Are Labour Dead In The Water?

[jakswan]

Given that the bit you don't disagree with is the reasoning behind the bit you do, I would suggest you are confused. The idea that the left is for free immigration, and the right is against it is simply incorrect for the reasons you have agreed with.

I did say extreme right or though extreme left was implied, but hey ho, I'm generalising as you have to do in the real world.

I note that when challenged you couldn't produce anything other than a reassertion of your generalisation. There was lots of coverage during the GE of how Sturgeon's position in the debates appealed to non Scottish voters and polling at the time bore that out. That isn't to say that it wasn't off putting to some but factually your generalisation is not borne out.

There is a vague hint in your post that you think the SNP are so slick that they managed to ensure a Tory govt. Do you actually think that or is that just like Lib Dem Secretary of State happily spreading errors and lying about it?

What exactly do you expect me to produce. My claims are:-

1) The SNP are seen as toxic to many of the electorate in the rUK
2) The rise of the SNP lead, in part, to the demise of the Labour party in the 2015 election. Not just by taking seats of Labour in Scotland but because there was a debate over a Lab-SNP coalition, which the Tories used to frighten people to vote Tory.

I don't see you disagreeing with (1) maybe the cause of toxicity but the cause is a secondary issue.

Do you actually think I think that or is it some form of SNP spin that you want to associate me with someone in the LibDem party.

[ProfessorDavey]

1) The SNP are seen as toxic to many of the electorate in the rUK
2) The rise of the SNP lead, in part, to the demise of the Labour party in the 2015 election. Not just by taking seats of Labour in Scotland but because there was a debate over a Lab-SNP coalition, which the Tories used to frighten people to vote Tory.

I don't see you disagreeing with (1) maybe the cause of toxicity but the cause is a secondary issue.

Do you actually think I think that or is it some form of SNP spin that you want to associate me with someone in the LibDem party.

I think that is entirely right, and I think it is perhaps a touch tricky to see this if you are embedded in Scotland rather than rUK.

The mistrust of the SNP isn't inherently their political positioning on the left-right spectrum. Indeed there are plenty in England who are largely aligned in that respect, and lets face it they aren't much different in traditional political terms from Labour. No, the mistrust is that the SNP, don't and don't even pretend to represent the whole of the UK. So their motivation is suspect. I'm sure you can see that.

So in rUK following the referendum the fact that Labour campaigned against the SNP is either largely an irrelevance because rUK people can't vote SNP so don't really care whether they are campaigned against or not, or a mild positive - standing up for the whole of the UK in opposition to a clearly partisan block.

So in rUK the negative effect for Labour wasn't that they'd campaigned against the SNP in the indyref, no it was the fear factor that a hung parliament might lead to the 'clearly partisan' SNP holding a balance of power and only being interested in Scottish self interest which as you might imagine didn't go down well in London, or Manchester, or rural Oxfordshire, or Cardiff or Anglesea.

[Jack Knave]

I think the problem was more that the campaign became something where they were deeply wrapped up with the Tory party and it became easy to portray it as being mere red Tories. That combined with a lack of recognition that they were being seen as nor really being in favour of anything, and the lack of effectiveness of Miliband E caused further problems. However, there are long term historical reasons for the problems in Scotland.

The point I was making about being complicit in the demonization of the SNP, while a tactic that started in the referendum with the spurious idea of cybernats, spurious because it was predicated on there only being nutters on one side of the issue, it was the tactic the Tories ran with in the GE and because Labour were already hitched to it, and because of the long term historic issues, they helped continue. So instead of saying, if there was a hung parliament we would work to achieve xyz and if the SNP would accept that we could work with them, they just agreed with the Tories and therefore looked again like red Tories and contributed to their weakness in England.

 No, I was perfectly well aware of the tactic, and that was the bit in my first paragraph that you missed. I think you have a real blind spot here in terms of your emotional reaction to the idea of nationalism and it colours how you read what others are saying. As I have reiterated aboce, it was the Labour party's tacit (and in Scotland open) acceptance that the Tories were right about the SNP that put them into this cleft stick.

