has there ever been a lamer labour leader than ed miliband?

[Smokeandsteam]

Exactly, once he gets elected and then starts making the same cuts as the Tories then we're in for a fun time. Like Hollande. Like countless other nominallly left parties that enforce austerity maliciously grind the faces of the poor and destitute into the dirt. Getting elected is going to be fuck all compared to trying to govern post 2015.

Hollande was elected on a reformist programme far to the 'left' of Labour's thereby at least offering the sembalance of a choice.

 

[Delroy Booth]

Articula8 is right to state that there is not a single reason to vote Labour.

This is true enough but if you fancy it, take a look at this governments approval ratings. They're shockingly bad, consistently -30, the anti-tory vote alone will suffice.

The tories have nothing to offer anyone, other than hatred of the poor and BNP-lite racism. Their economic credebility is in ruins. Their competence in government is non-existent. Peadophile scandals, hacking scandals (still haven't had Brooks and Coulson in court yet) lobbying scandals, the works. There's still plenty more of this to come 'til 2015.

The Labour party could win this election on being nothing more than "We're not the Tories" and why not, fucking hell Blair got a huge majority in 1997 on that basis.

 

[butchersapron]

This has nothing to do with Hodges - and it's not a sudden panic - it's the result of an accumulation of evidence that they are failing to win solid support and offer a credible and attractive alternative to austerity and the cuts. So far it's hard to name a single positive reason why anyone should go out and vote Labour. The ONLY thing that is left is "wipe the smile off their smug public school faces" which is something, but very very little when at the same time they're promising a public sector pay freeze but can't promise to reverse a single Tory cut, even the bedroom tax which is costing more than it saves.

The Tory vote will hold together for the most part, the LDs will suffer in Scotland (though SNP might pick this up) and the North but will benefit from the "Clegg is a wanker but our local one works hard" apolitical bollocks. Unless this turns around very quickly I struggle to see anything beyond the thinnest Labour majority

Where have you accumulated this evidence? What is it?

 

[butchersapron]

To pick up on Articul8's point the election will essentially be a choice on who the voters (meaning this excludes the majority of the electorate) trust to make the cuts/spending limits that all parties are signed up to. In such circumstances the electorate normally go with the Tories (or in this case the Coalition).

Articul8 is right to state that there is not a single reason to vote Labour.

What on earth do you think he's doing? He's a rabid labour party member.

OK, what are the comparable circumstances that you are using to make the latter claim?

 

[articul8]

He's a rabid labour party member.

I'm a reluctant and frustrated Labour party member.

 

[articul8]

Where have you accumulated this evidence? What is it?

The empirical evidence of talking to my normally Labour-voting family etc - and looking at a poll lead that is way short of where it ought to be

 

[articul8]

why not, fucking hell Blair got a huge majority in 1997 on that basis.

not just that - they did offer (and deliver) some genuinely useful things - the National minimum wage, devolution, sure starts, scrap VAT on fuel/heating. It wasn't much but it was something. What is there now? Repeal of the NHS restructuring (for now) and....er....

 

[butchersapron]

I'm a reluctant and frustrated Labour party member.

So who exactly is forcing you to be a member?

 

[butchersapron]

The empirical evidence of talking to my normally Labour-voting family etc - and looking at a poll lead that is way short of where it ought to be

Hardcore evidence.

 

[Delroy Booth]

not just that - they did offer (and deliver) some genuinely useful things - the National minimum wage, devolution, sure starts, scrap VAT on fuel/heating. It wasn't much but it was something. What is there now? Repeal of the NHS restructuring (for now) and....er....

Listen to yourself ffs, in order for the Tories to win this election, or even force a hung parliament depending on the various possible scenarios, it would mean they'd have to do something no other incumbent government has ever managed in recent history and actually increase their vote. Or more specifically they'd have to increase their vote by 7%. To get a majority of 1. As it stands the Tories are way down on their pitiful 36% from the 2010 election, and being squashed hard by UKIP all the way.

Can you actually see this happening? Don't you realise that these Blairite attempts to induce panic from their opponents rest upon a premise, that the Tories are going to accomplish something no other govt has ever managed to accomplish, that is utterly ludicrous. This is a bluff, it's a product of their weakness, and you're falling for it.

 

[redsquirrel]

Can you actually see this happening? Don't you realise that these Blairite attempts to induce panic from their opponents rest upon a premise, that the Tories are going to accomplish something no other govt has ever managed to accomplish, that is utterly ludicrous. This is a bluff, it's a product of their weakness, and you're falling for it.

I'm can't work out whether the nonsense a8's politics is result of stupidity or a continuation of his move to right.

I wouldn't be that surprised that if next year he's arguing for David Miliband to come back as leader or something equally stupid.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

He's pretty feeble (Milliband that is), but what's he supposed to do?

He's not going to get any dodgy millionaires to kick in to the slush fund he'd need to win unless he sticks to the same policies the Tories are implementing, while maybe wringing his hands a bit more about the necessity.

