Labour, can they sink any lower?

paulads

Chalky said:

ICBM said:

Chalky said:

Now you're just being silly. You're ignoring the very austere 50s and how we were broke in the 70s, asking the IMF for money like a family going to a foodbank.

The austere 50s were caused by the terms of the US loan to bail us out after the war - they purposely wanted to restrict our recovery. Attlee's government in fact achieved a miracle by being able to create the modern welfare state on the very restricted resources available. The sad thing is that in '51, Labour actually increased its share of the vote slightly and polled more than the Tories - but lost the election because of the way FPTP works. The Churchill/Eden/Macmillan government then reaped the benefits of what Labour had done to set Britain back on its feet.

We also didn't need to go to the IMF in the 70s - that was caused by an error or misinformation at the Treasury. In fact by the end of the 70s Callaghan's government was just starting to turn things around, but ran out of time - and the public's patience. If Callaghan hadn't misjudged the election and called it for the autumn of '78 instead he would probably have won.

You can check all this if you want to.

I was responding to @paulads assertion that "that the position of relative wealth we still enjoy today is due to the power we used to exert over many parts of the globe and is more despite our recent leaders than because of them", as if the politicians had slowly been spending the national fortune through decades of steady decline. It had already been spent and was gone by the end of the war. So the leaders of this country must have done something right since 1945, and couldn't have all been disastrous.

Chalky, I was offering my own opinion on prime ministers since (and including) Margaret Thatcher. I wasn't talking about all prime ministers since 1945.

I do still believe that our economy owes much of its continuing success to our historical global significance, rather than the brilliance of our recent leaders.

p90fool

paulads said:

I do think it's guesswork. I can't see how you could know for a fact that Corbyn couldn't win an election.  A lot of effort is being made by a lot of people in various positions of power who seem very concerned that he could do just that. The concerted effort against him has been breathtaking, in my opinion.

You have that the wrong way around, the concerted effort against him is not because they're concerned he'll win a general election, it's because they know he can't.

Labour MPS are afraid of wasting years in the wilderness again far more than they are of a Corbyn government.

ESBlonde

It is quite possible that Corbin wins an election. Just remember no one thought Brexit had a chance!

paulads

But they know that Owen Smith can?

 The PLP seem to have decided that Corbyn could not win an election within nine months of him being democratically elected, despite the membership of the party more than doubling in that time.

He was given no time and no chance. A general election was likely to be four years away...there was plenty of time to boot him out and build again, if he failed to make progress.

p90fool

paulads said:

But they know that Owen Smith can?

Of course not. He's just there to tread water until they decide what the hell, if anything, they can do.

paulads

Give the elected leader a chance?

otherwise it looks like they are replacing someone who they think can't get elected with someone who's even less likely to get elected.

why on earth would they do that?

Evilmags

Thatch was by far the best pm in my lifetime. Increased GDP , by far the best measure of overall wellfare, structurally reduced unemployment and freed the economy. Genius if somewhat prim amd prissy. 

Philly_Q

ICBM said:

What's really odd for me thinking about Corbyn is that if people would actually listen to what he says rather than what he's painted as by the media, he could quite possibly win an election. But that probably won't happen - although he seems to want an election too, if May is unwise enough to call one - so presumably he must think he would win.

Britain is a strange country - it's a tolerant, optimistic, moderately socialist country which has somehow convinced itself that it's a prickly, individualistic, conservative one.

Is it not both of those things?

I know people who might support Corbyn's policies - but not because they ARE Corbyn's policies! - on things like re-nationalising the railways, spending on the NHS, possibly even increasing higher rate tax.  But they'd be at the absolute opposite end of the spectrum on policies relating to things like immigration and multi-culturalism.

I think ultimately we vote on things which affect us most personally, rather than thinking of a bigger picture.  Even if we don't acknowledge that even to ourselves.

jpfamps

ICBM said:

ESBlonde said:

Atlee took power in a landslide and shafted the countries finances for decades.

Not true - it was the US which shafted the country for decades, by lending us too little money to really do what we needed to get the country back on its feet after the war, at too high an interest rate. There was next to nothing we could do about that whoever had been in power - the alternative was bankruptcy, and the US knew it which is why they wouldn't compromise. They didn't really want to help - they wanted to make sure Britain became a second-rate power and didn't regain its empire.

