Labour Revival?

I never even thought of it that way.

These days it really feels like the Blairites in the Labour Party are telling people what they should think rather than asking them what they actually think. They seem totally separated from reality.

 

So Corbyn has made a * of himself on the train then. He really is a shameless opportunist, sadly for him not very smart though. 'principles' and a man of the people

Jeremy Corbyn's train stunt exposes his insufferable sanctimony as incompetent spin

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...-stunt-exposes-his-insufferable-sanctimony-a/

 

Latest polling shows the Tories as 21 points ahead of Labour. Brutal. I know politics in this country is very often cyclical but I genuinely struggle to see a way for Labour to get out of the mess they've got themselves into. Brexit has left them with an existential crisis. It has exposed a basic disconnect between the poor/working class voters who Labour rely on and the PLP within Westminster. But if Labour attempt to adopt more left leaning policies the media dismiss them as loonies and they lose support with the wider electorate, without whom they can never win a General Election. Rock. Hard place.

The leadership vacuum at the top of the party is pushing them closer and closer to electoral oblivion as well. Sure they can replace Jeremy Corbyn(they need to) but who with? I see no viable candidates out there who would be able to tackle Theresa May effectively. Maybe David Miliband could but he's not real Labour, he's Tory lite and doesn't represent a direction I'd want to see Labour head in. Tory or Tory lite has been the only choice on offer to UK voters for a long time now and I don't think it makes for good politics.

I can foresee the Liberal Democrats making a comeback over the next decade and that really could spell disaster for Labour. It's conceivable we could in the not too distant future see a scenario where the Lib Dems actually challenge Labour for the role of the official opposition. That's how perilous the waters Labour are now sailing in are in my view.

I'd say we're set for at least another 8 years of Tory government, quite possibly thirteen or more. It is utterly depressing to think those shapeshifters could be in power for that long.

 

It'll be interesting to see if Labour lose control of Glasgow City Council in the upcoming elections. That council is like the last bastion of Labour control in Scotland. If it falls then Labour's dismantling in Scotland is complete.

 

On the cyclical idea it feels like we should already be at the end of a cycle. If people believed a tory gov was needed to cut spending then by now we should be getting into the end of the cycle where people feel they have cut too much.

So from the perspective of the left, as you say, it is particularly worrying that labour cannot gain at a time when it should be easier than ever for them to do so.

On a side note, it is interesting that the Tories always seem to be able to last longer in government compared to labour and compared to expectation.

On labour alternative leaders I think Chuku Umunna or Sadiq Khan are the best options I see. To me it is obvious that a much more centrist stance is needed, but the left of the party seem determined to turn labour into a student protest party rather than a party to run a country.

 

I don't feel we have yet reached the end of the cycle of austerity brought on by the banking crisis. I get the sense that most people in the country still feel the public finances need to be carefully managed and that as long as any cuts that are made don't seem too brutal they will support them. Which is a fertile environment for the Tories to prosper in. Polls show that people really don't trust Jeremy Corbyn to handle the economy. How much of that is down to his personality rather than his policies is impossible to tell, although when people are asked about individual Labour policies they seem to be reasonably popular, which makes me believe personality is playing some part in it.

Chukka Umunna couldn't even stand the heat of the leadership contest when he entered it and he is so New Labour. He doesn't seem like a good candidate to me. I wouldn't vote for any of the New Labour types mind you, but that's just me. You say that a more centrist approach is needed - and electorally you may be right - but Theresa May has rolled her tanks firmly into the centre ground, so if Labour move back on to the same territory, where does that leave us? We'll be back where we were 5-10 years ago when there wasn't a * paper between the two parties. For me that's not healthy. The only thing that ever changes in that scenario is the colour of the rosettes the people in power wear. We need some more outside the box thinking in our politics in my opinion. Give the people an alternative vision to get excited about and vote for.

 

Maybe it is my own biases but history shows that when Labour win elections when they win the middle ground. When they move to the left, what they tend to do is speak to lefties who are already going to support them, rather than build policies that the middleground voter can support. At the moment they seem to offer nothing to anyone.

They refuse to speak to working class areas about immigration when, whether we like it or not, immigration is probably the most important issue for these areas at the moment. I dont even know what the Labour policy is on immigration because they seem to avoid having an opinion. They bemoan that although employment is at a record high, the quality of jobs is poor, and yet they seem to offer no alternatives to existing employment. They dont seem to want to address Blair's policy of pushing working class kids into useless degrees because he cant upset the education unions, and they seem to dwell romantically on past industries rather than do anything to develop alternatives looking forward.