 

[JHE]

The endless u75 denigration of A8 for his (apparently rather unhappy) membership of the Labour Party would be easier to take if the people hurling shit at him had something better to offer or even appeared to believe that they had something better to offer: a super-duper Revolutionary Party, alive with Trottery or Tankery or Ultra-Wotsitry or a fab and groovy Anarcho-Wotsit Non-Party Movement thingy. Something , something... anything, anything, but... no, the critics have nothing to offer except hostility to the Labour Party and its pale, palest pink feeble ex-social democracy.

Here, though nowhere else, A8 gets the blame for our collective failure to create any socialist movement that deserves the name.

 

[Delroy Booth]

Here, though nowhere else, A8 gets the blame for our collective failure to create any socialist movement that deserves the name.

There's a slither of truth in that, generally speaking, but in this thread people are having a go at him because he's uncritically accepting this logic which says Labour can't win without getting a super-Blairite right-winger to lead the party, when there's very little evidence for it and much more evidence to suggest Ed Miliband is going to lead Labour to clear majority at the next election.

Take this for example

The empirical evidence of talking to my normally Labour-voting family etc - and looking at a poll lead that is way short of where it ought to be

Where it ought to be, in this instance, is defined by the Blairites who want nothing more than to see Ed Miliband thrown out and a more aggressive right-wing leader put in place. Something tells me that even if Ed Miliband was 20 points in front they'd be saying the exact same thing - that at this point in the election cycle it ought to be 25, or 30, points in front. Frankly, after the drubbing the remnants of New Labour got in 2010 (29%) it's nothing short of miraculous that Miliband's been able to establish such a clear and consistent lead over the Tories. The fact articul8 can't see this for what it is a good example of how being inside the Labour bubble changes your perspective, how it changes your judegment.

It's also a good example of the process that leads even a sincere left-winger into moving to the right - it's never because they're moving to the right themselves, it's because they compelled to, or they'll never be taken seriously and therefore never win. They buy into this rhetoric because it gives them a get out clause to justify their own moving to the right. Even when they are winning, they're bombarded with a dogma that says unless you surrender your policies your bound to lose, and they use this as an excuse for their own cowardice and their own political choices.

The right of the Labour party always pressures, blackmails and threatens the left into capitulation no matter what the circumstances. Those outside the party, who aren't saturated by the types of internal debates in the party, who can look at it a bit more objectively, can see that the Blairite warnings about Labour's election prospects are built on nothing more than wishful thinking.

 

[treelover]

It's also a good example of the process that leads even a sincere left-winger into moving to the right - it's never because they're moving to the right themselves, it's because they compelled to, or they'll never be taken seriously and therefore never win. They buy into this rhetoric because it gives them a get out clause to justify their own moving to the right. Even when they are winning, they're bombarded with a dogma that says unless you surrender your policies your bound to lose, and they use this as an excuse for their own cowardice and their own political choices.

I saw an example of this at my local town hall today with the leader of the council justifying her and the labour groups supine response to the cuts.

 

[SpookyFrank]

He's pretty feeble, but what's he supposed to do?

He's not going to get any dodgy millionaires to kick in to the slush fund he'd need to win unless he sticks to the same policies the Tories are implementing, while maybe wringing his hands a bit more about the necessity.

He could stand up and say as much in public, that'd be interesting. He could say, 'we need loads of money to win the next election, and the people who like buying politicians are, unsurprisingly, all cunts so we have to come up with policies that appeal to cunts or we won't get paid and we won't win. The whole thing is a fucking scam at your expense and every day you put up with it is another day your masters have spent laughing at you, laughing their fat fucking arses off.'

Or he could come up with some actual policies which differed in some way from those of his rivals. Make the whole election thing a political process rather than a competition to see who has the biggest marketing budget.

It's rather sad that I don't know which of those two options is the more fanciful.

 

[JHE]

There's a slither of truth in that, generally speaking, but in this thread people are having a go at him because he's uncritically accepting this logic which says Labour can't win without getting a super-Blairite right-winger to lead the party, when there's very little evidence for it and much more evidence to suggest Ed Miliband is going to lead Labour to clear majority at the next election.

Take this for example



Where it ought to be, in this instance, is defined by the Blairites who want nothing more than to see Ed Miliband thrown out and a more aggressive right-wing leader put in place. Something tells me that even if Ed Miliband was 20 points in front they'd be saying the exact same thing - that at this point in the election cycle it ought to be 25, or 30, points in front. Frankly, after the drubbing the remnants of New Labour got in 2010 (29%) it's nothing short of miraculous that Miliband's been able to establish such a clear and consistent lead over the Tories. The fact articul8 can't see this for what it is a good example of how being inside the Labour bubble changes your perspective, how it changes your judegment.

