Fun and games with ballot papers

[oddoneout]

The point, I would hope, is not to blame but to learn. And indeed the point is for minds to change. It seems clear to me now that Labour's Brexit policy ought to have been just the renegotiation of a "soft" option, without the second referendum added to it. This wasn't clear to me until the results came out. i had thought the actual policy was the only way of not disrespecting the opinions of both Leave and Remain voters, but of course the reason it was tolerated by Remainers in the party was that they were convinced they'd win a second referendum, and the reason it was rejected by Leavers in formerly Labour areas in the country was that they were convinced of the same thing. But it was an impossible situation. As against the enormous disadvantages of more years of Tory government - especially given the lengths they have already demonstrated they'll go to by way of making the "playing field" even less level than it already was - there is at least the consolation that the Tories will now have to own completely the hard or no-deal Brexit they'll saddle the country with, which ought to put them out of power for some considerable time after the next election when they'll be facing a much more united opposition whose useless and anachronistic Blairite appendages will have dropped off finally.

I wish I could believe that. Everything possible will be blamed on the EU for the foreseeable future - not least because that's what successive governments have been in the habit of doing for decades, and old(convenient/lazy) habits die hard - and I don't think accepting responsibility is part of Conservative Party policy.

[Richard Barrett]

I wish I could believe that. Everything possible will be blamed on the EU for the foreseeable future - not least because that's what successive governments have been in the habit of doing for decades, and old(convenient/lazy) habits die hard - and I don't think accepting responsibility is part of Conservative Party policy.

Yes, it has always been clear that any problems arising will be blamed on the EU, and indeed the EU will be responsible for some of them, insofar as it will be determined not to make the UK look as if leaving is a good idea, for obvious reasons. But we have all known that all along. Cameron called the referendum, May failed to get the party to agree to a way of "getting Brexit done" and then lost her majority, and now Johnson has been elected on the basis of an impossible promise; the facts are piling up.

[Andy Freude]

The point, I would hope, is not to blame but to learn <and the rest noted>

Yes, the obvious lesson is always to learn. How long Labour will want to go on trying to read the runes, I can't say. The election is over, the consequence is pretty clear. I heard an RT (the former Russia Today, not Radio Times), interview yesterday with John Pilger about his NHS film. For an 80-year-old, he sounded more like a 90-year-old, vague and hesitant, but I daresay his political/journalistic instincts are just as acute, not to say immutable. Two points struck me: one was that the interviewer (didn't give his name) sounded entirely neutral BUT he did express the indisputable argument that the 2016 referendum expressed the clear and democratic wish of the British people. I suspect for Remainers this has been the view that has been impossible to swallow, and half the reason why it was so hard for them (us) to let go. "The nasty boys cheated."

If I can find the podcast again, I'd like to check: I think they mentioned the "Russian connection" over the leaked NHS document, laughed briefly and moved on. BUT the point not considered (it wouldn't be) was that the news story was not that the BBC shamefully dismissed the document as "fake news". For any self-respecting journalist, the story was that Reddit had identified the source as a number of Russia-emanating social media accounts (and Corbyn refused to clarify his source, which I'd guess was Reddit). Do we assume that this was Russia wanting to help Comrade Corbyn into Number 10? Trump's Republicans in the US, Corbyn's Labour in the UK? If not that, what? And why did the government refuse to publish the Select Committee's report on Russian interference? But hey, I'm easily sidetracked by intriguing questions.

As for BBC bias, accept it: we are all biased. From my little left-of-centre shelf, squeaking about equality, social justice and decent living standards for all, but with no special ideology, I'm biased. I am biased against the Tories, but I will also admit to a certain bias against Corbyn. Do opposed biases cancel each other out?

[vinteuil]

... there is at least the consolation that the Tories will now have to own completely the hard or no-deal Brexit they'll saddle the country with, which ought to put them out of power for some considerable time after the next election when they'll be facing a much more united opposition whose useless and anachronistic Blairite appendages will have dropped off finally.

... a useless and anachronistic Blairite writes - I think the chances of your wish for a socialist victory at the next election are vanishingly small. I suspect we are in for twenty years in the wilderness, along the lines of the 1979 - 1997 hiatus.

.

[teamsaint]

... a useless and anachronistic Blairite writes - I think the chances of your wish for a socialist victory at the next election are vanishingly small. I suspect we are in for twenty years in the wilderness, along the lines of the 1979 - 1997 hiatus.

.

Did you hear Blair yesterday ?

I think the term Blairite will become increasingly useless. The future for Labour simply has to be with a radical green agenda. Faffing around being slightly more green than the tories won't do it.

That green agenda needs to encompass things such as lifelong learning, possibly national basic income to enable that learning , genuinely redistributive taxes, housing policy in line with peoples lifetime income opportunities, economic policy focused locally, gradual reduction of dependence on the City , and so on. All of this can be framed in ways that will appeal to middle and working class voters.
Where people like Blair might be useful is in figuring how to put such an agenda into a workable and electable form.

[vinteuil]

The future for Labour simply has to be with a radical green agenda. Faffing around being slightly more green than the tories won't do it. That green agenda needs to encompass things such as lifelong learning, possibly national basic income to enable that learning , genuinely redistributive taxes, housing policy in line with peoples lifetime income opportunities, economic policy focused locally, gradual reduction of dependence on the City , and so on.

... some interesting horizons you're opening up there, teamsaint, thank you

All of this can be framed in ways that will appeal to middle and working class voters. Where people like Blair might be useful is in figuring how to put such an agenda into a workable and electable form.

... and this is critical. I want a centre-left party which is Electable and which can then Govern. No sign of that on the horizon yet...



.

[CGR]

Did you hear Blair yesterday ?