I would agree with you that it had an effect but one that the Labour party helped along. I'd even argue that while overall it wasn't necessarily enough to show in opinion polls, it was significant because of its effect in marginals, particularly Lib Dems seats. I just don't think that Labour could have achieved anything else with their tactics.


Again in terms of the idea that this was the intention of the SNP, it's indicative of the whole priblem. When the Sec State for Scotland bleakest memo he now admits was incorrect, Labourr jumped on the bandwagon to say SNP bad, and they want the Tories to win, without even looking at tgr motivation of A Carmichael or ensuring that it was true.
 

Which is why union involvement in the way that it is is problematic for the Labour party. When even their supporters agree that a leader is in the pocket of the unions, and that is a bad thing, there are issues which don't arise in the Tory party.



I actually think I could not have seen a greater illustration of my point about self loathing, or rather it shows what I really meant, was completely split with enmity and loathing, than your last couple of paragraphs. If it was a Corbyn suppirter, it would just have changed round so that what you call 'pragmatists' would be portrayed as selfish careerists with no principles who should be in the Tory party. And they would have said there is no point in being in power if you don't change things when you are there.

I am sympathetic to those in the Labour party who you see as pragmatists, but for a long time now they have been their own worst enemy. There were hints towards the end of the campaign when i felt that Yvette Cooper was beginning to make strides but there really wasn't enough on offer to make people think that there was an alternative vision that could offer anything than a slightly different version of the Tories and the whole abstaining nonsense at the start of the oarluament, when in at least one case they could have defeated the govt, was a nonsense. I also think that happened because they again followed the narrative on the SNP, and that wasn't about pragmatism but the same emotional blindspot that I think you have.


I think the party is currently unleadable and that members are so keen to follow, once more, a Tory narrative about how bad their leader is is an illustration of that. I don't think Corbyn has had much choice in being good or bad as a leader, it's a nightmare to try and do anything with. I don't think any of the other candidates would have done much better, in part because had they won,they would be seen as merely Tory lite. That they do not appear an effective opposition  is because they are locked into two parties in one, and are their own opposition.

...and to Prof. Davey

I think one reason why Labour did so badly was that they had no idea, nor cared, what their members thought or the concerns of the general public; which is why Corbyn's victory was such a surprise to them. They tried to say the right thing without knowing what the real right thing was and they have no vision or policy agenda. This is the politics of the main parties, to just say enough of what they think the voters want to hear to win the GE (or use events to create fear in their favour). It is nothing about real governance or working for the people. This academic bubble of 'dead' formulas to win the race is showing its age and has returned the attitude of the 'divine right' to rule regardless of what the people need or want.   

[Nearly Sane]

Quick question for Jack Knave, is there something I am missing in your quotes from me? Don't see any comment/question?

[Jack Knave]

No, i'm referring to the referendum campaign here ( and that is because it is in reply to your paragraph on their position in the referendum )and how it affected the perception in  Scotland. I also in the rest of the post covered that I agree with that there was a different effect in England which allowed the Tories to exploit Labour not being clear about what they represented, added to the problem of their own emotional response to the SNP. Something I think, as already suggested, you share, and indeed I think is apparent in the use of language such as 'perfect toxic mix' and that you have taken a small extract fro what I wrote, misread it because of that and answered with something that I had both happily admitted had an effect and dealt with in detail of what I thought Labour had done to contribute to their own problems.

What did the Scots expect Labour to do in the referendum? Why are they so narked by what they did do?

[Jack Knave]

Quick question for Jack Knave, is there something I am missing in your quotes from me? Don't see any comment/question?

It's a general observation and overview of the discussion that you and Prof. Davey are having. What I see as what is going on in politics today.