The middle class see Labour as anti-aspirational and a drain on their finances. Labour offer higher taxes for people who already feel overtaxed, and they see nothing in return. They relate to the Tories because at least the Tories will try not to get in their way of working hard and earning for themselves. Whereas Blair has success in convincing people that Labour was party for the hard working, driven, motivated, aspiring worker, it feels like the Tories have managed to appeal to that demographic much more than Labour at the moment.

Labour need to figure out what they stand for and who they are trying to appeal to. The Tories have done very well at knowing their audience and appealing to them as well as doing enough to appeal to swing voters in the middle ground. Labour dont seem to be appeal to the working classes who are moving to SNP in Scotland and UKIP in England, nor the middle voters who are siding towards the Tories.

And as much as I have never connected to Labour nor voted for them (which in itself is a huge indication of their problems given my very traditional, Scottish, working class background), I do believe that we need a strong opposition so I hope that they get it together and offer something coherent going forward

 

If Labour's problem is failing to discuss immigration and they are losing voters to UKIP then how do you think electing Chukka Umunna or Sadiq Khan is going to help or are you just ripping the pish ?

The Tories have basically elected "Thatcher lite". The short-term economic landscape of the UK means there is next to no chance of a non-white Prime-minister.

We have been transported back to the 1980's.

 

You've made some valid observations I agree with in your first paragraph. The problem Labour have with immigration is that they are an inherently pro immigration party but there is a mood throughout the country at the moment that has people wanting the brakes put on the number of people coming into the country. So Labour either stick to their principles and risk losing a lot of votes or they go along with what the country seems to want even though it isn't what they believe in. As you say, they appear to be doing neither thing at the moment.

I agree with Labour that the quality of jobs in this country is crap. We have become a service economy where things like zero hours contracts are seemingly acceptable. Things were better when we had more skilled jobs in the economy, more people had trades, and the manufacturing sector was more prominent. Flipping burgers or working in a call centre isn't going to give you much self respect. Again though, like you, I am unclear as to what Labour plans to do about that.

I was never a fan of Tony Blair's policy of pushing so many youngsters into further education. When I was young a Degree actually meant something. Nowadays so many youngsters have degrees they aren't worth what they used to be. Not unless they are in highly specialised fields. To my mind the idea of pushing so many youngsters towards higher education was mainly to keep them out of the dole queue thereby making the government look better.

What you have described in your middle paragraph is Thatcher's Britain. She encouraged that selfish way of thinking. I think we'd be a much better country if we had an outlook like the Swedes do. Pay more in to the system but in return you get excellent public services that can benefit everyone. Instead of the well off pulling the ladder up behind them and saying I'm alright Jack. That * has a lot to answer for.

UKIP are about to become a busted flush so any votes Labour have leaked to them they can easily recover if they play their cards right. Brexit will be the death knell for UKIP, they're not needed anymore.

 

Wonder how much worse it will be for Labour here when the older generation starts dying off. Literally don't know anyone of my generation that votes labour or would vote labour again.

 

My point isnt that labour should necessarily should pander to anti-immigration policies. But they need to have a strong and coherent position. If they are pro immigration then it is their job to go to these areas and argue their case. Explain why immigration isnt the great evil many think it is. But they cannot just say nothing and hope it goes away.

I agree with everything you say besides this bit on the 'im alright jack' attitude (my own opinions are with the tories on this).

I dont think it is greed that drives people to not want to pay more than the 42% odd tax many of the middle class pay. Someone living in central london or the south east (where most higher earners live) earning 45k trying to provide for a wife and a couple of kids is far from rich. He isnt thinking about pulling the ladder up because he doesnt see himself as being very far up that ladder.

But he sees himself as extremely hard working and with almost 45% of people of working age in the UK paying zero income tax, he is already paying at least his fair share. And the greatest swindle of all (that impacts many hard working, working-class people as well) is that because he has worked hard to save some of his own money, if he loses his job, then he will get almost no help from the system that he has paid into for so many years. That is the gross unfairness of the left. Meanwhile the left are vocally kicking up because the Tories have capped benefits at 20k a year tax free! How on earth can he relate to that attitude?

