Labour Watch

[Max Fowler]

If only the previous Labour leader had also only had to contend with a failing, inept Tory party leader who was hilariously referred to as having robotic qualities…

Oh come on. Every single +1 that has gone over to Labour is because of the absolute sh*t show in the blue corner. Let's not pretend otherwise.

[Dunners]

Sorry but I'm failing to grasp why being animated against Tory anti worker laws is a bad thing.

It isn't. But back when I posted that, that wasn't what the loony left were animated by. That was the point I made at the time.

[Dunners]

If only the previous Labour leader had also only had to contend with a failing, inept Tory party leader who was hilariously referred to as having robotic qualities…

Oh come on. Every single +1 that has gone over to Labour is because of the absolute sh*t show in the blue corner. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Do you really think that disheartened swing voters would switch from the Tories to Labour if Labour were unable to present themselves as a credible alternative? Or would it be more likely that they'd simply not vote or vote instead for a fringe/protest party?

[Max B Gold]

If only the previous Labour leader had also only had to contend with a failing, inept Tory party leader who was hilariously referred to as having robotic qualities…

Oh come on. Every single +1 that has gone over to Labour is because of the absolute sh*t show in the blue corner. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Do you really think that disheartened swing voters would switch from the Tories to Labour if Labour were unable to present themselves as a credible alternative? Or would it be more likely that they'd simply not vote or vote instead for a fringe/protest party?

You assume the swing voters are Tories. This time I can see large sections of the actively conscious workers not voting Labour. The semi conscious workers won't vote at all because they sense Labour isn't really on their side.

I'm not really talking about voting in an election to choose the capitalists second XI to run things for a bit because the ruling class think the Tories have lost their minds by breaking with the economic orthodoxy of the last 40 years.

[CEB]

Oh come on. Every single +1 that has gone over to Labour is because of the absolute sh*t show in the blue corner. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Do you really think that disheartened swing voters would switch from the Tories to Labour if Labour were unable to present themselves as a credible alternative? Or would it be more likely that they'd simply not vote or vote instead for a fringe/protest party?

You assume the swing voters are Tories. This time I can see large sections of the actively conscious workers not voting Labour. The semi conscious workers won't vote at all because they sense Labour isn't really on their side.

I'm not really talking about voting in an election to choose the capitists second XI to run things for a bit because the ruling class think the Tories have lost their minds by breaking with the economic orthodoxy of the last 40 years.

I guess some of us just actually recognise that it’s better to have a party in power that’s a bit better, than to have a sh*t government while fantasising about a revolution

[Max B Gold]

Do you really think that disheartened swing voters would switch from the Tories to Labour if Labour were unable to present themselves as a credible alternative? Or would it be more likely that they'd simply not vote or vote instead for a fringe/protest party?

You assume the swing voters are Tories. This time I can see large sections of the actively conscious workers not voting Labour. The semi conscious workers won't vote at all because they sense Labour isn't really on their side.

I'm not really talking about voting in an election to choose the capitists second XI to run things for a bit because the ruling class think the Tories have lost their minds by breaking with the economic orthodoxy of the last 40 years.

I guess some of us just actually recognise that it’s better to have a party in power that’s a bit better, than to have a sh*t government while fantasising about a revolution

Fair amount of mental gymnastics going on in that post to convince yourself and other "realists" you are doing the right thing in perpetuating a system of human exploitation, the logic of which will kill the planet

Revolutions are built not fantasised into existence.

[CEB]

So you do or don’t think a Labour government is better than a Tory government?

[Max B Gold]

So you do or don’t think a Labour government is better than a Tory government?

They're as bad as each other. Just in slightly different ways.

[Max Fowler]

If only the previous Labour leader had also only had to contend with a failing, inept Tory party leader who was hilariously referred to as having robotic qualities…

Oh come on. Every single +1 that has gone over to Labour is because of the absolute sh*t show in the blue corner. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Do you really think that disheartened swing voters would switch from the Tories to Labour if Labour were unable to present themselves as a credible alternative? Or would it be more likely that they'd simply not vote or vote instead for a fringe/protest party?

I really think that Starmer and Reeves are no more 'credible', whatever that means, than what has gone before.

Do you really think that Starmer and Reeves are winning people over with their 'credibility' and persuasive argument of their vision?

[Max Fowler]

So you do or don’t think a Labour government is better than a Tory government?

In the very short term, yes it's better.

In the medium term to long term, no.

