UK Political Era |OT1| Dis United Kingdom

WonderBoyd89

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
63
Jess Phillips doesn't have a clue what's going on in Scotland.

Right, so what different thing do you want. This isn't a hard question, I'm not asking you to write a manifesto or run for leadership
I'm not sure. I've not thought about it in any great depth. I don't think people understood or were ready for a lot of the policies Labour were offering the last time round.

The "nationalise everything" theme that ran through the manifesto was a bit much too.
 

PJV3

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,290
London
I'm not sure "centre-left" is really what they need to aim for, but they need to look realistic rather than having a manifesto that looked like it had been generated by a "socialist bingo" meme. I know people on left twitter have a massive hate-boner for incrementalism, but campaigning on "DO ALL THE THINGS!" just doesn't work. My advice would be to focus on a few (relatively popular) left-wing policies and push that message hard. And make sure that the messaging is in terms that everyone can relate to, rather than the language of woke-twitter, politics students and the "metropolitan elite".

As specific examples of policy, Labour need to drop trying to nationalise everything at once since no one believes they can do it or pay for it (it doesn't even matter if they can, if people don't believe that they can). If you aren't an actual socialist (i.e. the vast majority of the UK voting public) then the benefits of nationalisation versus privatisation will not be immediately obvious. It just sounds like abstract or meaningless political ideology.
Pick one industry that needs nationalisation (water or trains seem like the easiest to argue for), work out a plan for how to do it and explain exactly what nationalisation will do to improve services for the average person. Do not make this a flagship policy. If Labour win, they do their plan and show that it worked, then use this to argue for more nationalisation.
Instead we got "free gigabit broadband for all" as the only policy anyone remembers from the manifesto, which is probably the most out-of-touch policy you can imagine.

For the other failing privatised monopoly industries, just push a tough-talking message that you won't be using taxpayer's money to bail them out every time they run into trouble. If/when they do run into trouble and need a bailout, you can use it to justify nationalisation in the future.

A lot of why Labour lost was due to messaging. Massive radical socialist changes were not credible and the scattershot policy announcements meant that they were unable to counter Boris's simple claims to "Get Brexit Done" and "Build more hospitals". Labour's most popular policy was to invest in the NHS, but they expressed it in purely anti-American/anti-capitalist language and vague claims that the Tories would destroy the NHS. Meanwhile Boris claimed he would increase NHS spending and build 40 hospitals. It was a lie but it was a concrete promise to do a thing with clear benefits to normal people. "More hospitals" provides a clear benefit, while "stop Boris selling the NHS to the Americans" requires a lot of understanding of how the NHS operates, how it can be 'sold' and the many complex ways that American trade deals will undermine the provision of services.
A lot of the problem was that while we know Boris lies, most people also think Corbyn lies, that all politicians are liars and that they might as well vote for the liar promising more hospitals because he'll have to at least build a few after promising to build 40, right? (oh my sweet summer child) Similarly, the "Actually the Tories are only adding 31,000 more nurses and lying about 50,000" arguments were a complete failiure, since people just thought "Well, 31,000 is still a lot of nurses - have Labour even said how many they'd hire?"
I don't think policy mattered too much in this election, it was about Brexit and Corbyn, but the next election is going to be different and yeah the Labour party needs to be offering a more tightly focused manifesto, if they want to move the country further left they need to be prepared for a lot of work and time to get it done. And being a bit more savvy like the Tories, get in the door first.
 

Flammable D

Member
Oct 30, 2017
14,390
I don't disagree that a more focused manifesto would be a benefit next time round. You're going to be attacked as reckless spenders in government whatever you do, so might as well under promise. The only time that could bite you is on costings, unless you leave a big hole in it somewhere for discretionary spending.

The trouble, as we have found, with incrementalism, is that it's easily undone when you're out of power, which, given this country, may be fairly quickly. All the good people like to say Blair did, all of it was easily whisked out of the way by the following government, and we need a big overcorrection after the cuts we've suffered, in my opinion.
 

PJV3

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,290
London
The trouble, as we have found, with incrementalism, is that it's easily undone when you're out of power, which, given this country, may be fairly quickly. All the good people like to say Blair did, all of it was easily whisked out of the way by the following government, and we need a big overcorrection after the cuts we've suffered, in my opinion
Perhaps I'm just misremembering but the incremental steps that Labour made that caused issues are the ones they made to the right. Millburn's NHS reforms, Acadamies, religious schools, etc. Nobody cared or got attached to them except people using them as ways to undermine the system.
 