So while the Tories may not better his lot all that much, they are a safe bet that at least they wont get in his way. I dont think that is a greedy attitude. It is driven by self responsibility and a belief that people should be rewarded and encouraged to work hard.

These are the kind of voters that have moved from Blair's labour to Cameron's tories.

 

There is nothing wrong with people having aspirations to improve themselves or to provide for their families. Wanting to provide for your family is a basic human instinct that is as old as man himself. It's when aspiration turns to greed that we start to run into problems and the people at the top of the money tree are without a shadow of a doubt a bunch of greedy *. What does it say about us as a country when the richest 10% of the population hold 45% of the nation's wealth while the bottom 50% are left with just 9% of the pie? And what does it say when an average household in the south east of England has twice the wealth of an average household in Scotland, when we are all supposedly part of the one Great Britain? I'll tell you what it says to me, it says we are doing things wrong. That is an outrageous level of wealth inequality in my view.

Things like corporate tax avoidance by huge companies like Google, and the ease with which rich people can move their money offshore where it can't be taxed properly, are now just accepted as the way it is. The man on the street can complain about it but nobody really believes the government is serious about tackling it. THAT is the kind of greed I am talking about. THAT is the kind of greed Margaret Thatcher encouraged. If you can afford an expensive accountant you can find all manner of ways to avoid paying your proper share into the pot. Meanwhile the ordinary worker has to pay his full share of tax or else! How is that fair?

That's before we even begin to talk about how, in supposedly one of the richest countries in the world, some of the most vulnerable people in society are having their benefits cut, are being scapegoated for having the nerve to claim benefits in the first place, and are relying on food banks to keep their bellies full. Even worse than that, we are now in a situation where lots of people who are actually in work, and who work * hard, are in need of in work benefits just to try and keep their heads above water.

It's a * up legacy of Margaret Thatcher's time in office and something fundamental needs done about it. None of our politicians seem to have the stomach for the fight though.

 

I agree regarding the aggressive tax avoidance of corporations however that has nothing to do with Thatcher. It isnt a problem specific to the UK, it is a problem that all developed world economies (excluding tax havens) are struggling with because global corporations are far better at finding legal loopholes than regulators are at creating rules. I agree that it is unjust and needs fixed, but really the best way to fix it would be for people to stop supporting these companies. If people boycotted the likes of Amazon and Google for even a few months, they would soon pay tax. So this is actually something the masses can fix themselves rather than depending on fairly incompetent governments.

I fundamentally disagree with how the left measure national poverty - using inequality as a gauge. Extreme inequality isnt healthy but the focus should be on reducing absolute poverty and social deprivation, rather than closing the gap between the richest and the rest. It is a misconception that there is a 'pie'. There isnt. If rock stars, hedge fund managers, and EPL footballers get richer, that doesn't mean we get poorer. Money is created, economies grow, and as long as that money benefits as many as possible, that is a good thing (at a national level - global level inequality is different). The collective in this country are pretty well looked after measured by almost any historic or contemporary comparison, precisely because the UK has grown its economy faster than the vast majority of other nations over the last 30 years or so.

To take a couple of recent examples on the limitations of inequality measures. In recent times, the biggest reduction in inequality came in 2008 and 2009, because the market was battered and the rich lost far more in absolute terms than the poor. But it is absurd to claim that was a good thing when average people were losing their jobs and going bust. In the last 5 years, inequality has increased, largely driven by the rise in the market. So people who have big pensions, stocks and shares ISA, share options, etc, have all done very well, while the poorest havent benefited from these gains as they dont have these things. In this case, a rising inequality isnt the issue - the issue is that there are so many people without pensions and savings. If a kid goes hungry, that is the issue, not the fact that the better off made 20% returns on the markets last year.

I am absolutely for governments creating opportunities for people to improve their lot, which is why I object to some (but not all) of the Tories recent cuts. But I also object to the sort of 'politics of envy' that the left partake in, who seem far more interested in hitting the well off rather than encouraging people to become well off themselves. And getting back to Labour, the reason I have never voted Labour or felt any sort of leaning towards them is that I believe they epitomize that politics of envy, rather than in genuinely trying to provide opportunities for average people.

 

I can see why someone like yourself would have had trouble giving your vote to Labour pre 1990's. But do you think the Labour Party of Blair and Brown was a party that engaged in the 'politics of envy' as you put it?