[Jack Knave]

The BIG difficulty that Labour faces is that they have lumbered themselves with a system for leadership election that allows groups who have their own agenda to swing the process.

The introduction of the £3 vote (arguably) got Corbyn in.

The £3 vote would never have been an issue if MPs had voted in the ones genuinely wanted. Corbyn got a load of pity votes to make the debate balanced and broad but their naivety in doing this came back to bite them. This showed just how out of touch they were with what was going on with their grass roots. 

[Jack Knave]

All true, just not really that much to do with Corbyn. The party is indulging in backstabbing and part of it is happy to go along with and be used by Tory attacks to try and get rid of Corbyn. Again, he's the symptom, not the cause.

But a symptom that could go gangrenes as he digs in and brings his own into the fold and change things. This would create a state of internal war for Labour.

[Jack Knave]

Well it was widely publicised that all-and-sundry could 'buy' a vote in the election by making an online payment . Is that as bribery or stupidity?

I don't pretend to know.

But they only paid up because Corbyn was there and he was there because the stupid Labour MPs gave him their votes, though they didn't really what him, else the choice would have been between the usual suspects.

[ProfessorDavey]

The £3 vote would never have been an issue if MPs had voted in the ones genuinely wanted. Corbyn got a load of pity votes to make the debate balanced and broad but their naivety in doing this came back to bite them. This showed just how out of touch they were with what was going on with their grass roots.

I agree - but they really shouldn't have been naive enough to fail to recognise the danger of having a hard left candidate on the ballot paper, particularly given the electoral make-up.

Even ignoring the £3 supporters and the affiliated organisations, e.g. unions the membership of political parties have long had a tendency to be more extreme than their Westminster MPs and certainly than the public at large. Don't forget the Tories voted for Hague, when they could have had Clarke, and later voted for Duncan-Smith when again they could have had Clarke or even Portillo.

Party memberships have a long history of voting for the person who most aligns with their political 'anorak' world view rather than for someone electable by the general electorate.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think that is entirely right, and I think it is perhaps a touch tricky to see this if you are embedded in Scotland rather than rUK.

Interesting term rUK .....Does it mean the rest of the UK or does it refer to the remaining UK?

Perhaps we should be referring to rUK as a potential integrated group of the former UK led by David Cameron...

or pigfUK for short.

[Jack Knave]

I agree - but they really shouldn't have been naive enough to fail to recognise the danger of having a hard left candidate on the ballot paper, particularly given the electoral make-up.

Even ignoring the £3 supporters and the affiliated organisations, e.g. unions the membership of political parties have long had a tendency to be more extreme than their Westminster MPs and certainly than the public at large. Don't forget the Tories voted for Hague, when they could have had Clarke, and later voted for Duncan-Smith when again they could have had Clarke or even Portillo.

Party memberships have a long history of voting for the person who most aligns with their political 'anorak' world view rather than for someone electable by the general electorate.

When you put it like that it makes the Labour MPs look even more dumber than dumb. But that's what you get when one's Labour MPs have their heads up their wet-dream derrières. 

[Rhiannon]

The truly terrifying thing is that Labour's implosion will in all likelihood mean that inept, amoral streak of piss currently residing at No 11 will be PM. But that isn't down to Corbyn, but rather the fact that Labour had lost its way so entirely that voting Corbyn in was necessary to give the party an identity again. At least under him they have a clear direction and purpose again. If Corbyn himself isn't electable - and that is yet to be tested - then there is at least the chance that following him will be upcoming politicians with similar ideals who are.

I always vote Green or Independent (not a fan of traditional politics) but there's no doubt the country needs distinct political identities from its main parties.

[ProfessorDavey]

I agree - but they really shouldn't have been naive enough to fail to recognise the danger of having a hard left candidate on the ballot paper, particularly given the electoral make-up.

