Positives about the next Labour government

[two sheds]

I hang on to a tiny hope that once in power the left in the party have only being biting their lips to get in power and will feel secure enough to rise up and kick out the imposters.
Unrealistic I know but its the only hope I can find

Unfortunately the right wing has taken over the NEC and the voting has been (as I recall) changed so labour members don't have the votes they did.

 

[steveo87]

Are you sure they aren’t?

They're not this current version of the Tories.

I tend believe that the Labour Party are now a party slightly less right wing than the Coalition of 2010 - they are a life time removed from the chaos of the last few years..

 

[Dystopiary]

Labour maybe the bland nothing government but they at least aren't actively destroying things. If only through incompetence. Some people obviously like that tho.

They were destructive the last time they were in government and have shown that they will be again, although this time their ruthlessness is more overt and they're much keener on ridding the party of any residual left-leaning MPs. I certainly don't like their right-wing policies, their greed and their contempt for so many people.

 

[Penfold01]

the left in the party... will feel secure enough to rise up and kick out the imposters.

They'll do nothing whatsoever.

 

[Penfold01]

the Labour Party are now a party slightly less right wing than the Coalition of 2010

Oh good, so what will be restoring from the destruction of 2010 - 2015 then?

 

[Penfold01]

Is there anything else, something more concrete to feel hopeful about?

If we're lucky they might go the way of their sister parties in Europe? Labourism needs gutting.

 

[The39thStep]

I don’t think that’s a given at all. Labour is heading for a landslide and the right is split at least three ways. I think and hope that Starmer can plan for two term

I agree it's not a given , However, the scenario that you are brandishing where Labour will have a landslide victory and that the opposition is split in at least three ways doesn't really seem to paint a picture of any real need for delivery or transformation on Labour's behalf. A different driver perhaps but the same route .

 

[shifting gears]

Nothing, nothing is entertaining about Starmer. It's going to be like John Major on Tranquilisers.

I still listen to their first LP from time to time

 

[twistedAM]

Blair - Iraq
Starmer - Iran

Would be seen as a positive in some circles unfortunately

 

[Serge Forward]

Blair - Iraq
Starmer - Iran

Would be seen as a positive in some circles unfortunately

Aye the Labour right do love a lovely war.

 

[Humberto]

I really hope I'm not proved wrong but I think that's unfair. I'm quite impressed with him in some ways.

 

[two sheds]

Tell, tell

 

[gosub]

Blue ink is a different cartridge to red ink so should balance that out for a bit

 

[Humberto]

Well he's competent to some degree. And I'm sick to death of the default being Tory governments whilst Labour can never get its act together to seriously challenge. See Ed Milliband and Corbyn. I voted for both but they led the Labour party almost to extinction each in turn. Now I realise that many here would argue that would help matters, but the realities and consequences of that permanent Tory rule are brutal in the short and long term. Again people will argue Blair and Brown did much damage, but it hardly compares. So much is egregiously fucked that I'm a little glad that Starmer can run a steady ship/serious operation. I'm not massively optimistic but I'm interested to see the manifesto when it emerges.

 

[redsquirrel]

Well he's competent to some degree. And I'm sick to death of the default being Tory governments whilst Labour can never get its act together to seriously challenge. See Ed Milliband and Corbyn. I voted for both but they led the Labour party almost to extinction each in turn.

That's just not true though.
In 2015 Labour wasl still the second largest party in terms of seats (232 to 56) and vote share (30.4 to 7.9%) by a huge margin. And they actually increased their vote share of the electorate.
2017 saw the highest share of the electorate voting Labour since 1997, as well as a gain in seats, denying the Tories a majority.
And even after the 2019 GE the LP retained 202 seats (approximately four times the SNPs 48), and achieved a share of the electorate that was higher than what they obtained in 2005.
Not to mention the fact that they had key mayoral positions, were the governing party in Wales, had loads of councillors, a significantly higher membership than now, etc.
Even if you go for the liberal narrative of 2019 being a 'disaster' the LP was nowhere near extinction.

Now I realise that many here would argue that would help matters, but the realities and consequences of that permanent Tory rule are brutal in the short and long term. Again people will argue Blair and Brown did much damage, but it hardly compares. So much is egregiously fucked that I'm a little glad that Starmer can run a steady ship/serious operation. I'm not massively optimistic but I'm interested to see the manifesto when it emerges.

If that ship is steady on the course of increased marketisation, transfer of wealth upwards and to capital, support for actions attacking immigrants and protestors, etc then I'd rather things weren't 'steady' (though considering how badly Starmer has handled the last couple of weeks, I'm not convinced that he does have the ability to un a steady ship).