 

No, I think what they did to great success initially was to became the party of choice for the mass aspirational voter. Blair's policy of "education, education, education" won him power because it was based on the creation of opportunity rather than hand outs. It was about promoting the idea of attainment through education rather than taxing those who had already attained. They had more scope to focus on these voters as the more traditional working class would still support Labour as they didnt have to think about challenges from UKIP or SNP.

2001 was the first time I could vote in a general election and I voted Lib Dem because I had voted for them in the Scottish Parliament elections in 1999 and they had kept their word on pushing for free uni tuition in Scotland. By that point, Blair was supporting Bush and getting involved in Afghanistan which I didnt like. The Tories were focused anti-Europe and anti-immigration at the time from memory - neither of which I agreed with (nor still do). From memory they ran an extremely negative campaign, and they were punished for it.

I think by the end of the Blair/Brown era however there was a belief among many that the welfare state had become fat and bloated and they had overspent when they should have saved. They lost a lot of old labour votes because their foreign policy couldnt be trusted, and they lost a lot of new labour votes as they were perceived to have overspent (on benefits as much as anything)

 

Thats how they got squeezed politically at either political spectrum. The attraction of New Labour was in its certainty. It was conceived in the 1990s, democracy had triumphed over communism, and liberal democracy was perceived as a model that perfect for society. Every country would now adopt that model, fukayamas End of History argument. Adding to that was a religious belief in the new economic order. Economists devoutly believed that they had found economic system that would alleviate the problems of the world, globalised neoliberalism would ensure security and cooperation through trade. New Labour believed, as received academic wisdom did too. New Labour took the profits of that new system and invested it in the north, Scotland and Wales. Schools, hospitals, benefits and higher education, all received significantly higher funding.

It was, in theory, a perfect system. Then the crash came. The Great Recession killed the idea of perpetual growth without economic busts. The problem was they still had a massive state taut relied on that economic system. It was huge. For example, Scotland's public sector makes up 50% of its GDP. Remember people think places like Norway are more socialist than Scotland, it's not. A far greater segment of the economy is still in public hands than any Scandinavian country. This was a huge public purse.

Then there was the arrogance of democracy being the only political order. In the spirit of globalisation, it was necessary to support democracy where possible. Military intervention was successful in the Balkans and Sierra Leonne. Post 9-11 the calculus changed and the Middle East would be dealt with once and for all. Given that democracy was conceived as the best form of government - one that supports liberty and capitalism - The idea was that democracy could be brought by the barrel of a gun. Iraq put an end to that idea.

As of 2009, the two main planks in the New Labour ideology were dead. Democracy was not a perfect system fit for the Middle East. It could not establish peace and harmony to the Middle East. The economy was in tatters and we now had an incredibly deficit. New Labour soared high but it crashed in flames with, as you say, the left feeling betrayed by the War on Terror and the rights indignation at financial excessive.

There are a few other features, the philosophy of postmodernism and its whacky brainchild multiculturalism. That was also seen as a new dawn, but has utterly failed.

 

Right on que I would say this is the absolute epitomy of 'politics of envy':

'Rich will pay more' under Labour - John McDonnell - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39640804

Rather than focus on a plan to create more higher paying jobs, the plan is to bump up the taxes of "rich" people who are in good jobs

And chief exec salaries are going to be capped relative to the average wage of the company!? So if you are the chief exec of a company like Tesco, Sky, or British Foods (market caps of 15-26bn) then your pay is tied to till workers, call centres and factory lines. So bad luck. But if your chief exec of Aberdeen Asset Management (3bn) or St James Place (4.7bn) then happy days as you are allowed to be paid way more because your salary is tied to business analysts, IT professionals and fund managers.

It is just so ill thought out and fundamentally stupid. And of no benefit to the average worker whatsoever.

 

You're probably looking at about a 100% difference between the lowest paid workers at Tesco and the lowest paid workers at a large asset management company, and that's excluding the cleaners, catering staff etc who are probably outsourced. You would imagine you would see the best CEO's gravitate more towards industries with higher median pay which wouldn't be a bad thing imo.

Besides that though, what is wrong with linking CEO's pay with that of employees? Over the past few decades we've seen near exponential growth in the pay of CEO's while the salary of the average worker has increased by a fraction of that amount. Why choose between tacking absolute or relative poverty when you can just as easily target both?