I think the term Blairite will become increasingly useless. The future for Labour simply has to be with a radical green agenda. Faffing around being slightly more green than the tories won't do it.

That green agenda needs to encompass things such as lifelong learning, possibly national basic income to enable that learning , genuinely redistributive taxes, housing policy in line with peoples lifetime income opportunities, economic policy focused locally, gradual reduction of dependence on the City , and so on. All of this can be framed in ways that will appeal to middle and working class voters.
Where people like Blair might be useful is in figuring how to put such an agenda into a workable and electable form.

But higher taxes, stopping people using their cars, telling them to buy new non-gas central heating boilers, stopping air travel for foreign holidays and banning the eating meat is not going to be very popular. These are the sort of policies that are required if you listen to BBC R4 Costing the Earth.

[ahinton]

The point, I would hope, is not to blame but to learn. And indeed the point is for minds to change. It seems clear to me now that Labour's Brexit policy ought to have been just the renegotiation of a "soft" option, without the second referendum added to it. This wasn't clear to me until the results came out. i had thought the actual policy was the only way of not disrespecting the opinions of both Leave and Remain voters, but of course the reason it was tolerated by Remainers in the party was that they were convinced they'd win a second referendum, and the reason it was rejected by Leavers in formerly Labour areas in the country was that they were convinced of the same thing. But it was an impossible situation.

Whilst I take your articulately expressed points, I think that another factor affecting Labour's election performance was that quite a few Remain and Leave supporting Labour MPs, Labour members and traditional Labour voters were irked by the fact of Mr Corbyn's steadfast refusal to clarify which way he would vote were a second referendum to take place; whilst each individual's voting preferences are his/her own prerogative and not necessarily to be declared and shared, I do think that it behoves the leader of a party such as Labour to make an exception of this kind of thing for the benefit of those MPs, members and voters but he evidently thought otherwise.

[Joseph K]

Where people like Blair might be useful is in figuring how to put such an agenda into a workable and electable form.

What we need is a Green Blair, minus his disastrous foreign policy. Ok, that perhaps is a silly way of saying it. Rather than possibly being seen to bribe the electorate with free nationalised services like broadband, as good as that idea is, I think things have to be toned down and made to be seen as simpler and more moderate - and that I think we can get urgent things through like a Green New Deal by someone who is not close to Corbyn...

[teamsaint]

But higher taxes, stopping people using their cars, telling them to buy new non-gas central heating boilers, stopping air travel for foreign holidays and banning the eating meat is not going to be very popular. These are the sort of policies that are required if you listen to BBC R4 Costing the Earth.

I sort of thought that principles and a vision for the future might be involved somewhere along the line. It is already happening. Most younger people get it, even if they haven't quite grasped that their travelling will have to cost them more/be offset/whatever.

[CGR]

What we need is a Green Blair, minus his disastrous foreign policy. Ok, that perhaps is a silly way of saying it. Rather than possibly being seen to bribe the electorate with free nationalised services like broadband, as good as that idea is, I think things have to be toned down and made to be seen as simpler and more moderate - and that I think we can get urgent things through like a Green New Deal by someone who is not close to Corbyn...

A Corbyn clone spouting more of the same marxist nonsense will be an absolute disaster and give the Tories a free run at the next General Election.

The British people have never supported very a leftwing Labour party. Even the 1945 Labour Government supported a rightwing foreign policy whilst nationalising coal, steel, health, etc. And Attlee actually promoted the development of the British atom bomb.

Blair and New Labour had the right balance, but back in the late 90s none of us knew just how federalist the new EU was going to become.

[Stanfordian]

A Corbyn clone spouting more of the same marxist nonsense will be an absolute disaster and give the Tories a free run at the next General Election.

The British people have never supported very a leftwing Labour party. Even the 1945 Labour Government supported a rightwing foreign policy whilst nationalising coal, steel, health, etc. And Attlee actually promoted the development of the British atom bomb.

Blair and New Labour had the right balance, but back in the late 90s none of us knew just how federalist the new EU was going to become.

I can't disagree with those comments.

[Padraig]

I can't disagree with those comments.

Those comments don't deserve to be dismissed out of hand.

[burning dog]

I think New Labour were often tories-lite.

Labour had to distance themselves from the Brown "austerity years" whether they were justified at the time or not

From an election winning perspective it's odd to think there's no ground between Blairism and Corbynism ( the BBC seem to present it this way) when many/ most potential Labour voters would be somewhere in between, or "neither of the above."

Perhaps 1945 indicates a sober, conservative seeming, even dull, leader is the best person to instigate a left of centre economic policy. Corbyn's economic proposals could be critisised as too populist rather than hard left. An auction for more public spending by both parties made the later campaign sound a bit more like Peron vs Chavez than previous Britsh elections.

[Joseph K]

A Corbyn clone spouting more of the same marxist nonsense will be an absolute disaster and give the Tories a free run at the next General Election.

The British people have never supported very a leftwing Labour party. Even the 1945 Labour Government supported a rightwing foreign policy whilst nationalising coal, steel, health, etc. And Attlee actually promoted the development of the British atom bomb.

Blair and New Labour had the right balance, but back in the late 90s none of us knew just how federalist the new EU was going to become.

Did you read what I'd written? I suggested someone not close to Corbyn.

What solutions would you say we need to tackle climate change?

I agree that the Attlee government was right-wing in its foreign policy. Still, you may carp about "Marxist nonsense", probably there will always be people coming out with twaddle like that from the majority of the press (owned by sociopathic billionaire barons) - but Attlee managed to get elected while faced with that. Such accusations might bounce off a person without -as I stated upthread- what could be perceived as Corbyn's historic baggage. I think the argument for a better - much more rational and humane- foreign policy could win people over. I refuse to believe that people in general are as grotesquely malicious as this Tory government has been and will continue to be.