Collective - new left wing party?

[8ball]

Still think we need a newer party of the left of the left of the left tho

Let’s be moderate and have a new party of the left of the left of the right of the centre of the left.

 

[SpookyFrank]

It's not really true, anyway. It's a proposal from one of Len McCluskey's side kicks who invited a range of people to a meeting and then 'announced' that they were all interested in setting up a new party. Its bollocks for the gullible.

(checks who started thread...)

And they're clearly not fussy about the guest list if they let Lutfur Rahman in.

 

[emanymton]

And they're clearly not fussy about the guest list if they let Lutfur Rahman in.

Bit surprised they didn't invite Galloway, unless they did and he said no.

 

[PTK]

Bit surprised they didn't invite Galloway, unless they did and he said no.

I am not surprised that that they did not invite that man who stated that he wanted warships deployed in the Channel to stop the "small boats" and rerfers to asylum seekers as military age men.

 

[emanymton]

I am not surprised that that they did not invite that man who stated that he wanted warships deployed in the Channel to stop the "small boats" and rerfers to asylum seekers as military age men.

That is one of many reasons they shouldn't have, but it would not have surprised me if they had.

 

[PTK]

That is one of many reasons they shouldn't have, but it would not have surprised me if they had.

I think that the organisers realise that Galloway is too much of a self-interested egotist.

 

[Serge Forward]

That is one of many reasons they shouldn't have, but it would not have surprised me if they had.

It would have surprised me. Galloway fits the Corbynist "peace and justice" mission about as much as Nigel Farage does.

 

[miktheword]

However you measure it, Corbyn in 2019 delivered one of the worst results in Labour's history:

However I measure it? let me use 'votes'. Then it becomes better than the current lot.

And your post is devoid of context. Who delivered the 2019 result? Corbyn had to deal with 2 Blairite coups by MPs who just wanted more neo - liberalism, which is their ideological position but also that they could get their turn at their noses in the trough; a Brexit policy delivered (deliberately?) by the current PM that was bound to lead to inevitable defeat; didn't have the advantage of Johnson scandals, the Truss economic collapse and a compliant media.
Corbyn was weak for allowing Starmer to run Brexit policy. Respecting the vote whatever you thought of it, but making the best of it, seemed to work in 2017.
2017? In some ways, you can measure it as the best Labour performance since the war. In votes, gain of seats especially in post industrial working class areas where Labour had been declining consistently following 20 years of New Labour.

 

[Happy Tree]

Justis Kolectiv, the new Marvel franchise featuring new fantastic superheroes fighting evil mastermind Tory Blair:

Crusher Corbyn
Death Rayner
Spiker Thornberry
Chewbecca Bailey
The Blind Abbot
Lammy Chops

managed by their classy captain Thangham Debbonnaire. Guest appearance from double agent Baroness Warcrime

 

[The39thStep]

However I measure it? let me use 'votes'. Then it becomes better than the current lot.

And your post is devoid of context. Who delivered the 2019 result? Corbyn had to deal with 2 Blairite coups by MPs who just wanted more neo - liberalism, which is their ideological position but also that they could get their turn at their noses in the trough; a Brexit policy delivered (deliberately?) by the current PM that was bound to lead to inevitable defeat; didn't have the advantage of Johnson scandals, the Truss economic collapse and a compliant media.
Corbyn was weak for allowing Starmer to run Brexit policy. Respecting the vote whatever you thought of it, but making the best of it, seemed to work in 2017.
2017? In some ways, you can measure it as the best Labour performance since the war. In votes, gain of seats especially in post industrial working class areas where Labour had been declining consistently following 20 years of New Labour.

You can see why PR1Berske doesn't talk about politics at work

 

[rasputin]

In some ways, you can measure it as the best Labour performance since the war. In votes, gain of seats especially in post industrial working class areas where Labour had been declining consistently following 20 years of New Labour.

But looking at it in other ways...

[In 2017 Theresa May] came within one percentage point of matching the share of the vote Margaret Thatcher achieved in her crushing 1983 election victory. May secured the second biggest increase in the Conservative vote from one election to another since 1931. Yet she held no champagne celebration when these figures became known. Perhaps that is because she understood the difference between a vote share in 1983 that delivered a 140-seat majority and a similar one in 2017 that delivered defeat.

If we subtract the Conservative increased share of vote in 2017 from Labour’s increased share, we arrive at a 2 per cent swing to Labour – a rather pedestrian performance in postwar general election history and nowhere near the extraordinary 10.2 per cent swing to Labour in 1997, or Thatcher’s 5.3 per cent swing in 1979, or even David Cameron’s swing of 5.1 per cent in 2010. And nestling within that 2 per cent swing to Labour is the fact that by far the biggest swing to the party was in London (6.3 per cent) and the next biggest pro-Labour swings were in the southeast and southwest. These swings diminished the further one moved away from London, until in the northeast there was a slight swing from Labour to the Conservatives.

