The Labour Thread

[Abertawe]

I'm prepared to ride with the the nuclear issue being the cause for defeat. That circumstance won't arise again. Labour won't be in a position to take it to the Tories until they have a sustained period of togetherness and unity so right now it's just about hanging on. Just gotta be patient until they have the ability to put their vision to the public.

 

[Abertawe]

Have to give props to the Tory candidate as she was very good and the Tories were very efficient targeting the vast rural areas with postal votes. That and nuclear won the day.

 

[Alty]

It's important not to read too much into by-elections. Corbyn's long history of opposition to nuclear power obviously played extremely badly in Copeland. That's not something that would be all that relevant in other constituencies.

Likewise, I don't think you can say "that's the end of UKIP" because they failed to dislodge Labour in Stoke. Clearly the controversy around Nuttall's residency arrangements and previous Hillsborough comments really dented his campaign. Imagine if someone like Carswell or Evans had been standing (preferably with a Staffordshire accent) - quite conceivable to me that they'd have got over the line.

I'm also unconvinced by the idea that the Tories and UKIP split the Eurosceptic vote and allowed the Remainer (who seems thoroughly unpleasant, by the way) to win. There will be an unerringly loyal hardcore within the Labour candidate's vote who have been Labour all their lives, and stuck with the party, despite having voted Leave last year.

That said, and without wanting to go OTT as is always the temptation in situations like this, the results combined with polling and media perceptions do seem to bode well for the Tories. Setting aside what you think of whether the 'hard Brexit' path is the best one for the country, politically it certainly seems to make the most sense. It avoids any ambiguity about what the Government is trying to achieve. It gives the impression of a Government in control. And it shores up support among the bulk of the electorate who wanted out. If the PM had decided to go for an EEA-type arangement it would have been almost nobody's first choice. The outers want to be properly out. The Farrons, Lammys and Soubrys want to cancel Brexit altogether.

Obviously a lot can change between now and the day we actually leave, but assuming negotiations aren't a disaster, there's every chance of a stonking Tory majority at the next election at this rate.

 

[.V.]

https://twitter.com/haveigotnews/status/835172452296716288

 

[Captain Scumbag]

I don't think you can say "that's the end of UKIP" because they failed to dislodge Labour in Stoke. Clearly the controversy around Nuttall's residency arrangements and previous Hillsborough comments really dented his campaign. Imagine if someone like Carswell or Evans had been standing (preferably with a Staffordshire accent) - quite conceivable to me that they'd have got over the line.

I know a few Kippers who canvassed in Stoke. They did find Nuttall was unpopular among the voters. He was perceived as a “clearly parachuted in” candidate right from the start. The weird thing concerning his address made him look untrustworthy, and that problem was obviously compounded in the last few weeks when the Hillsborough stuff broke.

The other recurring problem they encountered, though, was a sense that UKIP has basically done its job and is now irrelevant. I’ve long argued that UKIP is basically a Conservative Party pressure group. Brexit hasn’t happened yet, but the general perception (as acknowledged in your post) is that Mrs May is getting on with it. Given this, the party lacks obvious purpose. That doesn't mean it's toast, but there's a big (and currently unanswered) existential question there.

I'm also unconvinced by the idea that the Tories and UKIP split the Eurosceptic vote and allowed the Remainer (who seems thoroughly unpleasant, by the way) to win. There will be an unerringly loyal hardcore within the Labour candidate's vote who have been Labour all their lives, and stuck with the party, despite having voted Leave last year.

True, there are people who’d vote for Kim Jong-il if you stuck a red rosette on him.

But 7,800 (approx.) votes for Labour is piss poor, even taking into account the depressingly low turnout. UKIP and the Tories got about 10,300 votes between them. I'm guessing most of those voters were pro-Brexit. Take the prepubescent Tory candidate out of the race. Where would those 5,000 or so votes have gone? Possibly nowhere, but it’s worth noting that just 2,500 would have swung it for UKIP.

Bit of a tangent, but it might also be worth considering whether the mini-resurgence of the LDs had a vote-splitting effect, especially in Copeland. Although Corbyn-haters are portraying the loss as previously unthinkable, Jamie Reed won very marginally in 2015 and undoubtedly benefitted from the collapse of the LD vote. Another headache for Labour methinks...

 

[.V.]

Post Brexit, each by-election has seen the LD share of the vote increase and the Labour vote decrease. Small sample size admittedly.