Attlee established the modern civilised nation we still know today, and which the Tories have been trying to unpick since 1979, if not earlier. (Including New Labour.)

That's not quite true.

The UK was given substantial loans at good rates under the Marshall plan (more even than Germany), but unwisely didn't invest the money in industry, but used it to try to maintain the value of Sterling.

This proved futile, as the devaluation of 1949 proved.

Essentially we wasted the money.

Snap

What some people are failing to realise is that the opinion of the party membership is not representative of the public. Particularly when, in Labour's case, the influx of members appears to be a modern day outlet for ever present far left beliefs, that have always been there in Labour's membership (militant tendency et al).

The massive, massive majority of voters in general elections are not party members as most people just aren't even vaguely interested enough in politics to be arsed to join a party.

This is where Corbyn is going wrong in my opinion: he rightly holds onto his claim to have been democratically elected. Thing is, in the wider perspective that claim is immaterial if the body that elected you isn't representative of your voters. What you end up with is a self satisfied club that becomes increasingly out of touch with the people who could put you in government.

IMO a better process is that the leaders of a party are voted in by the MPs of that party. The MPs are the people the public chose to represent them so should be responsible for forming the leadership of the party they choose to support.

ICBM

jpfamps said:

That's not quite true.

The UK was given substantial loans at good rates under the Marshall plan (more even than Germany), but unwisely didn't invest the money in industry, but used it to try to maintain the value of Sterling.

This proved futile, as the devaluation of 1949 proved.

Essentially we wasted the money.

Nor is that. It was the terms of the US loan which led directly to trying to maintain the value of sterling and the subsequent devaluation.

"The loan was made subject to conditions, the most damaging of which was the convertibility of sterling. Though not the intention, the effect of convertibility was to worsen British post-war economic problems. International sterling balances became convertible one year after the loan was ratified, on 15 July 1947. Within a month, nations with sterling balances (e.g. pounds which they had earned from buying British exports, and which they were now permitted to sell to Britain in exchange for dollars) had drawn almost a billion dollars from British dollar reserves, forcing the British government to suspend convertibility and to begin immediate drastic cuts in domestic and overseas expenditure. The rapid loss of dollar reserves also highlighted the weakness of sterling, which was duly devalued in 1949 from $4.02 to $2.80." (Wikipedia)

John Maynard Keynes tried to negotiate a better deal with the Americans but they wouldn't allow it - it was actually the US Congress which blocked it, if I remember rightly. Although in the long term the interest rate proved not as bad as it had in the first place.

Axe_meister

The other problem Labour have is the demographic they generally represent. I.e. Working class/unemployed, but activists/MPs are not from that demographic.
Their opinions differ especially around things like immigration. Hence the large movement of votes from labour to UKIP. To get that votership back Labour would have to become more nationalist (national socialists??)

randella

Snap said:

What some people are failing to realise is that the opinion of the party membership is not representative of the public. Particularly when, in Labour's case, the influx of members appears to be a modern day outlet for ever present far left beliefs, that have always been there in Labour's membership (militant tendency et al).

The massive, massive majority of voters in general elections are not party members as most people just aren't even vaguely interested enough in politics to be arsed to join a party.

This is where Corbyn is going wrong in my opinion: he rightly holds onto his claim to have been democratically elected. Thing is, in the wider perspective that claim is immaterial if the body that elected you isn't representative of your voters. What you end up with is a self satisfied club that becomes increasingly out of touch with the people who could put you in government.

IMO a better process is that the leaders of a party are voted in by the MPs of that party. The MPs are the people the public chose to represent them so should be responsible for forming the leadership of the party they choose to support.

Good post, but I'd add one pernickety point as it's something that does rile me.

Corbyn's assumption, as that of his followers, is that the party membership as one fully back his leadership.  The party membership in truth though contains a swathe of people who, like me, can't stand him and know that he's not in tune with the electorate.  He won on nearly 60% last time around and, while he's nailed-on to win it again, it's expected to be by a reduced margin.  The odious John McDonnell's been trumpeting this as being down to a 'purge' of party members, but really I think he's just indulging in a bit of 'expectation management'.

Say he (Corbyn) wins on 55% - this means 45% of the party membership (who voted) are at least ambivalent, and at worst actively dislike the guy and want him gone.  The way he and his clan carry on, you'd think the entire body of the membership was there solely for him and to worship at his altar, but the truth is a bit more nuanced.

