5 ms·

The manifesto and ticket on which they stand is more than just a Corbyn brain dump, it's a reflection of the range of views within the Labour party, just as a T

The manifesto and ticket on which they stand is more than just a Corbyn brain dump, it's a reflection of the range of views within the Labour party, just as a Tory manifesto is more than just BoJo or May. Our Prime Ministers do not get US presidential - i.e. 18th century British monarchical - powers. Brexit reveals there are some major failings with the system and how it can be hijacked by a focused minority group (e.g. the ERG), but it is not subject to the major US weakness to the {right|wrong} individual.

rayiner 7y ago
Sure. But Labor had a big-S socialist plank in its platform as recently as the 1990s. They’ve selected as their leader an old Labor member that opposed the shift. What does that tell you about what direction the “range of views” in the party is heading? American Presidents don’t get monarchical powers. Trump has been able to deliver on almost none of his promises. But the leader a party picks is indicative of the mood of its policy makers writ large.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  They've selected policies intended to resonate with the majority of working people, rather than trying to out-Tory the Tories but with some social spending as New Labour was. The emptiness of New Labour, and the costs to our public services of Public Private Partnerships, that we will be paying for the next 20-50 years under those contracts has rather destroyed that as a vote winning stratagem. They threw out the baby with the bath water when getting rid of overly strong, and political union affiliations... The core premise of constraining capitalist excess, of aiming for redistribution, or "fairness" still resonates with a UK electorate. Despite 40 years of neoliberalism. I suspect the party still hasn't quite found the right balance to get elected, and Corbyn individually is quite a huge negative for the party electorally, but their policies are interesting. Some of them feel desperately needed and long overdue. The Conservatives have brought forth the same policy for 40 consecutive years with almost nothing new or nuanced. Just more of the same - even in areas where they have failed badly. :) Shitty leaders lose elections far more often than good leaders win them. > American Presidents don’t get monarchical powers It's surprisingly close and relates to Congress much as 18th century monarchy related to Parliament. > the leader a party picks is indicative of the mood of its policy makers writ large. True, but that again highlights the difference. A UK PM is often a markedly different MP on Parliamentary track record and voting to their administration.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    I disagree with almost all of that. But particularly this: > The Conservatives have brought forth the same policy for 40 consecutive years with almost nothing new or nuanced. Just more of the same - even in areas where they have failed badly. How can you say that Tories "failed?" As you say, Labor had to become "Tories but with some social spending" in order to win any elections. When your opponent needs to adopt much of your platform to be viable, isn't that winning? Same thing happened in the U.S. after Reagan. For 25 years they had to be "Republicans with some social liberalism." I call that winning.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      To spin back to the topic here, a Green party that finds a way of winning that forgets the environmental is no longer a green party. It's now a scam. Yet it's way more complex... I did say areas where the Tories have failed. The con of austerity that has unnecessarily contracted the economy and massively escalated the debt. The destruction of public services for reasons of dogma. The decline of NHS standards under every Conservative government through deliberate under-funding and artificial imposition of expensive market solutions to non-problems - e.g. the embarrassing failure of privatised parole and prisons in the UK, or the failed NHS internal market, all of which added cost. As an aside, that's why I am heavily against re-nationalisation of industries under Labour. Even if they manage to work well during a Labour term they'll fail hard under the Tories - as a matter of dogma. The nett effect will be more cost and worse result, and long term under funding. Much better to have gone with hard regulation than nationalisation. As is, nationalisation is their weak point that worked during post-war consensus, not any more. Winning at all costs, if you compromise your raison d'etre and forget those you once existed to help, is simply power for power's sake. It's why New Labour left, and still leaves an uncommonly bitter taste in UK politics - whether you were one time supporter or not - they were essentially bait and switch. Elections were an absence of choice when a New Labour manifesto could have been credibly put out by the Conservatives in a different cover. Vote on who has the nicer smile, nothing else much matters. The trust of politics reached a new low. Which is not to say Labour hadn't been through a process of highly damaging self-harm captured by extremists in the years before Blair became leader. Blair was probably necessary to retain a party of any description. The Conservatives are now engaging in a similar level of extremist self-harm surrounding Brexit - when the Brexit dust settles we will see what long term damage that brings. I suspect it will be significant, perhaps as significant as Labour's troubled decades. Both sides of the Atlantic the left seems to have been particularly slow to find an answer and reaction to neoliberalism of the right. Corbyn's Labour, though I dislike the individual, have found something that will resonate well, just as it did in 2017. There is much to like whether on the right or left. But not, I suspect, at this election. Meanwhile on the right, they ran out of ideas long ago. Tax cuts, more markets, less regulation, and um, that's it. I can't remember the last time a Conservative party had something they wanted to achieve or make better. They used to have plenty. Conservative vision is now something for one of their fringe meetings and never hits mainstream. On that basis, it is very likely that Labour will "win" this campaign easily on policy, but lose the election on Corbyn's rating with voters. After his years of being useless in the Commons, had they put out the exact same policy under a less controversial leader a win might have been far more likely... It remains to be seen if they will spin up entirely new policy with a replacement for Corbyn. In British elections that disparity is far from uncommon. Labour should have won in 87 and 17 on policy and campaign yet lost at the ballot box. Tories should have won on campaign and policy in 05, but lost the ballot. Then there's cyclical effects of having had enough of the current incumbent, regardless of "winning" policy. Thatcher could not have won in 92 (The year the FT backed Kinnock's Labour) even with perfect policies, somehow ideal to every voter. The change to Major was essential to that surprise win. Neither can you rule out effect of an overwhelmingly right wing, and increasingly inaccurate and partisan media. Edit; Sorry, that was far longer than intended. :)

