Labour Watch

[Max B Gold]

If Corbyn were still leader, I think he'd have a half decent chance of forming the next government, but not as good a chance as Sir Kier.

Always with the Corbyn this, Corbyn that.

I would like to see a situation where Labour has no overall majority and maybe 6 or so independent socialist MPs who could get them in to govt.

Which way do they jump left or right. Lib Dems, Tories or with the independents.

[Long slender neck]

Corbyn had two bites of the cherry and failed dismally, he had to go.

[Max B Gold]

Corbyn had two bites of the cherry and failed dismally, he had to go.

Relax. He's gone mate. Panic over. The scam worked.

[Hoover Attack]

He's constantly making promises that he can't deliver on.

His argument to that would be that he's now rowing back/breaking promises that were previously made, and that he's doing that before the election and not after. Therefore, whatever promises are left by the time of the election, we can be confident that they will at least deliver deliver on them.

A Labour government is just going to be a more technically capable management team. And, right now, I'd take that.

I'm not arguing your logic but it's a pretty low bar to be encouraged for someone who's going to deliver what looks to be next to f*** all but do it in an a more efficient manner than the current incumbents.

Admin, repeat after me:

There

Is

No

Other

Way

[Hoover Attack]

If Corbyn were still leader, I think he'd have a half decent chance of forming the next government, but not as good a chance as Sir Kier.

Wouldn’t happen, the PLP wouldn’t allow it. They’d rather have a Tory government than a true socialist government, as they have previously demonstrated. Even this Tory government.

[Admin]

His argument to that would be that he's now rowing back/breaking promises that were previously made, and that he's doing that before the election and not after. Therefore, whatever promises are left by the time of the election, we can be confident that they will at least deliver deliver on them.

A Labour government is just going to be a more technically capable management team. And, right now, I'd take that.

I'm not arguing your logic but it's a pretty low bar to be encouraged for someone who's going to deliver what looks to be next to f*** all but do it in an a more efficient manner than the current incumbents.

They are going to inherit a total shitshow, so it's right that they manage expectations accordingly. Also, having lost four elections in a row, each time with an increasing sense of adventure, leading to progressively worse results, it's not surprising they're doing "don't frighten the horses" this time around.

Max has already beaten me to the point about the 2017 election result which was an improvement on Miliband's timid offering back in 2015. There has to be a recognition that Corbyn's alternative to austerity appealed to a lot of people, mainly those in need of it.

I'm not sure the 2019 defeat was particularly down to an adventurous manifesto (some of which the Tories cherry picked since) - the election came of the back of pretty horrendous coverage for Corbyn (some of which was utter bollocks) from early 2019 onwards and the subsequent mess (inspired by Starmer as well) he got himself into over Brexit. There's lots of criticism that Corbyn should face for this period which is why I don't particularly buy into the cult status he gets - one of his main failings was massively dithering over Brexit rather than taking a clear position and showing some leadership. This allowed Johnson (already riding the back of major positive press coverage) to just grab the initiative with his "Get Brexit Done" mantra. I've always maintained that he should've stood down in 2017 having set a direction for a new left of centre leader without the baggage he carried to continue on.

Yes - it's a shitshow but surely it's not too much to expect a party leading by 20% in the polls to be offering a more definitive agenda this close to an election rather than just merely confirming they'll be keeping a tight control on spending and pulling some magic growth lever to "grow the economy". Many of Corbyn's mild socialist policies are quite positively received, particularly by an electorate that is in desperate need of better healthcare and housing. I don't see progressive policies on those issues frightening any horses except those with a vested interest in keeping the status quo. If anything, all I can see is Labour tacking rightwards and ditching policies such as nationalisation of water companies etc - things this country really needs.

Labour might surprise us all in government but on what I've seen so far, I expect more of the same to follow.

[Admin]

His argument to that would be that he's now rowing back/breaking promises that were previously made, and that he's doing that before the election and not after. Therefore, whatever promises are left by the time of the election, we can be confident that they will at least deliver deliver on them.

A Labour government is just going to be a more technically capable management team. And, right now, I'd take that.

I'm not arguing your logic but it's a pretty low bar to be encouraged for someone who's going to deliver what looks to be next to f*** all but do it in an a more efficient manner than the current incumbents.

Admin, repeat after me:

There

Is

No

Other

Way

I am of course aware of this.

[OyinbO]

I'm not arguing your logic but it's a pretty low bar to be encouraged for someone who's going to deliver what looks to be next to f*** all but do it in an a more efficient manner than the current incumbents.

