Scrutable

plebian wrote: Mon Dec 23, 2019 12:56 pm Which should happen to all legislation in a functioning democracy.

bolo wrote: Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:29 pm Sure, you may need to modify an electoral position once in office because you have to compromise to get legislation enacted, or because you find that actually implementing a policy, while remaining true to the spirit of your electoral position, requires some adjustments. This process tends to move the outcome toward the political middle.

It's very different to go into an election pretending that you are a moderate, planning the whole time to pivot away from the middle after being elected as a sort of gotcha on the electorate.

Herainestold wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 2:29 pm Need to find somebody whoo looks moderate but has deep progressive and leftish instincts and who will pivot that way once elected.

Herainestold wrote: Mon Dec 23, 2019 3:52 pm If you have a radical agenda and you promote it in a straightforward manner, you risk attracting the attention of those who can interfere in the campaign and subvert opinion. The media establishment, American billionaires, Russian troll farms, others who act behind the scenes. That is why it is so difficult for a politician to promote progressivist agenda in these parlous days. You have to play a subtle game, where your radical bonfides are known, but your policy approvals appear centrist and non threatening.

Not easy to accomplish at all.

plodder wrote: Mon Dec 23, 2019 4:40 pm

Herainestold wrote: Mon Dec 23, 2019 3:52 pm If you have a radical agenda and you promote it in a straightforward manner, you risk attracting the attention of those who can interfere in the campaign and subvert opinion. The media establishment, American billionaires, Russian troll farms, others who act behind the scenes. That is why it is so difficult for a politician to promote progressivist agenda in these parlous days. You have to play a subtle game, where your radical bonfides are known, but your policy approvals appear centrist and non threatening.

Not easy to accomplish at all.

FFS. Corbyn is not an honest progressive with an excellent agenda that was subverted by vested interests.

He's a dishonest regressive with a crazy agenda that was subverted by vested interests.

GeenDienst wrote: Mon Dec 23, 2019 1:30 pm Momentum's leadership will likely now insist that the core of Labour 2019 Manifesto is a sacred, unmodifiable document. Lansman has already said they will work with any leader, but expect McDonnell's economic policies.

Everybody will cospire to forget the broadband bollocks, though.

I think what we have to understand is what Brexit was. For many of us watching Brexit unfold, Brexit was a policy of a faction of the Conservative party and the right of this country that wanted to put globalisation on steroids, if you want, and it was a hard right political project. And I believe that the Labour party had to fight that with all its vigour and to offer an alternative.

I don’t believe this was the main reason for what happened to us in the election, but I think one of the things that we have to accept is that if you pick a side, you have to then argue for that side, and argue for it comprehensively. And what we didn’t do, by triangulating - one of the key USPs of Jeremy Corbyn was that he was an authentic politician, I genuinely believe that he was, but on the biggest political crisis of British modern politics we were unable, via Jeremy, to be able to take a position. I think actually we should have stood our ground and argued our case.

Somewhat ironically, Long Bailey’s 850-word op-ed rails against New Labour “triangulation,” yet itself reads rather like a carefully calibrated pitch to the different power bases within the party. It also seems to borrow heavily from several of the leadership bids we’ve already heard. So there’s the essential nod to Labour’s trade union backers (“they are our roots in every workplace); the Clive Lewis-style hint of more power for party members (“our promise to democratise society will ring hollow if we can’t even democratise our own party”); and the Keir Starmer-ish pledge to left-wingers that Corbyn’s policy agenda will not be abandoned (“we cannot return to the politics of the past.”) Then there’s the establishment of working-class credentials (“I grew up watching my father’s friends lose their jobs”); and the Lisa Nandy-style vow to return power and patriotic pride to communities (“we must revive this progressive patriotism.”) If none of that sounds terribly original, well, that’s because it isn’t. But that doesn’t mean it won’t be enough to win.

Don’t be fooled by this. It’s purely an attempt to convince us all that RLB is not a far left choice. He won’t really stand, she will.

sheldrake wrote: Mon Dec 30, 2019 12:26 pm Lewis' 'If only we'd come out more solidly for remain we could have won' is exactly the kind of deep delusion the centre left has to purge itself of to gain power again. This is so incredibly and deeply wrong.

greyspoke wrote: Mon Dec 30, 2019 2:59 pm

sheldrake wrote: Mon Dec 30, 2019 12:26 pm Lewis' 'If only we'd come out more solidly for remain we could have won' is exactly the kind of deep delusion the centre left has to purge itself of to gain power again. This is so incredibly and deeply wrong.

Backing remain and continuing to do so would have been a long game with an uncertain outcome. It will be the "I told you so" option in the next election but one, or a dud. But the approach they took was the worst of all, if they had gone firmly remain (or firmly leave) they would have lost by less. From where Labour is now, it should be playing a long game as there is little in the short term to play for.

GeenDienst wrote: Mon Dec 30, 2019 10:51 am Lavery can enter an endless cycle of repeated f.cking off farther away. He is one of the prime architects of Labour's current clusterf.ck.

sheldrake wrote: Mon Dec 30, 2019 4:18 pm

greyspoke wrote: Mon Dec 30, 2019 2:59 pm

sheldrake wrote: Mon Dec 30, 2019 12:26 pm Lewis' 'If only we'd come out more solidly for remain we could have won' is exactly the kind of deep delusion the centre left has to purge itself of to gain power again. This is so incredibly and deeply wrong.

Backing remain and continuing to do so would have been a long game with an uncertain outcome. It will be the "I told you so" option in the next election but one, or a dud. But the approach they took was the worst of all, if they had gone firmly remain (or firmly leave) they would have lost by less. From where Labour is now, it should be playing a long game as there is little in the short term to play for.

The Labour party today, in my view, is tasting the blowback from telling working class people what they ought to think, rather than representing what they actually think, and this resentment has been brewing up for a while.

I may be biased by having been a leaver myself, but I think in some respects this helps me understand other leavers; I don't see an upside to one day possibly being able to tell people they had been wrong. Winning elections is about being popular, not about being right.

sheldrake wrote: Mon Dec 30, 2019 4:18 pm ...

I may be biased by having been a leaver myself, but I think in some respects this helps me understand other leavers; I don't see an upside to one day possibly being able to tell people they had been wrong. Winning elections is about being popular, not about being right.