rayiner 7y ago

Sure. But Labor had a big-S socialist plank in its platform as recently as the 1990s. They’ve selected as their leader an old Labor member that opposed the shift. What does that tell you about what direction the “range of views” in the party is heading? American Presidents don’t get monarchical powers. Trump has been able to deliver on almost none of his promises. But the leader a party picks is indicative of the mood of its policy makers writ large.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
They've selected policies intended to resonate with the majority of working people, rather than trying to out-Tory the Tories but with some social spending as New Labour was. The emptiness of New Labour, and the costs to our public services of Public Private Partnerships, that we will be paying for the next 20-50 years under those contracts has rather destroyed that as a vote winning stratagem. They threw out the baby with the bath water when getting rid of overly strong, and political union affiliations... The core premise of constraining capitalist excess, of aiming for redistribution, or "fairness" still resonates with a UK electorate. Despite 40 years of neoliberalism. I suspect the party still hasn't quite found the right balance to get elected, and Corbyn individually is quite a huge negative for the party electorally, but their policies are interesting. Some of them feel desperately needed and long overdue. The Conservatives have brought forth the same policy for 40 consecutive years with almost nothing new or nuanced. Just more of the same - even in areas where they have failed badly. :) Shitty leaders lose elections far more often than good leaders win them. > American Presidents don’t get monarchical powers It's surprisingly close and relates to Congress much as 18th century monarchy related to Parliament. > the leader a party picks is indicative of the mood of its policy makers writ large. True, but that again highlights the difference. A UK PM is often a markedly different MP on Parliamentary track record and voting to their administration.
- rayiner 7y ago
  I disagree with almost all of that. But particularly this: > The Conservatives have brought forth the same policy for 40 consecutive years with almost nothing new or nuanced. Just more of the same - even in areas where they have failed badly. How can you say that Tories "failed?" As you say, Labor had to become "Tories but with some social spending" in order to win any elections. When your opponent needs to adopt much of your platform to be viable, isn't that winning? Same thing happened in the U.S. after Reagan. For 25 years they had to be "Republicans with some social liberalism." I call that winning.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    To spin back to the topic here, a Green party that finds a way of winning that forgets the environmental is no longer a green party. It's now a scam. Yet it's way more complex... I did say areas where the Tories have failed. The con of austerity that has unnecessarily contracted the economy and massively escalated the debt. The destruction of public services for reasons of dogma. The decline of NHS standards under every Conservative government through deliberate under-funding and artificial imposition of expensive market solutions to non-problems - e.g. the embarrassing failure of privatised parole and prisons in the UK, or the failed NHS internal market, all of which added cost. As an aside, that's why I am heavily against re-nationalisation of industries under Labour. Even if they manage to work well during a Labour term they'll fail hard under the Tories - as a matter of dogma. The nett effect will be more cost and worse result, and long term under funding. Much better to have gone with hard regulation than nationalisation. As is, nationalisation is their weak point that worked during post-war consensus, not any more. Winning at all costs, if you compromise your raison d'etre and forget those you once existed to help, is simply power for power's sake. It's why New Labour left, and still leaves an uncommonly bitter taste in UK politics - whether you were one time supporter or not - they were essentially bait and switch. Elections were an absence of choice when a New Labour manifesto could have been credibly put out by the Conservatives in a different cover. Vote on who has the nicer smile, nothing else much matters. The trust of politics reached a new low. Which is not to say Labour hadn't been through a process of highly damaging self-harm captured by extremists in the years before Blair became leader. Blair was probably necessary to retain a party of any description. The Conservatives are now engaging in a similar level of extremist self-harm surrounding Brexit - when the Brexit dust settles we will see what long term damage that brings. I suspect it will be significant, perhaps as significant as Labour's troubled decades. Both sides of the Atlantic the left seems to have been particularly slow to find an answer and reaction to neoliberalism of the right. Corbyn's Labour, though I dislike the individual, have found something that will resonate well, just as it did in 2017. There is much to like whether on the right or left. But not, I suspect, at this election. Meanwhile on the right, they ran out of ideas long ago. Tax cuts, more markets, less regulation, and um, that's it. I can't remember the last time a Conservative party had something they wanted to achieve or make better. They used to have plenty. Conservative vision is now something for one of their fringe meetings and never hits mainstream. On that basis, it is very likely that Labour will "win" this campaign easily on policy, but lose the election on Corbyn's rating with voters. After his years of being useless in the Commons, had they put out the exact same policy under a less controversial leader a win might have been far more likely... It remains to be seen if they will spin up entirely new policy with a replacement for Corbyn. In British elections that disparity is far from uncommon. Labour should have won in 87 and 17 on policy and campaign yet lost at the ballot box. Tories should have won on campaign and policy in 05, but lost the ballot. Then there's cyclical effects of having had enough of the current incumbent, regardless of "winning" policy. Thatcher could not have won in 92 (The year the FT backed Kinnock's Labour) even with perfect policies, somehow ideal to every voter. The change to Major was essential to that surprise win. Neither can you rule out effect of an overwhelmingly right wing, and increasingly inaccurate and partisan media. Edit; Sorry, that was far longer than intended. :)