election to the leadership. He is exactly the right type of opposition leader to have right now, he will press PM to answer difficult questions, which is much needed.

I have felt demoralised by what’s happened to the Labour Party over recent years but I also believe that left-wingers have to get a grip and vote for/support the lesser of two evils wherever necessary. Lefties, even moderate ones, are way too concerned with their own consciences and personal ideology. And that allows the right to win and then we’re all worse off.

I intensely dislike ‘wokeness’, identity politics and holier-than-thou-ness, but I think the core of Labour’s problems under Corbyn was actually that they had a very reactionary, old-fashioned approach that is not what 21st century socialism should be. This was exemplified for me by two things above all:

• attitude to Brexit, when Labour should do whatever is necessary to protect workers’ rights (the clue is in their name);
• attitude to women - arguably natural supporters of left-wing policies in general.

If the Labour Party can be inclusive without descending into identity politics (and as part of this they need to absolutely root out antisemitism) and champion workers without thinking ‘workers’ only means ‘old, white, manual working (or retired manual working) men who voted Leave’, they will go a long way to making themselves electable, I think.

Lefties, even moderate ones, are way too concerned with their own consciences and personal ideology. And that allows the right to win and then we’re all worse off.

And surely the same thing applies to centrists? I mean we are now on course for no deal Brexit because some couldn't stomach the prospect of nationalised rail.

The 3 day week from dim memory of those times was because the coal mining union was asking for a ludicrous pay rise and the government said no so they almost downed tools and no coal = no electricity

The unions wanted the Conservatives out which they got.

And look how that turned out. 5 years in and the 18 years out. Only getting in because they turned themselves into Tory Lite.

Maybe if Labour could look critically at what the masses want and what wins votes Corbyn would never have led them down the path of near annihilation

Oh, I forgot the 1992 recession too. Black Wednesday and all that.

But you never hear the end of the 2008 recession "caused" by Labour.

The 3 day week from dim memory of those times was because the coal mining union was asking for a ludicrous pay rise and the government said no so they almost downed tools and no coal = no electricity
Incorrect (sort of).
The 3 day week actually began in December 1973. The Miner's strike ballot didn't happen until 24th Jan 1974 - the three day week was already in operation.

@GhostofFrankGrimes yes. I’ve had arguments with Lib Dem supporting friends about this, too.

Re the 3 day week. It was on the cards something was going to happen. Everyone knew that the miners weren’t going to accept anything even if they had got what they wanted.

All they wanted was to bring the government down which they did.

@Oliversmumsarmy

I would really like to hear both sides of the argument for the miners strike. I have only ever heard the left side but it is so heavy on emotion. My understanding is that the coal industry was redundant by then anyway?

My understanding is that the coal industry was redundant by then anyway?

Deep-mined coal (like what the UK has) is **ing expensive. If it's all there is, then it's all there is. However there are cheaper sources around the world, which our industrial rivals were quite happy to use and pass on the savings in the form of cheaper goods.

The UK could always have slapped massive tariffs on imports, of course. But when you do that, you find everybody does the same for your goods and you can't export anything.

See also: steel, cars.

I'm wary of words like "redundant" as they have become emotionally charged. If the NHS had some redundancy available, it could have coped with C-19 a fuck of a lot better. There is a fundamental dishonestly in pretending efficiency always saves money. It can, but at the cost of any resilience or robustness. As we are now finding out.

I don't know much (anything) about Keir Starmer but it's unfortunate that the first and only time I have seen him on the tele in parliament his contribution was to tell the government that everything they have done to deal with this unprecedented pandemic was wrong and too late. (with the enormous benefit of hindsight of course). I just thought a politics student /man in the street could whinge and say every decision was wrong /every decision was too late. I thoughy where are your clever well thought out strategies for moving forward? What have you got to contribute to making tomorrow better? Knew nothing of him to start with but gone straight off him.

I remember them asking for the most ludicrous pay rise and everyone who didn’t have anything to do with mining and leftist thinking (parents ran a shop in a northern town not particularly far from mining communities and it was the topic of conversation) thought they were out of their minds .

We had already had/got huge inflation and the amount they asked for would have sent us down a rabbit hole that would have bankrupted the country.

Again going off memory (I was still at primary school beginning of 1970) and can’t be arsed to google but I think the Heath government went for appeasement and offered them a huge pay rise, not what they wanted but still a fortune and it was still wasn’t enough.

That is why I think Margaret Thatcher targeted the miners and the unions when she got in.

She had seen how trying to placate them had turned out over the 60s and the 70s and where it had led the country that is why she was so hard with unions when she was able to.

Again going off memory (I was still at primary school beginning of 1970) and can’t be arsed to google but I think the Heath government went for appeasement and offered them a huge pay rise, not what they wanted but still a fortune and it was still wasn’t enough.

Pretty much. After a load of "we'll never give in" bollocks.

Of course as soon as the miners got their 30%, everybody else wanted 30%. And since almost every big industry was nationalised, it was the taxpayer that was subbing them up.

That is why I think Margaret Thatcher targeted the miners and the unions when she got in. [] She had seen how trying to placate them had turned out over the 60s and the 70s and where it had led the country that is why she was so hard with unions when she was able to.

She was elected - twice - to do just that. The miners strike wasn't an industrial conflict. It was political.

Luckily for Mrs. Thatcher, the Tories had a deep plant inside the NUM that ensured the government won.

I remember them asking for the most ludicrous pay rise

We had already had/got huge inflation and the amount they asked for would have sent us down a rabbit hole that would have bankrupted the country.

Or you could argue they were trying to keep up with inflation and feed their families. The rise they were seeking was to get them back to the levels recommended by the 1972 Wilberforce enquiry.

I agree with your analysis on Thatcher - she ensured many millions ended up on the dole instead of in work and that finally clarified that only the top of any organisation would be allowed to ensure they got decent pay and benefits and the rest of us could go and swivel.

Googled it now

Apparently their wages were 2.3% low they should have been.

They demanded a 35% pay increase.

The government came back with 16%

So they went on strike

I don't know much (anything) about Keir Starmer but it's unfortunate that the first and only time I have seen him on the tele in parliament his contribution was to tell the government that everything they have done to deal with this unprecedented pandemic was wrong and too late.

Surely that's his job bringing the Government to account. They have handled the situation poorly. Italy warned the UK we would be in the same situation as them, yet their advice was ignored.

Many countries are amazed at the incompetence of this Government.

Plenty of us on the left realise coal was over. It was definitely wasnt the right bloody way to go about ending it and huge areas are still fucked up by it. Much like Fishing.

The masses of other industry right wingers have sold off knock down to their mates depriving the nation though-why?