Corbyn did win, what's next?

However, let's not forget that it's not the party membership that voted these MPs in. They have a responsibility to their constituencies first and foremost, and I would (in their shoes) feel quite concerned about such a shift in party position that moved away from platforms that I had been voted in on.

This is where the clash lies. However many thousands of people voted Corbyn in as leader pales into insignificance against the numbers who voted the current batch of Labour MPs in.

We have no idea whether or not people would have been more or less likely to vote for those (or other) MPs had Corbyn been the leader at the time. For example I'm sure that there are seats where any candidate sporting a Labour Party rosette would be returned with a thumping majority regardless of who the party leader (or who the candidate for that matter) was.

It's only one data point, it was a by-election and a possibly retreating UKIP were the main opposition but the Labour candidate in the Oldham West and Royton by-election was returned with an increased share of the vote.
 
..... I'm confident in stating that the longstanding rank and file membership was consistently more left wing than the PLP throughout the whole New Labour period. New Labour and the Blairites were viewed by the longstanding members as undermining the true principles of the party but either a necessary evil to get hands on the levers of power or intolerable but those members couldn't being themselves to leave the party or vote for a party other than Labour...........

As the percentage of people from poor and working class backgrounds shrinks, whilst the percentage going to university inexorably rises, Labour is going to have to somehow or other drag it's membership into the mainstream, or become an irrelevance. No party in any pluralist democracy can hope to remain competitive if all it does is appeal to those remaining in a shrinking demographic. Far from despising New Labour, they should be learning from it. Even if he survives to get a thrashing at the next election, once Corbyn has been and gone, the Labour Party will need to centre itself in a place where it can win elections, or choose to leave that role to others. Maybe it has to have a Corbyn moment to understand this.....which is a pity, because one thought that having a Foot moment would have been enough to do the trick.
 
As the percentage of people from poor and working class backgrounds shrinks, whilst the percentage going to university inexorably rises, Labour is going to have to somehow or other drag it's membership into the mainstream, or become an irrelevance. No party in any pluralist democracy can hope to remain competitive if all it does is appeal to those remaining in a shrinking demographic.
This is very revealing. In that universe you inhabit, university students are Blairites. No politician can be expected to have any beliefs or principles whatsoever. They "appeal to a demographic", and of course not a "shrinking" one.

The unstated but unchallenged assumptions underlying this vision of society - "pluralist democracy" - are quite hilarious. Amendments to political programmes are simply like changing the colours on the labels of sauce bottles 'cos focus groups tell us our target demographic likes blue rather than red, or whatever.
 
This is very revealing. In that universe you inhabit, university students are Blairites.

You'll be able to show me where I said anything of the sort, no doubt.


No politician can be expected to have any beliefs or principles whatsoever.

You'll be able to show me where I said anything of the sort, no doubt.


Amendments to political programmes are simply like changing the colours on the labels of sauce bottles 'cos focus groups tell us our target demographic likes blue rather than red, or whatever.

You'll be able to show me where I said anything of the sort, no doubt.
 
Last edited:
It was more the "poor" aspect. That percentage appears to be increasing.


wiki said:
The United Kingdom is a developed country with comparatively large income differences. As such, those at the lower end of the income distribution have a relatively low standard of living. New data released by Department for Work and Pensions show that the number of people living in the UK in relative poverty has risen over the past two years. As of 2013, there are 10.6 million people with income below 60% of the inflation-adjusted 2010/11 median (termed "absolute low income" by the DWP), up from 9.7 million in 2012. In 2014, another report by Institute for Fiscal Studies said that 23.2% of Britons were now in relative poverty, the highest since 2001. However, Eurostat figures show that the numbers of Britons at risk of poverty has fallen to 15.9% in 2014, down from 17.1% in 2010 and 19% in 2005 (after social transfers were taken into account).

It has been found by the Poverty and Social Exclusion project at Bristol University in 2014, that the proportion of households lacking three items or activities deemed necessary for life in the UK at that time (as defined by a survey of the wider population) has increased from 14% in 1983 to 33% in 2012
link
 
Last edited:
As the percentage of people from poor and working class backgrounds shrinks, whilst the percentage going to university inexorably rises, Labour is going to have to somehow or other drag it's membership into the mainstream, or become an irrelevance.

