Fun and games with ballot papers

[Bryn]

Yes I know that, I was asking Bryn how many "enemies" he thought had signed up to sabotage the leadership election.

My point included, indeed related directly to, those already in the party. In terms of the Labour Party history, would you not see the 'Blairite' tendency as effectively comprising Tory-minded entrist enemies of what the Labour Party represented in the first three or so decades of the 20th century, the days when the ILP felt able to unite with the LP?

[vinteuil]

... the Labour Party is offering a distraction both to itself and to others from the question of its very future, which I am far from convinced that it actually has any longer. If its time is indeed over and if, as a consequence, it decides that it has no option but to close its doors once and for all, a very dangerous situation will open up....

... an apparently long-lasting political party can disappear with amazing rapidity. In France the rise of Macron went along with the total collapse of the 'Gaullist' and Socialist parties, both of which had up to then seemed solid, invulnerable, eternal. Hard to see any resurrection in the foreseeable future of the Gaullists or the Socialist party in France - it may well be that we cannot assume the survival of the Labour party in its present form.


.

[Joseph K]

... an apparently long-lasting political party can disappear with amazing rapidity. In France the rise of Macron went along with the total collapse of the 'Gaullist' and Socialist parties, both of which had up to then seemed solid, invulnerable, eternal. Hard to see any resurrection in the foreseeable future of the Gaullists or the Socialist party in France - it may well be that we cannot assume the survival of the Labour party in its present form.


.

In 1997 the Tories won 165 seats. They managed to recover eventually - and Labour didn't go that low last year.

[teamsaint]

In 1997 the Tories won 165 seats. They managed to recover eventually - and Labour didn't go that low last year.

And FPTP protected them, and will do the same for Labour.

[eighthobstruction]

....interesting to see that Unison is backing Keir Starmer ....lets see where Unite come down; Rebecca Long-Bailey probably......i guess

[vinteuil]

And FPTP protected them, and will do the same for Labour.

... I wonder if the Liberal party thought that in the 1920s.


.

[teamsaint]

... I wonder if the Liberal party thought that in the 1920s.


.

They might have.
Where is the external threat to Labour in England to take over as the second party ?

[StephenMcK]

Before the Labour Party need to start opening veins, I think some serious analysis of the electorate is required. Not that that will take long.

The last three elections, it seems to me, have swung hither and thither. That margin of voters that actually get to make a difference in an election behave with all the cunning of a ball bearing in a pinball machine.

I can understand a bloc of voters telling the Labour Party, 'we've had enough of you', but there were other parties they could have gone to. They could even have just stayed at home.

So, instead to have backed the Tories has no logic to it. For one thing, they presented no manifesto, beyond a three digit fist of slogans. I even saw one ex-Labour voter say, 'time to give the Conservatives a go'. Exactly, where had he been the last nine years?

I firmly believe with a leader who can communicate like a human and go about with a smile on his/her face, rather than a sneer on his much, most of those voters would swing back. Oh, and a three digit fist of slogans that they have some chance of selling rather than the 100 better steps to a socialist utopia platform.

SHB

[Richard Barrett]

My point included, indeed related directly to, those already in the party. In terms of the Labour Party history, would you not see the 'Blairite' tendency as effectively comprising Tory-minded entrist enemies of what the Labour Party represented in the first three or so decades of the 20th century, the days when the ILP felt able to unite with the LP?

I'm not an expert on the history of the party. But the way its leaders are chosen underwent a decisive change in 2015, giving rank and file members a much bigger say in the process, with predictable results given that the membership is in general some distance to the left of the parliamentary party and, as far as I know, has been for many years.

[Serial_Apologist]

Why on earth would the LP just close its doors and give up ?

There is enormous opportunity. The necessary changes to create a green economy, including the inevitable challenge of dealing with zero growth ( at some point) can be a god send to the movement. I am confident that the tories don't really understand the changes and challenges to come. But Labour can, and must.

These points was strongly backed up as far as regards food sustainability and ecological recovery in tonight's Channel 4 programme Apocalypse Cow: How Meat Killed the Planet, introduced by George Monbiot, which I have mentioned on the What TV are you watching thread. The Labour Party does not have to look far for some of the solutions to its policy realisation problems.

[StephenMcK]

I'm not an expert on the history of the party. But the way its leaders are chosen underwent a decisive change in 2015, giving rank and file members a much bigger say in the process, with predictable results given that the membership is in general some distance to the left of the parliamentary party and, as far as I know, has been for many years.

Too much democracy is problematic. Ultimately, it is the parliamentary party that has to steer the ship of government should it be invited by Her Maj to do so which is tricky when the navigation is being semaphored from the support vessel which has the charts.

In time, a similar dilemma could afflict the Conservatives who also now include the general membership in the party leader selection process. In time they may well want to return to the centre ground, but will their membership wear it.

[LMcD]

Too much democracy is problematic. Ultimately, it is the parliamentary party that has to steer the ship of government should it be invited by Her Maj to do so which is tricky when the navigation is being semaphored from the support vessel which has the charts.

In time, a similar dilemma could afflict the Conservatives who also now include the general membership in the party leader selection process. In time they may well want to return to the centre ground, but will their membership wear it.

A parallel could be drawn between the arguably baleful effects of widening the electorate for the selection of party leaders and the demonstrably baleful effects of encouraging listeners and viewers to share the responsibility for producing programme content! These two expressions of populism could well result, respectively, in political extremism and the dreaded 'dumbing down' of what remains of broadcasting for adults.
(Oh, yes - and McD welcomes McK back to the Forum!)

[Richard Barrett]

Too much democracy is problematic.

This is what one often hears. But someone then needs to decide how much is enough. Who should have that responsibility? If Labour membership is further left than its MPs and Tory membership further to the right, who's to say that shouldn't be reflected elsewhere in the structure and policies of the party? If, as you say, a party's MPs are the people who actually "steer the ship of government" or whatever one's favoured metaphor might be, why shouldn't they have been first selected democratically by party members?

[MrGongGong]

These points was strongly backed up as far as regards food sustainability and ecological recovery in tonight's Channel 4 programme Apocalypse Cow: How Meat Killed the Planet, introduced by George Monbiot, which I have mentioned on the What TV are you watching thread. The Labour Party does not have to look far for some of the solutions to its policy realisation problems.

I think those people who are really concerned about the future of the planet can see straight through the Labour party's new found enthusiasm for environmentalism. Simply "renting" the issue in order to get elected won't work.

I don't see the likes of Len McCluskey supporting the Zero growth agenda and when it comes down to a choice between jobs or environment it's highly unlikely that the Labour party would choose the latter.

Given that it is clear that our political parties don't represent the divisions in thinking in the country the best option would be to start gain BUT people are far too attached to the historical narratives (on ALL "sides") IMV

[Dave2002]

I think those people who are really concerned about the future of the planet can see straight through the Labour party's new found enthusiasm for environmentalism. Simply "renting" the issue in order to get elected won't work.

I don't see the likes of Len McCluskey supporting the Zero growth agenda and when it comes down to a choice between jobs or environment it's highly unlikely that the Labour party would choose the latter.

Don't very similar considerations apply to the Cons?