Even ignoring the £3 supporters and the affiliated organisations, e.g. unions the membership of political parties have long had a tendency to be more extreme than their Westminster MPs and certainly than the public at large. Don't forget the Tories voted for Hague, when they could have had Clarke, and later voted for Duncan-Smith when again they could have had Clarke or even Portillo.

Party memberships have a long history of voting for the person who most aligns with their political 'anorak' world view rather than for someone electable by the general electorate.

Sorry I should correct myself.

Hague was voted in by MPs alone. But Duncan-Smith won a members vote against Clarke - just goes to show that perhaps the members are the worst people to decide who is a credible leader.

[Jack Knave]

The truly terrifying thing is that Labour's implosion will in all likelihood mean that inept, amoral streak of piss currently residing at No 11 will be PM. But that isn't down to Corbyn, but rather the fact that Labour had lost its way so entirely that voting Corbyn in was necessary to give the party an identity again. At least under him they have a clear direction and purpose again.

I heard a commentator say that an unknown (i.e. someone not in the race yet but known by name by those who follow politics) will take the reins from Cameron. Not too sure why he/she thought this. I don't think they had anyone specific in mind but was going on historic reasons for such a claim.

[Rhiannon]

I heard a commentator say that an unknown (i.e. someone not in the race yet but known by name by those who follow politics) will take the reins from Cameron. Not too sure why he/she thought this. I don't think they had anyone specific in mind but was going on historic reasons for such a claim.

That makes me feel so much better. 

[Jack Knave]

That makes me feel so much better. 

I think part of the thinking is that Osborne has made too many misjudgements to be trusted to look 'clean' to the voters, and often to make sure that past faults don't drag a party down many MPs go for someone who is unsullied because he hasn't been in a ministerial cabinet role.

[Nearly Sane]

I think part of the thinking is that Osborne has made too many misjudgements to be trusted to look 'clean' to the voters, and often to make sure that past faults don't drag a party down many MPs go for someone who is unsullied because he hasn't been in a ministerial cabinet role.

Unlikely to be someone not in the cabinet, I notice that Sajid Javid effectively underlining his candidacy by his comments on Google, and his odds have come down considerably. Also moving in is Stephen Crabb and Priti Patel. Interesting also to note the reversals to policies being pushed by Michael Gove after Chris Grayling's tenure.

[Nearly Sane]

If it is someone not in the cabinet, would appear that Owen Paterson would be best placed.

[jakswan]

So in rUK the negative effect for Labour wasn't that they'd campaigned against the SNP in the indyref, no it was the fear factor that a hung parliament might lead to the 'clearly partisan' SNP holding a balance of power and only being interested in Scottish self interest which as you might imagine didn't go down well in London, or Manchester, or rural Oxfordshire, or Cardiff or Anglesea.

Very well put!

[ProfessorDavey]

If it is someone not in the cabinet, would appear that Owen Paterson would be best placed.

Not a chance - he has virtually no profile amongst the public, and much of the attention in his time as a minister has been negative. Plus he is also another chip off the same block as Cameron, Osborne, Johnson etc - (albeit slightly second rate) i.e. top public school and Oxbridge. Given his lack of high office I think he'd also be considered to be too old, given that he'd be 63 (I think) in 2020.

I think when people are talking about someone 'not in the cabinet' they mean someone at the early stages of their career and on the way up not someone heading toward the end of their career (which never rose very high) and on the way down.

Personally I think it is likely to be someone currently a minister - possibly Theresa May, although for an outside bet, Joe Johnson (and wouldn't that be fun if it weren't for the he'd be PM!!).

[Nearly Sane]

Not a chance - he has virtually no profile amongst the public, and much of the attention in his time as a minister has been negative. Plus he is also another chip off the same block as Cameron, Osborne, Johnson etc - (albeit slightly second rate) i.e. top public school and Oxbridge. Given his lack of high office I think he'd also be considered to be too old, given that he'd be 63 (I think) in 2020.

I think when people are talking about someone 'not in the cabinet' they mean someone at the early stages of their career and on the way up not someone heading toward the end of their career (which never rose very high) and on the way down.

