|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Feb 24, 2017 17:51:25 GMT
The Beeb report that the SWP are blaming Labour not being left-wing enough for...er...the Tories winning Copeland. Well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 24, 2017 17:52:16 GMT
But unless they can be energised to vote, then I don't see any future for the Labour party other than a party of opposition. As I say, its going to be a long-term project.... I'm still not convinced that turnout will increase much. After all, it assumes that all non-voters want a more left-wing alternative. In every proportional election, the non-voters stay the same. Take the Netherlands. In 2006, with the Socialist Party on a crest of a wave and various left-wing choices, 19.96% of the electorate still did not vote. In 2003, with them doing fairly well anyway, 20% did not vote. In 2002, with the SP not doing brilliantly, nor GL, nor even the PvdA, 20.6% did not vote, hardly a difference, and that was despite there also being the LPF as an extra new choice on the Right. Go back to 1989 and the only party to the Left of the PvdA was GL, and the only serious party to the Right of the Christian parties and VVD was the CD, who won just one seat. Turnout was...80.3%. Go whichever you want, but a distinctive profile does not necessarily cause non-voters to flock to you. Thats not what I am saying. I don't think there is any point at all in being a Tweedledum 'alternative' to the Tory Tweedledee. To have any purpose at all, we need to look towards convincing people to vote for us - and I don't think that there is a great deal of mileage in trying to convince people whose views and values are a long way from ours. Turnout has dropped - 62% just isn't good enough. So for me its about holding our nerve and offereing an alternative. That may or may not be supported, but in my view, the only way that we will ever get the sort of changes I want to see. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,025
|
Post by Sibboleth on Feb 24, 2017 17:53:15 GMT
We could start by not losing seats to the government party in by-elections.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,025
|
Post by Sibboleth on Feb 24, 2017 17:53:59 GMT
The Beeb report that the SWP are blaming Labour not being left-wing enough for...er...the Tories winning Copeland. Well. If not being left-wing enough means not covering up rape then it's great to be not left-wing enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 24, 2017 17:54:54 GMT
Indeed. And I'd rather lose it forever further comment is superfluous I think. You need to recognise that if the only choice is between the David Bothroyd version of Labour and the Conservatives, for me it would always be 'none of the above'. I don;t have any preference for the former over the latter - they are both parties I disagree with and wouldn't vote for. Not prepared to be a hypocrite - I left the party in 2003 because of the policies they were pursuing and if we return to that, then it wouldn't be the party for me any longer . |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 24, 2017 17:56:23 GMT
We could start by not losing seats to the government party in by-elections. But if the voters decide they prefer what the governing party have to say, surely that's just the way democracy works? Not a sign that we need to be more like the governing party - what's the point? |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 24, 2017 17:59:15 GMT
further comment is superfluous I think. You need to recognise that if the only choice is between the David Bothroyd version of Labour and the Conservatives, for me it would always be 'none of the above'. I don;t have any preference for the former over the latter - they are both parties I disagree with and wouldn't vote for. Not prepared to be a hypocrite - I left the party in 2003 because of the policies they were pursuing and if we return to that, then it wouldn't be the party for me any longer . you really were Robspierre in a previous life, weren't you? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 18:26:27 GMT
|
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,679 
|
Post by Jack on Feb 24, 2017 18:33:52 GMT
The Conservatives threw everything at Stoke? And the fact they didn't win Stoke is a "blow for the Prime Minister"? Desperate doesn't even begin to describe how this looks. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 18:43:49 GMT
The Conservatives threw everything at Stoke? And the fact they didn't win Stoke is a "blow for the Prime Minister"? Desperate doesn't even begin to describe how this looks. It's such an analogue response for this digital age. We know there has been no blow to the Prime Minister because she's currently beaming like a Cheshire Cat about Copeland. No wonder Cat Smith looks and sounds pained on camera: Labour really do look like they're talking sandwiches in the era of panini. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,025
|
Post by Sibboleth on Feb 24, 2017 18:57:33 GMT
You are Alan Partridge and I claim my five pounds.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,025
|
Post by Sibboleth on Feb 24, 2017 18:59:30 GMT
Anyway it's insane to bring up the nuclear thing as an excuse: it was almost certainly fatal, but why was the issue a problem in the first place? Oh.