They are going to inherit a total shitshow, so it's right that they manage expectations accordingly. Also, having lost four elections in a row, each time with an increasing sense of adventure, leading to progressively worse results, it's not surprising they're doing "don't frighten the horses" this time around.

Max has already beaten me to the point about the 2017 election result which was an improvement on Miliband's timid offering back in 2015. There has to be a recognition that Corbyn's alternative to austerity appealed to a lot of people, mainly those in need of it.

I'm not sure the 2019 defeat was particularly down to an adventurous manifesto (some of which the Tories cherry picked since) - the election came of the back of pretty horrendous coverage for Corbyn (some of which was utter bollocks) from early 2019 onwards and the subsequent mess (inspired by Starmer as well) he got himself into over Brexit. There's lots of criticism that Corbyn should face for this period which is why I don't particularly buy into the cult status he gets - one of his main failings was massively dithering over Brexit rather than taking a clear position and showing some leadership. This allowed Johnson (already riding the back of major positive press coverage) to just grab the initiative with his "Get Brexit Done" mantra. I've always maintained that he should've stood down in 2017 having set a direction for a new left of centre leader without the baggage he carried to continue on.

Yes - it's a shitshow but surely it's not too much to expect a party leading by 20% in the polls to be offering a more definitive agenda this close to an election rather than just merely confirming they'll be keeping a tight control on spending and pulling some magic growth lever to "grow the economy". Many of Corbyn's mild socialist policies are quite positively received, particularly by an electorate that is in desperate need of better healthcare and housing. I don't see progressive policies on those issues frightening any horses except those with a vested interest in keeping the status quo. If anything, all I can see is Labour tacking rightwards and ditching policies such as nationalisation of water companies etc - things this country really needs.

Labour might surprise us all in government but on what I've seen so far, I expect more of the same to follow.

Don't really want to get into re-litigating the Corbyn years here as it's all a bit pointless, but I will say this - the public's view on his suitability as PM had much less to do with how left-wing (or not) that he was, but on whether he seemed credible on things like national security (Skripal did for him there, and that was totally his own doing) and whether they actually believed a bunch of policies which polled well with them individually could actually be delivered as a coherent programme by the sorts of people who were then leading the Labour Party. By 2019, the public just didn't take him seriously anymore. And to blame the media / establishment for all that is to deny both JC and the electorate of their agency for ending up there.

2017 is a red herring for a bunch of reasons but if folk want to cling on to that particular defeat then they're welcome to keep on losing.

It's perfectly reasonable to not have high hopes for Starmer's Labour - and I agree they should (and need to) be bolder, but let's be fair: we haven't yet seen the actual manifesto, experienced the election campaign, nor seen them in government. So it's too soon to slip into despondency - notwithstanding many of us seem to already be there.

[Currywurst and Chips]

I see the “But 2017” klaxon has been rung for May now

Late one this month

[Dunners]

Yeah, but we haven't had the "Corbyn's Labour would have won if was wasn't for those pesky centrists" double-down yet.

[Admin]

They are going to inherit a total shitshow, so it's right that they manage expectations accordingly. Also, having lost four elections in a row, each time with an increasing sense of adventure, leading to progressively worse results, it's not surprising they're doing "don't frighten the horses" this time around.

Max has already beaten me to the point about the 2017 election result which was an improvement on Miliband's timid offering back in 2015. There has to be a recognition that Corbyn's alternative to austerity appealed to a lot of people, mainly those in need of it.

I'm not sure the 2019 defeat was particularly down to an adventurous manifesto (some of which the Tories cherry picked since) - the election came of the back of pretty horrendous coverage for Corbyn (some of which was utter bollocks) from early 2019 onwards and the subsequent mess (inspired by Starmer as well) he got himself into over Brexit. There's lots of criticism that Corbyn should face for this period which is why I don't particularly buy into the cult status he gets - one of his main failings was massively dithering over Brexit rather than taking a clear position and showing some leadership. This allowed Johnson (already riding the back of major positive press coverage) to just grab the initiative with his "Get Brexit Done" mantra. I've always maintained that he should've stood down in 2017 having set a direction for a new left of centre leader without the baggage he carried to continue on.

Yes - it's a shitshow but surely it's not too much to expect a party leading by 20% in the polls to be offering a more definitive agenda this close to an election rather than just merely confirming they'll be keeping a tight control on spending and pulling some magic growth lever to "grow the economy". Many of Corbyn's mild socialist policies are quite positively received, particularly by an electorate that is in desperate need of better healthcare and housing. I don't see progressive policies on those issues frightening any horses except those with a vested interest in keeping the status quo. If anything, all I can see is Labour tacking rightwards and ditching policies such as nationalisation of water companies etc - things this country really needs.