Personally I think it is likely to be someone currently a minister - possibly Theresa May, although for an outside bet, Joe Johnson (and wouldn't that be fun if it weren't for the he'd be PM!!).

Yeah, I pretty much agree. It's just that Paterson is surprisingly low odds currently and i'm missing why, so I am wondering whether he is being lined up if there is a in/out slight after the refetendum.


Jo Johnson is an interesting shout. One suspects that there might well be fratricide in that instance.

If Paterson is too old (and I fear that there is a foolish liking for younger leaders), then the same would apply to May.

I am intrigued by Sajid Javid's positioning on Google yesterday. It's a big step if you are Business Secretary to effectively call out the Chancellor, and doing that while taking a populist position which will play with those to the left and certain elements to the right of the Chancellor. 

[Nearly Sane]

I did say extreme right or though extreme left was implied, but hey ho, I'm generalising as you have to do in the real world.

Why would you think that saying extreme right, would imply extreme left? Also There are versions of 'extreme' right that support free immigration - libertarians.

What exactly do you expect me to produce. My claims are:-

1) The SNP are seen as toxic to many of the electorate in the rUK
2) The rise of the SNP lead, in part, to the demise of the Labour party in the 2015 election. Not just by taking seats of Labour in Scotland but because there was a debate over a Lab-SNP coalition, which the Tories used to frighten people to vote Tory.

I don't see you disagreeing with (1) maybe the cause of toxicity but the cause is a secondary issue.

Do you actually think I think that or is it some form of SNP spin that you want to associate me with someone in the LibDem party.

I've disagreed with 1 - as you originally started with a blanket assertion that the SNP were seen only one way. I have actually agreed with 2 (only I suggested the effect was not as wide you stated but relatively focused) but stated in part that was due to the Labour Party, and them not wanting to be seen as anything other than pro austerity.

Why do you think I would using SNP spin? I was merely asking if you were implying that the current situation of a Tory govt was deliberately aimed at by the SNP, which I thought your post seemed to imply.

[Nearly Sane]

I think that is entirely right, and I think it is perhaps a touch tricky to see this if you are embedded in Scotland rather than rUK.

The mistrust of the SNP isn't inherently their political positioning on the left-right spectrum. Indeed there are plenty in England who are largely aligned in that respect, and lets face it they aren't much different in traditional political terms from Labour. No, the mistrust is that the SNP, don't and don't even pretend to represent the whole of the UK. So their motivation is suspect. I'm sure you can see that.





So in rUK following the referendum the fact that Labour campaigned against the SNP is either largely an irrelevance because rUK people can't vote SNP so don't really care whether they are campaigned against or not, or a mild positive - standing up for the whole of the UK in opposition to a clearly partisan block.

So in rUK the negative effect for Labour wasn't that they'd campaigned against the SNP in the indyref, no it was the fear factor that a hung parliament might lead to the 'clearly partisan' SNP holding a balance of power and only being interested in Scottish self interest which as you might imagine didn't go down well in London, or Manchester, or rural Oxfordshire, or Cardiff or Anglesea.

It would be good if you reread some of this because in your emotional reaction, you aren't able to see that we are talking about two different things. I have agreed that the fear of the SNP amongst a focussed group of voters in rUK had the effect that you suggest. I have been arguing that Labour passively and in some cases actively went along with that. In doing so, they affected their chances in rUK by supporting a fear factor aimed at voting for the Lib Dems and them, and also managed to continue to appear in Scotland as if they were aligning themselves with the Tories again, and losing support there, The dynamics in each situation is different but Labour took the worst of all possible options.

[ProfessorDavey]

If Paterson is too old (and I fear that there is a foolish liking for younger leaders), then the same would apply to May.

It isn't simply the age, but age vs experience. May, although the same age, is Home Secretary and has been since 2010. Paterson has never risen above Environment, and then only for a brief period.