 

[Alty]

Post Brexit, each by-election has seen the LD share of the vote increase and the Labour vote decrease. Small sample size admittedly.

And the LDs are coming from nowhere.

 

[Abertawe]

Only losing 2% of the vote in Stoke shortly after the PLP brought the party to its knees isn't a bad result. The party is still having to rebuild from the damage of last summer. Copeland is a write-off. Pissing in the wind trying to convince a Nuclear constituency as to the virtues of a vehemently anti-nuclear man of 30 years. Before labour can challenge first & foremost they need a sustained period of stability & unity.

 

[Boletus Edulis]

Following by-elections there is always outrageous statements by all sides to explain, interpret and excuse what happened. However, Cat Smith has come out with one of the more ridiculous by-election statements for many a year. Apparently Labour did well to keep the Tories to a 2,000 vote victory. It is fair enough to try and obfuscate and muddy the waters, but at least come out with statements that have some credibility, otherwise you just look stupid. If I ever see a statement from her again I shall simply ignore what she says.

 

[Boletus Edulis]

Reading the Sundays I note that an unnamed TU leader is drawing an analogy with Wenger and Corbyn's situations. Not sure I agree, just found it interesting that football has been cited as a similar example as to what is happening in Labour.

 

[.V.]

Gerald Kaufman has died

 

[GodsGift]

Anyone daft enough to defend Labour over how they've handed this whole Ken Livingstone fiasco?

 

[Abertawe]

I still can't work out what Ken said wrong.

 

[The Eyes of Self Actual]

I still can't work out what Ken said wrong.

Neither can I.

Fake History is a term that we all need to get as familiar with as Fake News.

Ken has been crucified for talking the truth. Something the Fake News media does not like.

 

[GodsGift]

Of course he was wrong, it's historical revisionism at its finest. The 1933 Ha’avara agreement was motivated by an overwhelming desire to get rid of the Jews from Germany. Eight years earlier Hitler had stated his desire to see Jews exterminated in Mein Kampf. Hitler wasn't supportive of a Jewish homeland at all, he wanted them gone.

Livingstone is a senile old man who has a penchant for making anti-Semitic remarks. His behaviour is typical of what the Labour party has become and it's utterly pathetic he's using the Holocaust to bait the Jewish community. Labour are now an utter irrelevance and this is coming from someone who considers themselves to be slightly left of centre when it comes to social issues. I've considered voting for them in the past (but haven't) but the thought won't even cross my mind in future. I'll never be voting Tory either, so that's me fucked.

 

[Abertawe]

Of course he was wrong, it's historical revisionism at its finest. The 1933 Ha’avara agreement was motivated by an overwhelming desire to get rid of the Jews from Germany. Eight years earlier Hitler had stated his desire to see Jews exterminated in Mein Kampf. Hitler wasn't supportive of a Jewish homeland at all, he wanted them gone.

Livingstone is a senile old man who has a penchant for making anti-Semitic remarks. His behaviour is typical of what the Labour party has become and it's utterly pathetic he's using the Holocaust to bait the Jewish community. Labour are now an utter irrelevance and this is coming from someone who considers themselves to be slightly left of centre when it comes to social issues. I've considered voting for them in the past (but haven't) but the thought won't even cross my mind in future.

You're every inch the Tory boy so that doesn't surprise.

FWIW I don't even believe antisemitism exists within everyday society. Apart from linking Jews to wealth (if owt that's a compliment) I've never once heard anti Jewish sentiment in my 26 years on this earth. By the same token anti Islam racism is an everyday occurrence.

There is no antisemitism in the UK. It's made up to serve an agenda.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

If memory serves, this latest debacle with Ken started with him defending Naz Shah. She had, in her pre-MP days, posted/shared a satirical cartoon suggesting that the best solution to the Israel-Palestine problem was to move the whole of Israel to the United States. John Mann’s measured response was to compare her to Adolf Eichmann.

This isn’t to absolve Ken. It’s to highlight the context. Zionists and anti-Zionists (as well as those willing to exploit either side for their own narrow political gain) often antagonise each other by invoking history in a way that is either fallacious, highly selective or completely lacking in proportion. It’s one of the reasons why their feud is so intractable and boring. Livingstone, a man whose criticisms of Israel have often incurred the erroneous charge of antisemitism, was probably irked by the treatment of Shah. He wanted to irk them back, hence his comments. To describe this as "baiting the Jewish community" is a gross oversimplification.