[Dunners]

Oh come on. Every single +1 that has gone over to Labour is because of the absolute sh*t show in the blue corner. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Do you really think that disheartened swing voters would switch from the Tories to Labour if Labour were unable to present themselves as a credible alternative? Or would it be more likely that they'd simply not vote or vote instead for a fringe/protest party?

I really think that Starmer and Reeves are no more 'credible', whatever that means, than what has gone before.

Do you really think that Starmer and Reeves are winning people over with their 'credibility' and persuasive argument of their vision?

By credible - I mean that they're unlikely to scare off those swing voters in key marginals. Whether or not they're any good is not necessarily relevant for the purpose of winning a GE.

Starmer and Reeves' strategy has never been about winning people over with arguments or vision. They've bet the house on the Tories self-imploding while Labour do not do anything stupid that may scare their target voters. And they're assuming that, while they'll bleed some disgruntled Momentum members, these are not going to be sufficient in number or in distribution to have any material impact on constituency results.

I get that it's a very cynical and negative approach, but it may just be their most feasible route to power.

[Bluecap]

Will be interesting.
People like me, a Labour supporter for so many years who has left the Party because of Stamer and Co., who now needs to find another political home.
It will not be Conservative.
Then loads of working class swing Tories doing the same because of Truss.
All set up for the monster loonie party.

[Mick McQuaid]

Do you really think that disheartened swing voters would switch from the Tories to Labour if Labour were unable to present themselves as a credible alternative? Or would it be more likely that they'd simply not vote or vote instead for a fringe/protest party?

I really think that Starmer and Reeves are no more 'credible', whatever that means, than what has gone before.

Do you really think that Starmer and Reeves are winning people over with their 'credibility' and persuasive argument of their vision?

By credible - I mean that they're unlikely to scare off those swing voters in key marginals. Whether or not they're any good is not necessarily relevant for the purpose of winning a GE.

Starmer and Reeves' strategy has never been about winning people over with arguments or vision. They've bet the house on the Tories self-imploding while Labour do not do anything stupid that may scare their target voters. And they're assuming that, while they'll bleed some disgruntled Momentum members, these are not going to be sufficient in number or in distribution to have any material impact on constituency results.

I get that it's a very cynical and negative approach, but it may just be their most feasible route to power.

I'm even more cynical in that it's Rupert Murdoch reaction rather than voters views on policies they're worried about.

[Long slender neck]

Far left really will cut their noses off to spite their face. Still butthurt over two lost elections Corbyn, amazing.

[Max Fowler]

Do you really think that disheartened swing voters would switch from the Tories to Labour if Labour were unable to present themselves as a credible alternative? Or would it be more likely that they'd simply not vote or vote instead for a fringe/protest party?

I really think that Starmer and Reeves are no more 'credible', whatever that means, than what has gone before.

Do you really think that Starmer and Reeves are winning people over with their 'credibility' and persuasive argument of their vision?

By credible - I mean that they're unlikely to scare off those swing voters in key marginals. Whether or not they're any good is not necessarily relevant for the purpose of winning a GE.

Starmer and Reeves' strategy has never been about winning people over with arguments or vision. They've bet the house on the Tories self-imploding while Labour do not do anything stupid that may scare their target voters. And they're assuming that, while they'll bleed some disgruntled Momentum members, these are not going to be sufficient in number or in distribution to have any material impact on constituency results.

I get that it's a very cynical and negative approach, but it may just be their most feasible route to power.

By credible - you mean not going to scare off the elites. The swing voters in key marginals will only be scared off if they're told to be scared off.

[Max Fowler]

Far left really will cut their noses off to spite their face. Still butthurt over two lost elections Corbyn, amazing.

'Far left'

[Long slender neck]

I still voted for Corbyn's Labour even though he's a nutter, because its still better than more Tories.

[Dunners]

By credible - you mean not going to scare off the elites. The swing voters in key marginals will only be scared off if they're told to be scared off.

And? What difference does it make whether these are free-thinking individuals or morons just following orders? How does that affect the strategy?

Are you suggesting that Starmer & Co should just not deal with the issue at hand, and instead put their time and energy into explaining to these people how they've been so wrong all along? How did Corbyn get on with that?

The route to power for Labour is signalled by a simple question; Would they get Prez Biz's vote?

Any other type of government is impossible without electoral reform. And even then, you're still just as likely to get a shade of government you're unhappy with as you are now.

[Admin]

By credible - you mean not going to scare off the elites. The swing voters in key marginals will only be scared off if they're told to be scared off.

And? What difference does it make whether these are free-thinking individuals or morons just following orders? How does that affect the strategy?