Oct 27, 2017
505
It's not strange at all, the rumour went around that RLB would keep Karie Murphy and Seumas Milne in their jobs, if she were to drop them I think she'd be in a much better position.
 

Antrax

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,905
It's not strange at all, the rumour went around that RLB would keep Karie Murphy and Seumas Milne in their jobs, if she were to drop them I think she'd be in a much better position.
If Milne has any job in Leadership, Labour is cooked. That strategy document for GE2019 should be enough of a fireable mistake to send Milne to the backbench.
 

ronpontelle

Member
Oct 27, 2017
589
I think the folks in charge at Labour saw how well they did in 2017 and thought that if they offered even more, they'd get even more votes.

Unfortunately, things just weren't that simple. Add a change in brexit policy that moved towards a second referendum; so much offered in terms of services in one hit that the public didn't believe it possible, plus even more vitriol from the press, Corbyn's popularity (or lack thereof) and anti-Semitism etc, and they were screwed.

I think with Boris having a 'deal' and the election being about Brexit, they were very likely going to be screwed regardless, as Labour really straddled both sides of the argument.

I agree, a more focused manifesto will help next time. Forgetting EU membership for now and a leader who more people believe in (rightly or wrongly) and depending on what state the UK is in in five years, I think they'll have a much better chance.

Any leader will get shit thrown at them, but as I've said before, there's a hell of a difference between 'Red Ed' and his bacon sandwich and the accusations leveled at Corbyn, which, I assume, large parts of the population believed.
 

PJV3

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,290
London
Sounds like Nandy had a good night in the opening move of the leadership and the PLP. Good, it will hopefully put Philips under pressure and I didn't want Nandy crashing out early, everyone else seems to have done OK as well.
 
Oct 27, 2017
505
Have any of you guys been watching Veganville on BBC/iPlayer?

It's about a group of vegans spending a month in Merthyr Tydfil trying to convince people to go vegan, I find it a really eye-opening documentary because it demonstrates the real challenge of convincing people social change is even necessary. There's the fight back from people who's livelihoods will be affected, that's understandable and predictable, but there's also this massive attachment to the status quo, even armed with the information about how bad that is.

I guess you've all burned your TV licenses by now but im sure it's on youtube somewhere.
 

Chem

Self-requested ban
Banned
Jan 1, 2020
83
PMQ is going well.

Have any of you guys been watching Veganville on BBC/iPlayer?

It's about a group of vegans spending a month in Merthyr Tydfil trying to convince people to go vegan, I find it a really eye-opening documentary because it demonstrates the real challenge of convincing people social change is even necessary. There's the fight back from people who's livelihoods will be affected, that's understandable and predictable, but there's also this massive attachment to the status quo, even armed with the information about how bad that is.

I guess you've all burned your TV licenses by now but im sure it's on youtube somewhere.
No, I haven't seen Veganville but the premise does sound interesting.

Thanks, I'll try and watch the 1st episode on iPlayer.
 

FliXFantatier

Master of the Reality Stone
Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
4,947
Los Angeles
Have any of you guys been watching Veganville on BBC/iPlayer?

It's about a group of vegans spending a month in Merthyr Tydfil trying to convince people to go vegan, I find it a really eye-opening documentary because it demonstrates the real challenge of convincing people social change is even necessary. There's the fight back from people who's livelihoods will be affected, that's understandable and predictable, but there's also this massive attachment to the status quo, even armed with the information about how bad that is.

I guess you've all burned your TV licenses by now but im sure it's on youtube somewhere.
Sounds awful, in the sense that it is perpetuating the preaching vegan stereotype...
 

softfocus

Member
Oct 30, 2017
398
That Telegraph piece is top tier garbage. Allison Pearson really is the worst journalist in Britain. Her readership will fucking eat this up though, instead of kicking her to the curb as they should.
 
Oct 27, 2017
505
Sounds awful, in the sense that it is perpetuating the preaching vegan stereotype...
I don't really find the show preachy at all, there's 5 vegans and they are basically cover the full spectrum from full on animal rights activist to normal person to girl who is a vegan but works in a burger van. 1 or 2 of the people on it definitely would be annoying to be around in real life but it's not really focused on their arguments it's more about how each person is received in that type of community.

At least that's what I find really interesting about it, you could forget they are talking about veganism and replace it with pretty much any labour manifesto pledge and imagine the conversations being identical.
 