Snap

TBH, I think Corbyn is a bit of a div. I also find him a bit disingenuous. Something about his demeanour stinks of hubris, as if he believes he has a moral high ground over most people. I don't think he is a "man of the people" at all. I think he is a wannabe intellectual, probably best suited to mouthing off at far left wing student hustings.

Mind you, I've watched and listened to Owen Smith as well, and he is all over the place. the Labour party just appears to be full of lightweights, who don't seem to have a clue. Bad for politics, bad for government, whatever side you sit on.

paulads

I'd like to see a general election called straight after the conference season is over. Brexit proposals can be voted on, Theresa May will or will not have a proper mandate...and if JC does indeed turn out to be Corbyn Monoxide...he'll get the bullet.

Then, hopefully, we can get back to some kind of normality.

ICBM

That was most likely true when Blair took over too.

My problem is that I couldn't stomach going back to New Labour - it was they, their lack of principles and their distorted Tory policies which got the country in the mess it is now… even ignoring Iraq. Deregulation of the banks, further privatisation and the con trick of PFI are the main culprits. I'd honestly rather sit out the next election than have the kind of crowing that will occur if they get rid of Corbyn, even if they were then to win - which they won't. Miliband was a better leader than any of the current options and he was still a failure… not because he was too left-wing - because he offered nothing that the Tories didn't but without the same confidence.

I've swung back and forth on this I know, but right now, unless they can find a *convincing* leader who can reunite the party without going back to New Labour then I'd rather see Corbyn fight the election and lose than pick someone else and lose anyway.

paulads

I've heard it said that David Miliband will parachute into Jo Cox's former seat and soon thereafter become the new leader.

<sigh>

hywelg

ICBM said:

My problem is that I couldn't stomach going back to New Labour - it was they, their lack of principles and their distorted Tory policies which got the country in the mess it is now…

No it was the way they threw money at their support base, the public sector, that got us into the trouble we are now in. Gordon was always going to pay for stuff with the proceeds of growth, which never happened as he expected and then crunch.......oh shit.

Labour has never ever been able to manage finances. Corbyn and MacDonald just keep saying 'I wouldn't do it like that' but then refuse to say how they will pay for their schemes. Its all well and good raising taxes to make you look like a good socialist, but when that reduces the actual tax take, thats just stupidity. I haven't heard one word from Labour about where they are going to save money,other than the same old same old, we'll invest (i.e borrow) and the economy will improve then we'll get more tax, bollocks.

hywelg

Evilmags said:

Thatch was by far the best pm in my lifetime. Increased GDP , by far the best measure of overall wellfare, structurally reduced unemployment and freed the economy. Genius if somewhat prim amd prissy. 

Conviction politician supreme. And the country voted for her to sort out the Union crap. She did. Of the two comments in this thread labeling her the worst PM, they were by their own admission not old enough to have experieince of what the UK was like before her tenure.

I wish we had more conviction politicians, which is why I like Corbyn, shame his convictions are Loony Left, the antithesis of what I would vote for. I have a feeling May might turn out to be much less of a focus group, 'blowing in the wind', politician than Blair and Cameron, but time will tell.

randella

Snap said:

TBH, I think Corbyn is a bit of a div. I also find him a bit disingenuous. Something about his demeanour stinks of hubris, as if he believes he has a moral high ground over most people. I don't think he is a "man of the people" at all. I think he is a wannabe intellectual, probably best suited to mouthing off at far left wing student hustings.

Mind you, I've watched and listened to Owen Smith as well, and he is all over the place. the Labour party just appears to be full of lightweights, who don't seem to have a clue. Bad for politics, bad for government, whatever side you sit on.

Wholeheartedly agree.  He's massively disingenuous.  I really, really dislike the veneer of effected serene, patronising calm that he has, brought into stark relief when he loses his rag the nanosecond he's out of his comfort zone.

Not sure what the plan with Owen Smith was, really.  The ABC candidate, that much was clear, but in reality it's probably just the best stalling tactic the PLP could come up with while they think up their next move.

The real issue is, like you said @Snap - the party's full of ineffectual lightweights.  It really is bad times for Labour, but for politics as a whole too even if you're not on the left.