The quote is from this Independent article:

General election: We are hounded by Labour’s myth of the 2017 contest​

 

[miktheword]

I am not trying to change this thread into a complete analysis of Corbyn 2017 and 2019. It has been done elsewhere and Blairites do not emerge well from that analysis, it's predictions and the last election result and current events bear that out.
I was responding to PR Berke's 'whichever way you measure it' post. and providing some context.
To which you respond with 'but looking at it in other ways...'

My points stand, measuring by pure votes alone and up gain of seats, it's not the worst.

 

[hitmouse]

But looking at it in other ways...



The quote is from this Independent article:

General election: We are hounded by Labour’s myth of the 2017 contest​

I appreciate that it's hard to come up with a single measure of electoral success that works for everyone, these things are disputed and will continue to be so, but:

Labour’s share of the vote rose by 9.8 per cent and the party was able to claim that this put it just short of what it achieved in the 2001 election... If we subtract the Conservative increased share of vote in 2017 from Labour’s increased share, we arrive at a 2 per cent swing to Labour – a rather pedestrian performance in postwar general election history and nowhere near the extraordinary 10.2 per cent swing to Labour in 1997

Is it just me, or is this a fucking mental measure? "If we subtract the Green increased share of the vote in 2024 from Labour's share, then multiply it by Reform's vote and divide it by pi, we find..."

 

[PTK]

I appreciate that it's hard to come up with a single measure of electoral success that works for everyone, these things are disputed and will continue to be so, but:

Is it just me, or is this a fucking mental measure? "If we subtract the Green increased share of the vote in 2024 from Labour's share, then multiply it by Reform's vote and divide it by pi, we find..."

I don't understand it either.

 

[rasputin]

I appreciate that it's hard to come up with a single measure of electoral success that works for everyone, these things are disputed and will continue to be so, but:

Is it just me, or is this a fucking mental measure? "If we subtract the Green increased share of the vote in 2024 from Labour's share, then multiply it by Reform's vote and divide it by pi, we find..."

I think it's simply saying that, although Corbyn's Labour achieved the highest vote tally since Blair's Labour in 1997, the Conservatives similarly had their highest vote tally since Major in 1992. It therefore makes sense to compare the relative performances in 2017 of Labour and Conservatives, not just Labour in isolation.

Here's another except from the same article that explains it better than me:

Labour’s performance in 2017 was a remarkable triumph against expectations, in which they overcame the gloomiest of predicted fates. But escaping the noose is not the same as winning the battle of Waterloo. Labour’s share of the vote rose by 9.8 per cent and the party was able to claim that this put it just short of what it achieved in the 2001 election. But in 2001, Labour won a majority of 167 seats, whereas in 2017 they had no majority at all; indeed, they were 64 seats short of any majority. It does not require a degree in mathematics to spot the difference in outcome between these two elections. It is explained by the simple fact that is always missing from the mythology of 2017: the Conservative vote also increased substantially.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

I think it's simply saying that, although Corbyn's Labour achieved the highest vote tally since Blair's Labour in 1997, the Conservatives similarly had their highest vote tally since Major in 1992. It therefore makes sense to compare the relative performances in 2017 of Labour and Conservatives, not just Labour in isolation.

Well this is true in terms of 'why Labour won this year and didn't in 2017'. I don't think it addresses the point of why this argument comes up though - the crux of the debate is whether the Corbyn election years compared to Starmer somehow show that Labour can only get elected as a right wing party rather than a social democratic one. And I think that requires a leap of faith that says Labour's electoral tactics this year were somehow driving the number of Tory voters who went off and voted Refuk. Which is a bit silly IMO.

 

[Rimbaud]

I think it's simply saying that, although Corbyn's Labour achieved the highest vote tally since Blair's Labour in 1997, the Conservatives similarly had their highest vote tally since Major in 1992. It therefore makes sense to compare the relative performances in 2017 of Labour and Conservatives, not just Labour in isolation.

Here's another except from the same article that explains it better than me:

Both parties had increased vote share because they both represented something different from centrist neoliberal managerialism. Tory vote was high for Brexit, Labour vote was high for social-democracy.

 

[hitmouse]

Both parties had increased vote share because they both represented something different from centrist neoliberal managerialism. Tory vote was high for Brexit, Labour vote was high for social-democracy.

Yeah, and also the UKIP vote collapsed because when you build a single-issue party around "we should have a referendum on leaving the EU", that's not really a vote-winner in 2017. I suppose it is a notable example of how fucked our voting system is that May managed to both increase the Tory vote and lose seats, but I dunno if there's much in the way of broader lessons to take from that.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Yeah, and also the UKIP vote collapsed because when you build a single-issue party around "we should have a referendum on leaving the EU", that's not really a vote-winner in 2017.