Morevoer it is wrong to see New Labour as distinct from either what proceeded or succeeded it. It was a continuation of the marketisation of society that resulted in the austerity post 2008, and created the politics that the coalition and then Conservative governments operating in. The fucked up-ness of the renting and houses prices is down as much to Labour as the Tories or LibDems.

 

[Humberto]

I guess I overstated it considerably then. Maybe the wailing about 'red wall' collapse has skewed my memory. 202 seats is pretty terrible though.

 

[Rob Ray]

A pet hate of mine is the "x is facing extinction" formulation. It gets used whenever either party is on the ropes and is simply inaccurate.

See also "the NHS is facing collapse". It's a multi-billion pound organisation with a huge workforce underpinned by the state, certainly it can fall into crisis, aspects of its service can decline, fail etc, but it won't disappear in a puff of smoke, buildings won't suddenly be swallowed into cracks in the earth.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I don't see the current labour leadership lasting long. I think they're actually less effective as politicians than even Sunak's dregs of dregs. We can discount morals or politics because they have none of either.

 

[SpookyFrank]

See also "the NHS is facing collapse". It's a multi-billion pound organisation with a huge workforce underpinned by the state, certainly it can fall into crisis, aspects of its service can decline, fail etc, but it won't disappear in a puff of smoke, buildings won't suddenly be swallowed into cracks in the earth.

When I say education is facing collapse I mean a point where there is no longer a place in a functioning school for every child. That's not far off at all.

With the NHS it'd be when there was no longer an NHS doctor available for everyone to be seen by when they need to. That has already happened. Maybe something NHS-shaped is stumbling onwards and some NHS-looking things are getting done, but the basic idea of it as a universal provider, I would say that's already gone.

 

[Rob Ray]

That's a decline in function, not a collapse. A collapse is sudden and across the board.

This stuff matters in that repeating cataclysmic language over and over again obscures reality, and undermines the more boring-sounding but much more important task of charting and opposing long-term decline.

If everything is a collapse all the time it ceases to have meaning or impact.

 

[redsquirrel]

Back to OP, I do think a Labour government would be probably more willing to bail out a University* if one went bust.
If The University of West London or University of East London went bankrupt I think there would be a decent chance a Tory gov would just let it fall.


*although they would certainly accompany any money by restructuring etc

 

[brogdale]

Back to OP, I do think a Labour government would be probably more willing to bail out a University* if one went bust.
If The University of West London or University of East London went bankrupt I think there would be a decent chance a Tory gov would just let it fall.


*although they would certainly accompany any money by restructuring etc

The * being the important point there. There will, of course, be many positives about the next Labour government for international investment corporations, pfi 'partners', finance houses, asset management corporations and businesses providing out-sourced service provision.

 

[SpookyFrank]

That's a decline in function, not a collapse. A collapse is sudden and across the board.

This stuff matters in that repeating cataclysmic language over and over again obscures reality, and undermines the more boring-sounding but much more important task of charting and opposing long-term decline.

If everything is a collapse all the time it ceases to have meaning or impact.

I'm guessing you don't work in education, healthcare, social care?

Because if you do, it really does feel like the walls are coming down around you.

I also think a phrase like 'long-term decline' fails to do justice to the fact that there are people who cannot access services at all, and that there are people and political choices who are directly and knowingly responsible for that.

In SEN education for example, there are children with a legal right to specialist provision who cannot access it because it doesn't exist, or because capacity is a fraction of what it needs to be. This in turn puts a massive strain on local authorities who are spending thousands of pounds per day putting on taxis to get kids to schools 50 miles or more from their homes. And that's just the kids who made it through the assessment process. I teach kids 12, 13 years old who can't read, but who have no 'official' special needs. These children with unmet needs often go on to create havok in the overful, understaffed classes they're crammed into, sometimes meaning that nobody in the room is getting an effective education.

That's what I mean by collapse. Not that no service exists, but that it exists for many in name only. And every broken component is putting yet more strain on those that are still just about holding up. The system 'works' in education only by burning through staff in fewer years than it takes to train them. Healthcare, likewise. Social care, probably even more so.

 

[pesh]

Hoping for a catastrophic and obviously really tragic accident during the victorious new MPs group photo.

 

[Elpenor]

That's a decline in function, not a collapse. A collapse is sudden and across the board.

This stuff matters in that repeating cataclysmic language over and over again obscures reality, and undermines the more boring-sounding but much more important task of charting and opposing long-term decline.