Neither Labour Party constituency organisation I've had anything to do with for an extended period of time had a significant working class membership. Instead they were mostly a mixture of middle-class people, a lot of whom worked in the public sector or who were the kind of Guardian-reading lefties much beloved of cartoonists and caricaturists.

The Labour Party, for all its rhetoric has not been the "party of the working man" since well before my time.

Unless all we want are two increasingly right wing parties pandering to the public (which is, IMO essentially what we've had since the early 90's) then political parties have to start to inform and form opinion rather than simply tracking it. As much as I dislike Margaret Thatcher and the way she was as effective at "harrying the North" as William the Conqueror, she led rather than followed.

If the Labour Party wants to be in any way relevant IMO it needs to stop being the Conservative Party with different MPs and needs to forge its own identity. If the British public show that they're not interested in the Labour Party's core values then I guess the Conservatives will continue to form the government up until the increasing levels of economic, social and health inequalities they will inevitably create finally cause a political seismic shift. If it never happens then the Conservatives can continue in government in perpetuity because they'll be doing a good enough job for enough people.

No party in any pluralist democracy can hope to remain competitive if all it does is appeal to those remaining in a shrinking demographic.

One of the things that has surprised me is how different people in the 15-25 year old age bracket are from the Thatcher Generation like me. They are concerned about completely different things, take a much different view of politics and approach things in a different way.

Obviously I don't know every young adult personally but my, predominantly middle class, friends and acquaintances' children and their friends seem to be overall much more left wing than their parents, and more left wing than I remember us being at their age.

With honing, there's no reason why a Corbyn-like message couldn't appeal to this demographic. His eco-credentials seem sound. Younger people, not having grown up in the cold war, are less wedded to nuclear weapons than the population at large

http://www.basicint.org/sites/default/files/tridentpoliticspublicopinion_basicjul2013.pdf

There seems to be a space for a eco-aware, compassionate, anti-Trident party in British politics. Of course that was the Lib-Dems before the coalition ;).

Far from despising New Labour, they should be learning from it. Even if he survives to get a thrashing at the next election, once Corbyn has been and gone, the Labour Party will need to centre itself in a place where it can win elections, or choose to leave that role to others. Maybe it has to have a Corbyn moment to understand this.....which is a pity, because one thought that having a Foot moment would have been enough to do the trick.

I disagree, continuing to chase to the right will merely result in something like New Labour which, for all my high hopes in 1997 turned out to be nothing more than a Conservative government but without any kind of fiscal responsibility (here I'm referring specifically to PFI - New Labour's worst initiative). If Britain wants, and continues to want a Conservative government then it should elect one and not some Ersatz which tries to do the same thing, less effectively in different coloured ties.
 
It was more the "poor" aspect. That percentage appears to be increasing.


link

You want a discussion about "below 60% the median income" as a measure of poverty? OK.........then imagine a utopia in which, suddenly, the UK discovers an incredible source of national wealth, and distributes it amongst all it's citizens, giving everyone a hundred times their previous income, yet retaining a grip on inflation. OK?

Now........every single person who was previously described as poor under the above system is still described as poor. That's what relative poverty figures do.
 
.........If Britain wants, and continues to want a Conservative government then it should elect one and not some Ersatz which tries to do the same thing, less effectively in different coloured ties.

........ If the British public show that they're not interested in the Labour Party's core values then I guess the Conservatives will continue to form the government up until the increasing levels of economic, social and health inequalities they will inevitably create finally cause a political seismic shift. If it never happens then the Conservatives can continue in government in perpetuity because they'll be doing a good enough job for enough people...........

What a poverty of ambition that describes. That simply allows the Labour party to become a meaningless side-show in British politics so long as it stays true to its principles. What on earth is the point to a national party having principles that a vanishingly small group of people subscribe to? Before CraigB jumps in, I am talking hypothetically......taking your argument to an ad absurdum position to show it as a fallacy......and not suggesting this is the recent situation. What I am suggesting, however, is that this is the potential danger with the current Labour party.

If Britain wants piss-poor governance, then having only one party available for government is a great way to go about it, and a great way of achieving this is if one party a/ tears itself apart with infighting and/or b/ makes itself an irrelevance by having policies which a small fraction of the electorate support. It should be no consolation to the principled-but-irrelevant party that it can point its finger at the piss-poor government and sneer.
 