Yep, also they were led at that point by Paul Nuttall who was a lot less adept than Farage at tiptoeing along that respectable party/bunch of far right goons line, to say the least.

 

[PTK]

I think it's simply saying that, although Corbyn's Labour achieved the highest vote tally since Blair's Labour in 1997, the Conservatives similarly had their highest vote tally since Major in 1992. It therefore makes sense to compare the relative performances in 2017 of Labour and Conservatives, not just Labour in isolation.

Here's another except from the same article that explains it better than me:

“Labour’s share of the vote rose by 9.8 per cent”.

No, 9.8 percentage POINTS. The Labour vote increased from 30.4 per cent in 2015 to 40.0 per cent in 2017, which is an increase of nearly 33 per cent. A third of 30 is 10.

I have always made the point that the Conservative vote increased under May. Her success in terms of votes cast laid the basis for Johnson’s breakthroughs in the “Red Wall” in 2019.

The point is, the Labour Party under Corbyn in 2017 received the largest increase in its proportion of the vote since 1945. It did something that people said was impossible.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

“Labour’s share of the vote rose by 9.8 per cent”.

No, 9.8 percentage POINTS. The Labour vote increased from 30.4 per cent in 2015 to 40.0 per cent in 2017, which is an increase of nearly 33 per cent. A third of 30 is 10.

I have always made the point that the Conservative vote increased under May. Her success in terms of votes cast laid the basis for Johnson’s breakthroughs in the “Red Wall” in 2019.

The point is, the Labour Party under Corbyn in 2017 received the largest increase in its proportion of the vote since 1945. It did something that people said was impossible.

Except without the most important bit: winning power.

Only losers talk vote share, winners govern.

Sadly this thread demonstrates why this new venture is doomed to fail, the left is chronically unable to face reality and organise to win. Navel gazing about vote share in this voting system is a distraction. The game is winnable seats, and Downing St.

 

[maomao]

Except without the most important bit: winning power.

Only losers talk vote share, winners govern.

Sadly this thread demonstrates why this new venture is doomed to fail, the left is chronically unable to face reality and organise to win. Navel gazing about vote share in this voting system is a distraction. The game is winnable seats, and Downing St.

The Tories lost the 2024 election and Starmer took advantage, but you're making the same mistake he is if you think there won't be consequences to the current government's unpopularity.

 

[PTK]

Except without the most important bit: winning power.

Only losers talk vote share, winners govern.

Sadly this thread demonstrates why this new venture is doomed to fail, the left is chronically unable to face reality and organise to win. Navel gazing about vote share in this voting system is a distraction. The game is winnable seats, and Downing St.

So, you don't think that a large increase in the share of the vote is something for which a political party should aim in an election? An interesting position

 

[hitmouse]

I suppose eternally refighting the 2017 and 2019 general elections is at least in some ways a slight improvement on eternally refighting the 2016 referendum?

 

[Plumdaff]

Vote share matters, as does winning. Labour won this election by focusing on quite a small group of older swing voters in certain marginal areas, in the context of the right wing vote having split. If my step Mum and her friends are indicative of those swing voters in marginals they're already detested.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If Corbyn's Labour had won power, they might actually have done some good in office. This bunch of grasping cunts have fallen into power with no intention of doing any good at all.

What is the point in a Labour victory if they will do nothing when in power? The point isn't power. The point is meaningful change, of which there will be precisely none with the current extreme r/w govt. One extreme r/w govt replaces another. Whoopdeedoo.

 

[The39thStep]

So, you don't think that a large increase in the share of the vote is something for which a political party should aim in an election? An interesting position

‘Used to work in politics ‘

 

[A380]

^^^

This, the Labour Party won (and to be clear, as a wanky reformist I’m really glad they did) but they did it with a very effective and very cynical campaign to make maximum use of the damage Reform did to the Tories. This is entirely down to the bizarre electoral system we have.

Labour shouldn’t put short term gain over long term benefits and should bring in electoral reform so parliament better reflects the country. I.e a reasonable but not huge majority for the centre left.

I bet they fucking won’t though…

If Farrage and his backers win their enterist campaign to get control of the Conservative Party ( not a given victory by a long chalk) we could be completely fucked by five to ten years of far right populist government on a similar vote share.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I suppose eternally refighting the 2017 and 2019 general elections is at least in some ways a slight improvement on eternally refighting the 2016 referendum?

You can’t understand the former without understanding the latter though..

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

I suppose eternally refighting the 2017 and 2019 general elections is at least in some ways a slight improvement on eternally refighting the 2016 referendum?

Or the Bolshevik Revolution.