Are you suggesting that Starmer & Co should just not deal with the issue at hand, and instead put their time and energy into explaining to these people how they've been so wrong all along? How did Corbyn get on with that?

The route to power for Labour is signalled by a simple question; Would they get Prez Biz's vote?

Any other type of government is impossible without electoral reform. And even then, you're still just as likely to get a shade of government you're unhappy with as you are now.

Of course they'll get Maffy's vote. Starmer et al are no threat to his comfortable existence.

Labour will get a term or two at most whilst the Tories will regenerate themselves again as the supposed sensible option for the economy, immigration etc etc. The electorate by then will lap it all up again and the sorry cycle will continue.

Corbyn was an aberration. Those in power have made it their life's work since 2017 to ensure it never happens again.

[CEB]

The tories would be quite happy for Corbyn to be Labour leader, no?

[Admin]

The tories would be quite happy for Corbyn to be Labour leader, no?

No idea. Very difficult to compare 2019 to now. Back then, it was easier for Boris to promise the red-wall constituencies the moon on a stick (Brexit) whilst Corbyn had managed to get himself into a complete tangle over that subject (albeit aided via Starmer & Co forcing the 2nd referendum position).

My guess at the moment is that the red-wall areas in particular are feeling pretty pissed off at voting Tory given how well Brexit's working out coupled with the tanking economy and lack of anything being delivered in terms of the promised infrastructure and housing that's failed to materialize.

However, In the hypothetical situation that Corbyn was still there, I suspect he'd still be presented to the electorate as a dangerous anti-semitic communist / Putin apologist by the MSM (and many of his own parliamentary party) and the electorate might still prefer a Tory shitfest to an alleged lefty wrong'un.

That being said, any politician with any mild left-wing aspirations is mainly opening themselves up to a sh*t filled existence. Can remember the Mail going hell for leather after "Red Ed''s" late father when it looked like the polls were getting too close in 2015. And all he wanted to do was bring in price caps for energy and some mild green reforms.

Starmer's getting a reasonably easy run right now as I don't think he presents much of a threat to the establishment. Regardless, I expect that'll change once we closer to election time.

The left in this country are pretty much politically homeless now. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[StillSpike]

The tories would be quite happy for Corbyn to be Labour leader, no?

Yes - he's an easier target than Starmer.

That said, I'm not sure that the dark money behind the Tories are that bothered which of the main parties is in power right now. Both seem quite happy to do their bidding. It's almost as if the billionaires, oligarchs and think tanks have been working away on their plan B, which is to make sure both possible incumbents are bought and paid for. The tiny slip of time when the Labour Party was funded by grassroots public must have been terrifying for them, but thankfully that's all behind us. Heads they win, tails we lose.

[Max B Gold]

The tories would be quite happy for Corbyn to be Labour leader, no?

Yes - he's an easier target than Starmer.

That said, I'm not sure that the dark money behind the Tories are that bothered which of the main parties is in power right now. Both seem quite happy to do their bidding. It's almost as if the billionaires, oligarchs and think tanks have been working away on their plan B, which is to make sure both possible incumbents are bought and paid for. The tiny slip of time when the Labour Party was funded by grassroots public must have been terrifying for them, but thankfully that's all behind us. Heads they win, tails we lose.

That's about the size of it but it won't stop the reformists centrist types bleating on about how not voting Labour is a betrayal of the class or some such variant of a similar argument.

[Dunners]

The left in this country are pretty much politically homeless now. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

It's always been the way. Which is why I've argued that the left needs to be more blinkered and just focus on the economic battles, and put its energy into battles it can win (i.e. industrial action).

The left has also been politically naive. Until it can learn to be more ruthless and is prepared to make strategic withdrawals in the interest of its wider aims, it will always be left floundering fighting on multiple fronts.

[Admin]

The left in this country are pretty much politically homeless now. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

It's always been the way. Which is why I've argued that the left needs to be more blinkered and just focus on the economic battles, and put its energy into battles it can win (i.e. industrial action).

The left has also been politically naive. Until it can learn to be more ruthless and is prepared to make strategic withdrawals in the interest of its wider aims, it will always be left floundering fighting on multiple fronts.

Maybe. I'd agree that historically the left has spent too much of it's energy in either fighting itself (and the opposite wing of the LP) or focusing too hard on ideological purity rather than adopting some pragmatism.

Regardless, I just think it now needs a separate political body rather than the Labour party to coalesce around. Labour can no longer credibly call itself a socialist democratic party.