If everything is a collapse all the time it ceases to have meaning or impact.

Semantics over how bad things are while minimising lived experiences from people who work in the public services feels like the sort of thing I can expect from Labour tbh

 

[newme]

They were destructive the last time they were in government and have shown that they will be again, although this time their ruthlessness is more overt and they're much keener on ridding the party of any residual left-leaning MPs. I certainly don't like their right-wing policies, their greed and their contempt for so many people.

Yeh I wasn't in agreement with Corbyn on everything at all but it did show there was a swell of support for some of the more left leaning things and the subsequent clear out is extremely disheartening, I had hoped it would go the other way if anything given the support it raised. Labour did increase public spending considerably after 2001 which is sorely needed now after 14 years of austerity, Iraq war and college top up nonsense was obviously shit in a box.

Then again in both ways comparing the last labour government to what they are now is kind of pointless in both ways. They are not remotely the same, I had more hope with the green energy investment but they have now dropped that effectively, the tories however are still the same as when they got in, despite rotating leaders every time they did something mind numbingly stupid they haven't changed much and I fail to see how them winning again will change anything. They proved that at the last election.

I'm not a labour supporter, but unfortunately the only 3rd party to get anywhere at all lately has been the lib dems and that was a unmitigated failure thats pretty much destroyed them. FPTP is a mess, I just vote against the Tories, currently that means Labour here, it was Lib Dems before and once disturbingly the 2nd place was UKIP, didn't vote for them of course but it was disturbing to see them suddenly be the second highest voted here, you can guess when that was.
So I hold my nose will vote Labour, I don't know that Labour will actually be any better but I know the Tories are definitely not going to change, Labour at least did have a plan for green investment which could rematerialise when in government. Problem with looking at the proposed policies on just about everything is you can almost guarantee the ones you like get nixed and they uphold the ones you didn't or just make up something else. Tories just change leader and bam theres something ridiculous, onto the next one. Hell with the numbers locally I will probably get 2nd place yet again, I am yet to ever vote for a winning party ever, which is wildly off putting.

 

[newme]

I don't see the current labour leadership lasting long. I think they're actually less effective as politicians than even Sunak's dregs of dregs. We can discount morals or politics because they have none of either.

They are lacking someone that gives much enthusiasm for actually supporting anything they say or do. Which you would hope would be a major point in choosing a leader. I would think a large number of people don't even know who he is, let alone what they were planning past possibly seeing they gave up in the green investment policy.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The * being the important point there. There will, of course, be many positives about the next Labour government for international investment corporations, pfi 'partners', finance houses, asset management corporations and businesses providing out-sourced service provision.

Yep. All of which channels wealth upwards. If they keep their word on taxation and public borrowing, this is inevitable.

 

[nino_savatte]

Frankly, given what I've seen of the shadow cabinet and Starmer himself, there are no positives. Wes fucking Streeting and Rachel 'Enoch' Reeves ffs.

 

[newme]

In SEN education for example, there are children with a legal right to specialist provision who cannot access it because it doesn't exist, or because capacity is a fraction of what it needs to be. This in turn puts a massive strain on local authorities who are spending thousands of pounds per day putting on taxis to get kids to schools 50 miles or more from their homes. And that's just the kids who made it through the assessment process. I teach kids 12, 13 years old who can't read, but who have no 'official' special needs. These children with unmet needs often go on to create havok in the overful, understaffed classes they're crammed into, sometimes meaning that nobody in the room is getting an effective education.

That's what I mean by collapse. Not that no service exists, but that it exists for many in name only. And every broken component is putting yet more strain on those that are still just about holding up. The system 'works' in education only by burning through staff in fewer years than it takes to train them. Healthcare, likewise. Social care, probably even more so.

I was at a major council last year doing procurement for SEND, emergency accommodation etc it was a constant mess. They had a primary provider who was at capacity continually so everything was an emergency of how the hell do we make this work if someone got a diagnosis, assessment, court order, moved to the area etc. Some of the fees I saw for 9 or 12 month contracts were eye watering, sometimes that was just for one individual and then the immediate thought was, ok but what about in 9 or 12 months time. There was supposed to be a lot of focus on value for money, which had to be ignored when the entire area is bursting and we had to take basically anywhere that said they had room and then write up a report detailing how yet again we could not remotely achieve the targeted rate as even if a provider was offering that, they needed to get there, taxis aren't cheap like you said. One individual had to have 4 people on staff for 24 hours at home, then the education requirements to somehow fit around that.