His remarks were fuck-witted because they made it easy for his opponents and because he should know better than most how much political hay the dishonest opportunists* in his own party can (and often do) make from this sort of thing. He must have known how difficult this would make things for Jeremy Corbyn, a leader he presumably likes and respects.

* Reflect for a moment on how many of Ken's detractors in the Labour Party are dyed-in-the-wool Blairites who still equivocate on the rightness or wrongness of some of Tony Blair's foreign policy misadventures.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

We live in a country of free speech with only certain limitations around inciting hatred etc, and KL's remarks do not fall into that category. So KL is entitled to hold those views, and he can express them if he so wishes, even if it opens him up to accusations of (at best) historical revisionism.

But it's the absolute last thing his party needs right now, bonkers. He's clearly turning senile, or is intentionally out to help nudge the Labour party further towards it's doom.

At a time when Labour is going through a systemic crisis of confidence, leadership and purpose. When the topic is utterly irrelevant to anything Labour or political discourse generally is dealing with today. It's another distraction that prevents Labour from building any relevance with the electorate on the issues of today, leading any of the debate.

When Labour have, be it correctly or erroneously, suffered recent bad press for anti-semitic controversy - between Momentum running workshops on the topic recently for it's members after it's vice-chair had to be sacked, and the Jewish Labour Movement constantly accusing the party of having problems with the subject.

And it further divides the party, with this suspension serving as a compromise that placates neither KL's supporters or detractors within the party, giving yet another argument for the party to continue falling out over.

Baffling stuff all told.

 

[Jockney]

https://mobile.twitter.com/undefined/status/849889054695071744

JC needs to incorporate more class warfare discourses into his policies. Shit like this is what might make him electable.

 

[Alty]

https://mobile.twitter.com/undefined/status/849889054695071744

JC needs to incorporate more class warfare discourses into his policies. Shit like this is what might make him electable.

I have to admit it's the first time in months I've seen a new Labour policy and thought "yup, on board with that 100%".

Still can't see them doing anything in the next election though. Aside from all the other criticisms of Corbyn and the PLP (fair or otherwise), Brexit is the defining issue of the day and Labour are getting mercilessly squeezed by the Tories/UKIP on one side and LDs/SNP on the other.

Although it probably says something for his decency as a person, I'm not sure it helps that Starmer clearly quite likes Davis either.

 

[johnnytodd]

Labour will lose ground continually until all terrorist sympathisers are booted out.

 

[Red]

Labour will lose ground continually until all terrorist sympathisers are booted out.

Just read and liked the last 4 or 5 posts on this thread, then you bring that toss to the table.

 

[johnnytodd]

Just read and liked the last 4 or 5 posts on this thread, then you bring that toss to the table.

I'm here for the veterans who these lot spit on with some of their lefty shit.

ashamed of some of them me.

 

[Red]

I'm here for the veterans who these lot spit on with some of their lefty shit.

ashamed of some of them me.

Commie shits.

 

[Dave-Vale]

Good few weeks for Corbyn. Brought some good policies to the table to show what he is about and he's started standing up for himself a bit.

The interview on ITV where he tore into the journalist about how it is their job to fairly report on things and how they don't do it, blinding the public to things etc.. was brilliant.

 

[.V.]

Good few weeks for Corbyn. Brought some good policies to the table to show what he is about and he's started standing up for himself a bit.

The interview on ITV where he tore into the journalist about how it is their job to fairly report on things and how they don't do it, blinding the public to things etc.. was brilliant.

Funny how people see things differently, I thought it looked like a slightly unhinged rant. The fact is he's trying to play a different game with the media, like Trump, but failing. He needs to either play the media game as normal or come up with a different tactic.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/851796711169286144

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/851081525634510849

A couple of good policies, I agree, but they're not resonating with the electorate. He needs to change tactics on getting his message out there.

 

[Blitzballer]

Jesus wept did anyone listen to Diane Abbot on LBC this morning? The woman is deluded

 

[Blitzballer]

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presente...abbotts-agonising-interview-over-policy-cost/

 

[markwwfc1992]

I wonder how many thousands of Labour voters Diane Abbot has lost this morning...

 

[markwwfc1992]

Our Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell under a communism and Syrian (pro Assad) flag yesterday at Trafalgar Square.