Last edited:
........There seems to be a space for a eco-aware, compassionate, anti-Trident party in British politics.........

I completely agree. But unless this is combined with a coherent economic policy, and sound expectations that they can run a modern economy well, then all of the preceding is as irrelevant as the location of the deck chairs on the Titanic.
 
Last edited:
If Britain wants piss-poor governance, then having only one party available for government is a great way to go about it, and a great way of achieving this is if one party a/ tears itself apart with infighting and/or b/ makes itself an irrelevance by having policies which a small fraction of the electorate support. It should be no consolation to the principled-but-irrelevant party that it can point its finger at the piss-poor government and sneer.

This is a big issue. A country is best served by having a credible opposition, if only to keep those in power (somewhat) honest and accountable.
 
You want a discussion about "below 60% the median income" as a measure of poverty? OK.........then imagine a utopia in which, suddenly, the UK discovers an incredible source of national wealth, and distributes it amongst all it's citizens, giving everyone a hundred times their previous income, yet retaining a grip on inflation. OK?

Now........every single person who was previously described as poor under the above system is still described as poor. That's what relative poverty figures do.
I think you have identified the fundamental difference in our opinions.

Compared to your ideal I think that should the nation discovers an incredible source of natural wealth there are better ways to redistribute it than giving those that already have he most the lions share and giving the poorest the least.
 
I think you have identified the fundamental difference in our opinions.

Compared to your ideal I think that should the nation discovers an incredible source of natural wealth there are better ways to redistribute it than giving those that already have he most the lions share and giving the poorest the least.

If you want honest conversation, then stop doing crap like this. Nowhere, as you perfectly well know, did I suggest that this is how such income should be distributed. It is ridiculous to tear apart an analogy and ascribe its obviously nonsensical premise to the person who wrote it. Do you want honest engagement? How about responding to what I said about the basis for determining poverty?
 
Almost all politicians and civil servants seem to have a policy of cutting public spending and also giving tax cuts to the extremely rich, which I think defies common sense principles. There also seems to be a shortage of politicians and civil servants now, and even lawyers and journalists, with any military or security experience nowadays. At least in the old days many politicians had been involved in the second world war. This can be dangerous when it becomes necessary to reduce tension in the world, or even to take military action.
 
Last edited:
There's an interesting (though complex) discussion of relative vs. absolute UK poverty rates here.

"Absolute poverty before housing costs hasn’t really changed a great deal over the last 10 years or so. Absolute poverty after housing costs has risen."

Looking at the graphs, though, neither has really changed much at all. The article does point out that these figures are based on surveys of established households and don't include those in hostels, B+B, sleeping rough, in institutions and so on.
 
Thanks for that Glenn.

Here is the evidence in support of my assertion that the percentage of people from poor backgrounds is falling (from a link on Glenn's link):
 

Attachments

  • UK absolute poverty.jpg
    UK absolute poverty.jpg
    71.2 KB · Views: 10
What a poverty of ambition that describes. That simply allows the Labour party to become a meaningless side-show in British politics so long as it stays true to its principles.

Given that the alternative you seem to be proposing is becoming a clone of the Conservative Party I'd say that it least it demonstrates some ambition.

Instead of the New Labour ethos of having no discernible set of core principles and constructing a collage of policies aimed solely at attracting votes, the Labour Party now seem to be saying "let's define our principles and attempt persuade people that they're right". In the case of the young, they may be pushing at an open door. This is the approach that the SNP took in Scotland with spectacular success whereas the suggestion that the Scottish Labour Party were just "Red Tories" was real turn-off for the voters.

If the British public want a party which is focused on austerity, cutting taxes for the richest, spending billions on nuclear weapons, reducing spending on front line services, reversing progress on renewable energy, meddling militarily in the Middle East and so on - there's already one of those, the Conservative Party, and they're very good at it.
 
This is a big issue. A country is best served by having a credible opposition, if only to keep those in power (somewhat) honest and accountable.

I'm not clear how the public is best served by an opposition whose policies are essentially indistinguishable from the government and so they end up engaging in petty squabbles or paralysing government over issues of political dogma.
 

Back
Top Bottom