It's also a good example of the process that leads even a sincere left-winger into moving to the right - it's never because they're moving to the right themselves, it's because they compelled to, or they'll never be taken seriously and therefore never win. They buy into this rhetoric because it gives them a get out clause to justify their own moving to the right. Even when they are winning, they're bombarded with a dogma that says unless you surrender your policies your bound to lose, and they use this as an excuse for their own cowardice and their own political choices.

The right of the Labour party always pressures, blackmails and threatens the left into capitulation no matter what the circumstances. Those outside the party, who aren't saturated by the types of internal debates in the party, who can look at it a bit more objectively, can see that the Blairite warnings about Labour's election prospects are built on nothing more than wishful thinking.

I thought that in A8's view, as in the view of many generations of unhappy left-wingers in the Labour Party, the problem is that the Labour Party is failing to be radical enough to attract support. Personally, I'm not convinced that the LP would be doing better in the polls if it were more left-wing, but I think A8's view, far from being an excuse to move to the right, is a lament that the LP is not moving further to the left. In other words, his view, if I understand it correctly, is the opposite of the Blairites' view.

 

[articul8]

Miliband will be in place for the next election - I don't think any amount of Blairite boat rocking will shift him. But in policy terms it's hard to find an issue where they haven't effectively sold the pass to the right. But I don't see any evidence that this is resulting in him being "taken seriously". Quite the opposite - his enemies present him as "weak" and natural supporters lack any real motivation.

I mean why not commit to repeal the bedroom tax in full - it's not even saving money? They are just paralyzed by fear, and it's not even electorally beneficial.

 

[ViolentPanda]

This thread title deserves a bounce - I'm thinking Miliband is a kind of phoenix-from-the-flames Neil Kinnock - and we know the outcome...

I've been wondering for some months quite when this "revelation" would come to you - probably after Hilary said something similar, was my guess!

 

[butchersapron]

I've been wondering for some months quite when this "revelation" would come to you - probably after Hilary said something similar, was my guess!

It seems it actually follows a short tom walker piece in his mag - walker you may remember was the swper who resigned in nov/jan 2012 and who i predicted would soon to be taken under red pepper's wing.

 

[articul8]

It seems it actually follows a short tom walker piece in his mag - walker you may remember was the swper who resigned in nov/jan 2012 and who i predicted would soon to be taken under red pepper's wing.

seeing as he's been production editor of RP for about 6 years I think your chronology is a bit out

 

[ViolentPanda]

It seems it actually follows a short tom walker piece in his mag - walker you may remember was the swper who resigned in nov/jan 2012 and who i predicted would soon to be taken under red pepper's wing.

So, as usual, a8 is following a "party line", which he has retailed to us as "my empirical research has shown...".
Odd, that!

Walker's article isn't even insightful. He's merely saying for the bubble what most of us have said for years - that Labour would make the same cuts, and would at best be slightly more ameliorative; that there'd be no happy ending.

 

[articul8]

there's no party line - it's his view, and one I have some sympathy with as it goes.

 

[butchersapron]

seeing as he's been production editor of RP for about 6 years I think your chronology is a bit out

Yes, ánd with 3 articles in total (one a pointless few para review, one a SWP puff piece) published in that 6 year period. Now he's setting the political line for you.

 

[butchersapron]

So, as usual, a8 is following a "party line", which he has retailed to us as "my empirical research has shown...".
Odd, that!

Walker's article isn't even insightful. He's merely saying for the bubble what most of us have said for years - that Labour would make the same cuts, and would at best be slightly more ameliorative; that there'd be no happy ending.

Ah, but he needs walker or hilary to say it to make it legitimate - coming from us or other posters here it's just crass ultra-leftism.

 

[articul8]

Now he's setting the political line for you.

We don't have a single line - we have a broad and coherent orientation, but we're pluralist I don't always agree with Tom, eg on Left Unity and its prospects.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Ah, but he needs walker or hilary to say it to make it legitimate - coming from us or other posters here it's just crass ultra-leftism.

A massive HUZZAH!!!!!!! for "crass ultra-leftism", then!

 

[treelover]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/04/falkirk-labour-unite-challenge-miliband


Martin Kettle has an article in the Guardian about the Unite/Falkirk MP candidate selection issue and nowhere mentions how Progress(right wing labour faction with own staff, etc) have repeatedly used underhand methods to get their people parachuted in to desired seats, then again shouldn't be surprised.

 

[treelover]

A Labour party campaigning on an old industrial class-based agenda, with extra powers for unions that are in other respects withering across British life, led by quisling politicians manipulated by union officials who in some cases are old Stalinists, in pursuit of a state-owned economy that would not work and would not be popular, may appeal to a few romantics. But it is an utterly bankrupt strategy.

oh, the ironing, Kettle is a former communist, the Blairites have been waiting for something like this, how Milliband responds will be significant

 

[treelover]

Someone on Cif has just described the new LP cohorts as 'Oxbridge dynasties'

bang on there...