You’ll also find this in the general election thread:
Centre Left parties have been decimated across all of Europe. I’ve seen a bunch of articles on the subject but no ideas.
Going local is a good concept but can localisation be managed effectively?
There is an Elephant in the room to be addressed.
Tory debt exploded. Yet so did the planet - it was Wuantative Easing which went to the rich. That money could have gone on social & infrastructure investment, but UK PLC always fvcks that up. Find the middle ground, bring projects under control.
The answer is out there, politics, cliques & spin will get in the way
Labour also need to reasses their relationship with the unions. Only 25% of the population belong to one, and BEIS stats show that they are mostly made up of well educated professionals. The unions are no longer synonymous with most people’s concept of working class. Labour need to consider whether to try and bridge that gap as a party, or ditch the unions and find a way to engage with what would make up the core of their voter base. I don’t think they will do this though, as they are too reliant on union funding to keep going.
As a trade union Labour voter I’d disagree with that.
Better funded by affiliates (we choose for our funding to go to Labour) than millionaire/billionaires etc.
If Labour has to change its funding then the Tories do too.
My experience in my union is a lot of women not necessarily well educated but will check out those government stats later.
So who for the labour leadership?
Millionaire Sir kier or millionaire Lady Nugee Both ardent remainers
That ought to resonate with the northern marginals
Not sure it is a massive problem as they’ve just voted in millionaire Etonian as PM.
Edit. Starmer’s parents were a nurse and a tool maker. He has done well as he is a bright man and was knighted (not a hereditary one) for his work.
Thornbury had teachers as parents. Bit more middle class. Also did well in her field and married well.
But it will be how things are put forward and any fake shit that will stick.
It’s a massive problem.
Keir Starmer’s father was a comprehensive tool-maker, going by Keir’s qualities.
He seems alright. There are worse politicians out there but don’t think he is right for now.
Because they didn’t have the bottle to address multiculturalism, integration, the Muslim faith.
Parties on the right took advantage of this, not rocket science, liberals want a two way street on human rights or they don’t want to talk about the issues immigration brings.
They got hammered and many predicted it, if they don’t grasp the nettle they’ll become irrelevant.
So what you’re saying is that the left have to become big old racists. And that the success of the right is based on their exploitation of race.
What a lovely world it is. Happy Christmas everyone.
Inverted racists yes, Naz Shah anyone?
Diane Abbot etc etc.
Clive Lewis really showing that he isn’t leadership material and has no real understanding of why Labour just lost an election.
Radical is the wrong message
Radical is just too, well, radical
What was radical?
Certainly nothing in the manifesto, as all polling on policy showed overwhelming support, hence the msm never talking about it.
Figures are in this article.
Then why have Starmer and Lewis both described it as radical in the couple of days?
Even if you don’t think it’s radical, if the architects of it do then guess what the public is going to hear
Should Corbyn just step down now?
Three months of his miserable mug on the tv isn’t exactly going to help
He is such a stubborn old bugger
Didn’t know they had, but not surprised(unfortunately).
What the public hear and what they think are not always the same thankfully and they overwhelmingly liked the manifesto(on the rare occasions it was discussed).
If you’ve got time, have a read of the article. It’s a bit long, but does go through all the brexit stuff and his views on who done what and why. Made me rethink some of the things that went on.
TBF the Labour message started ok and we were assured it was fully costed. What really screwed them was a £60bn unfunded promise to the WASPIs. That immediately undermined any pretence they had of being fiscally controlled and threw doubt on the rest of their claims.
One vote chase too many
I get that but what didn’t get a lot of coverage was the point made by Corbyn that, if the government loses the legal case, they will have to fund it anyway - in the same way wars and other unplanned activities are. Through contingency and borrowing.
If the government of the day is forced by legal means to right the wrong, then nobody will talk of magic money trees or profligate borrowing, they will simply say we had no.choice but to borrow to meet a moral and now legal obligation.
What really screwed Labour on WASPI was the media feeding (with all due respect) the line you’ve just parroted.
WASPI is wrong.and needs to.be righted.
A strategy akin to managing the blood products and asbestosis crises (i.e. wait for them to die) is not ok.