Labour might surprise us all in government but on what I've seen so far, I expect more of the same to follow.

Don't really want to get into re-litigating the Corbyn years here as it's all a bit pointless, but I will say this - the public's view on his suitability as PM had much less to do with how left-wing (or not) that he was, but on whether he seemed credible on things like national security (Skripal did for him there, and that was totally his own doing) and whether they actually believed a bunch of policies which polled well with them individually could actually be delivered as a coherent programme by the sorts of people who were then leading the Labour Party. By 2019, the public just didn't take him seriously anymore. And to blame the media / establishment for all that is to deny both JC and the electorate of their agency for ending up there.

2017 is a red herring for a bunch of reasons but if folk want to cling on to that particular defeat then they're welcome to keep on losing.

It's perfectly reasonable to not have high hopes for Starmer's Labour - and I agree they should (and need to) be bolder, but let's be fair: we haven't yet seen the actual manifesto, experienced the election campaign, nor seen them in government. So it's too soon to slip into despondency - notwithstanding many of us seem to already be there.

I'm not relitigating his tenure at all - I've said already he should have gone after the unexpected result in 2017 and that his continued tenure deserves plenty of criticism. Far from clinging on to his relative success in 2017, had he gone at that point, it might have been a decent platform to build upon rather than what looks like an anomaly now. All rather moot now though.

Obviously I'll wait for the manifesto and believe me, I hope it's going to be considerably bolder than expected which at the moment looks like being a bit more efficiency but nothing particularly progressive or fairer for those whose need is greater. As I say, sadly I don't hold much hope but would genuinely love to be proved wrong. I have two kids of 17 and 24 and would like them to benefit from the things that were considered the norm when I was their age nearly 30 years ago.

[OyinbO]

I hear ya, and as you know very well, I feel much the same. Honestly though, the next government (whoever it is) is going to have a very difficult time replacing our lost futures. At least there’s a degree of realism about this mob.

[Max B Gold]

At least there’s a degree of realism about this mob.

I read this and my heart just sinks.

And I would just like to say.

Get a grip man.

And what do you mean by "realism" ?

[Hoover Attack]

He means realism that There Is No Other Way

[Dunners]

[Long slender neck]

Any countries made a success of "another way"?

[Currywurst and Chips]

It’s never been tried properly

[Hoover Attack]

Any countries made a success of "another way"?

Any countries making a success of this way?

[Dunners]

Any countries made a success of "another way"?

Any countries making a success of this way?

All of them. Ask your ancestors at any point in human history if you're in any doubt.

[Dunners]

*not counting post-2008.

[Hoover Attack]

Any countries made a success of "another way"?

Any countries making a success of this way?

All of them. Ask your ancestors at any point in human history if you're in any doubt.

Good point. Things are - for now, at least - better than Victorian times, I guess.

[Dunners]

Any countries making a success of this way?

All of them. Ask your ancestors at any point in human history if you're in any doubt.

Good point. Things are - for now, at least - better than Victorian times, I guess.

So, you're in agreement that the post-war capitalist settlement has been a relative success, in that it has delivered the greatest benefits to health and wealth to more people globally (both in relative and absolute terms) than any previous system in all of 2 million years of humanity's existence?

[Hoover Attack]

No.

[CEB]

All of them. Ask your ancestors at any point in human history if you're in any doubt.

Good point. Things are - for now, at least - better than Victorian times, I guess.

So, you're in agreement that the post-war capitalist settlement has been a relative success, in that it has delivered the greatest benefits to health and wealth to more people globally (both in relative and absolute terms) than any previous system in all of 2 million years of humanity's existence?

Isn’t that a little bit of a wordier way of saying “the poors have got HD ready tellies, and they’re still complaining”?

[Dunners]

Good point. Things are - for now, at least - better than Victorian times, I guess.

So, you're in agreement that the post-war capitalist settlement has been a relative success, in that it has delivered the greatest benefits to health and wealth to more people globally (both in relative and absolute terms) than any previous system in all of 2 million years of humanity's existence?

Isn’t that a little bit of a wordier way of saying “the poors have got HD ready tellies, and they’re still complaining”?

Not in this context. And, just to remind the viewers, the context is this comment:

"Any countries making a success of this way?"

You see, what this comment insinuates is that the current system has not been a success. There's two ways we can approach this:

1. We take the boarder at his word. Only that the relatively minor evidence of all of human history begs to differ.

Or

2. We assume that what he really means is that "There's always room for improvement." Well, nobody is disagreeing with that. But, for there to be room for improvement, you have to assume that the current system has been a success, even if only so far.