|
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Feb 24, 2017 19:08:06 GMT
Anyway it's insane to bring up the nuclear thing as an excuse: it was almost certainly fatal, but why was the issue a problem in the first place? Oh. And while 'local issues' might have been against Labour in the form of Sellafield, you aren't going to get many maternity units moving 40 miles either. This was practically the perfect election for your NHS message. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 24, 2017 19:14:20 GMT
I'm still not convinced that turnout will increase much. After all, it assumes that all non-voters want a more left-wing alternative. In every proportional election, the non-voters stay the same. Take the Netherlands. In 2006, with the Socialist Party on a crest of a wave and various left-wing choices, 19.96% of the electorate still did not vote. In 2003, with them doing fairly well anyway, 20% did not vote. In 2002, with the SP not doing brilliantly, nor GL, nor even the PvdA, 20.6% did not vote, hardly a difference, and that was despite there also being the LPF as an extra new choice on the Right. Go back to 1989 and the only party to the Left of the PvdA was GL, and the only serious party to the Right of the Christian parties and VVD was the CD, who won just one seat. Turnout was...80.3%. Go whichever you want, but a distinctive profile does not necessarily cause non-voters to flock to you. Thats not what I am saying. I don't think there is any point at all in being a Tweedledum 'alternative' to the Tory Tweedledee. To have any purpose at all, we need to look towards convincing people to vote for us - and I don't think that there is a great deal of mileage in trying to convince people whose views and values are a long way from ours. Turnout has dropped - 62% just isn't good enough. So for me its about holding our nerve and offereing an alternative. That may or may not be supported, but in my view, the only way that we will ever get the sort of changes I want to see. Good enough for what? |
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Feb 24, 2017 19:14:58 GMT
Andrew111. Once a LD MP is defeated the constituency tends to become very hard to win back for the LDs. Their cllr base (as a %) is back to the level of early 1980s and their gains have been few in number, but prominent in the headlines that come from by elections. The LDs lost 500 cllrs in total in 2009+2013. How many of those will they get back? 20%?, 40%? 50%? or more? There are still places like Cornwall where there's a substantial number of LD councillors, where a seat like St Ives has only voted Leave by a very slender margin (and another voted Remain altogether) and where the sitting MP is a Leaver. As already mentioned I suspect they have the intelligence to pick a score of promising seats and target them in by-election mode. Tories and Labour won't be able to focus their resources just on a few selected seats and will be at a disadvantage in those constituencies. Now I can't be bothered to do the research, but there must be a number of seats that meet all the criteria (the LDs will have identified them already): - strong LD councillour base - voted Remain or only narrowly Leave - sitting MP is in favour of Brexit - or retires - LDs are the only serious challenger in with a chance Bonus points for former MPs being re-selected to fight their old seat. Every by-election gain strenghtens the councillour base and widens the range of possible targets. May results will give some indication where there's a potential chance for them and where there certainly isn't. I have a lot of admiration for the LDs' organisational skills and nous. If the Conservatives prefer complacency over watchfulness they'll be in for some unpleasant surprises - and they can ill afford to lose more than 20 seats or so which isn't all that much. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Feb 24, 2017 19:27:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Feb 24, 2017 19:38:13 GMT
The Beeb report that the SWP are blaming Labour not being left-wing enough for...er...the Tories winning Copeland. Well. Hardly anyone cares what the SWP have to say. They are more of a cult than a political party. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Feb 24, 2017 20:06:21 GMT
I still smell a very strong whiff of scapegoat regarding Blair. I fail to understand why his pronouncements about Brexit should influence anyone - if people embraced his position en masse then the LibDems would have surged. The reason Labour lost is a desperately unpopular and incredible leader with policies to match. Until the hard left takes its head out of its collective backside and gets real, then catastrophe remains their certain destiny. Labour policies haven't changed at all really since Miliband. I think the issue is more that Labour is a one-trick pony: every time they trot out 'three days to save our NHS' or similar it just exposes their planners as wholly focused (obsessed, really) with one thing. Where's the rest of it? We saw a ten point plan in Stoke but even there there went down the 'the Tories want to privatise the NHS' route. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 24, 2017 20:08:09 GMT
I still smell a very strong whiff of scapegoat regarding Blair. I fail to understand why his pronouncements about Brexit should influence anyone - if people embraced his position en masse then the LibDems would have surged. The reason Labour lost is a desperately unpopular and incredible leader with policies to match. Until the hard left takes its head out of its collective backside and gets real, then catastrophe remains their certain destiny. Labour policies haven't changed at all really since Miliband. I think the issue is more that Labour is a one-trick pony: every time they trot out 'three days to save our NHS' or similar it just exposes their planners as wholly focused (obsessed, really) with one thing. Where's the rest of it? We saw a ten point plan in Stoke but even there there went down the 'the Tories want to privatise the NHS' route. It's probably because it's just about the only thing we all agree on. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Feb 24, 2017 20:17:00 GMT
Labour policies haven't changed at all really since Miliband. I think the issue is more that Labour is a one-trick pony: every time they trot out 'three days to save our NHS' or similar it just exposes their planners as wholly focused (obsessed, really) with one thing. Where's the rest of it? We saw a ten point plan in Stoke but even there there went down the 'the Tories want to privatise the NHS' route. It's probably because it's just about the only thing we all agree on. That's never occurred to me, but thinking about this you're probably right. Labour just has no key ideological message or approach. |
|