Ushojax

Member
Oct 30, 2017
3,393
RLB is not a bad candidate on her own merits but she just made Jon Lansman director of her campaign. If she's going to just transplant herself into Corbyn's bubble and surround herself with the same voices who just led Labour to annihilation, she should not be the leader.
 
Oct 27, 2017
505
RLB is not a bad candidate on her own merits but she just made Jon Lansman director of her campaign. If she's going to just transplant herself into Corbyn's bubble and surround herself with the same voices who just led Labour to annihilation, she should not be the leader.
At least she's doing everyone a favour and absorbing all the people who don't think anything has to change into one room, which can then be soundproofed and locked from the outside.
 

null

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,473
I've got a lot of time for Gardiner because he was always willing to put himself in the firing line on shows like QT but I don't see it going anywhere.

Starmer getting Unison's support today seems like big deal. I think he needed someone at the core level like that to endorse him early.
 

PJV3

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,290
London
Saw an interview with RLB the other night and she was awful. Apparently she thinks the policies are popular with the public and they only lost yet another election because of the media bullying Corbyn. She basically said the only difference between her and Corbyn was her tone, whatever that is meant to mean.
She is too loyal, she has been doing better when Corbyn isn't the subject and she can be more herself, but she is struggling to ride both horses.

I can see her giving up making a real go for it if she can't let go.
 

FliXFantatier

Master of the Reality Stone
Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
4,947
Los Angeles
She is too loyal, she has been doing better when Corbyn isn't the subject and she can be more herself, but she is struggling to ride both horses.

I can see her giving up making a real go for it if she can't let go.
I mean she is still young, let Corbyn pass into a distant memory and then she could still step up to the plate.
 

Ando

Member
Apr 21, 2018
743
it’s really underrated how much personal affection for corbyn tied together a lot of disparate groups on the left. the succession is imploding now he’s not there, mcluskey is clearly desperate for a non-RLB candidate by trying to push lavery and then gardiner.
 

Flammable D

Member
Oct 30, 2017
14,390
Looks like Corbyn doing more damage to the party again by questioning the legality of the killing of Soleimani while Johnson’s saying the guy had British soldiers’ blood on his hands. Whatever you think of this, it’s obvious which one will go down better with the public.
Labour shouldn't say bad things are bad, noted
Saw an interview with RLB the other night and she was awful. Apparently she thinks the policies are popular with the public and they only lost yet another election because of the media bullying Corbyn. She basically said the only difference between her and Corbyn was her tone, whatever that is meant to mean.
they were, when polled
 

Ravensmash

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,663
It’s not that he shouldn’t say bad things are bad...

It’s that he often leaves himself open to very easy attacks from his opponents because of how/when these statements are made.

Yes, it’s not ideal to have to censor the true meaning behind your words, and there’ll always be spin against it but...he does like to make it very very easy for others to criticise him..

C’mon, be a bit savvy, man!
 

ronpontelle

Member
Oct 27, 2017
589
Gardiner has apparently said he's considering running.

But not because of McCluskey.

Crazy times...

Edit: what ravensmash said!
 

ronpontelle

Member
Oct 27, 2017
589
Is it good for an opposition leader to be there for 5 years before an election? That’s the only thing that concerns me. The conservatives deployed Johnson at the perfect time to help win the election.

Looks like Corbyn doing more damage to the party again by questioning the legality of the killing of Soleimani while Johnson’s saying the guy had British soldiers’ blood on his hands. Whatever you think of this, it’s obvious which one will go down better with the public.
I think it's usually the case that a new leader comes in for most of the election cycle. Cameron certainly did.

Blair came in after John Smith died, but Smith came in after Labour lost in 92.

Thatcher did in the 70s too.
 

Ravensmash

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,663
Well, it’ll be interesting to see what Newsnight have.

Be funny if it was him announcing it live or something.
 

Flammable D

Member
Oct 30, 2017
14,390
Jeremy wins the argument again 🙄
It’s not that he shouldn’t say bad things are bad...

It’s that he often leaves himself open to very easy attacks from his opponents because of how/when these statements are made.

Yes, it’s not ideal to have to censor the true meaning behind your words, and there’ll always be spin against it but...he does like to make it very very easy for others to criticise him..

C’mon, be a bit savvy, man!
There will never be a "right time" to say "US warmongering is bad, maybe we shouldn't support it"

If you want a slavishly interventionist labour party in the middle East, I've got bad news about how that ended up last time
 
Last edited: