This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[CumbrianLefty]

Nobody really stands out tbh. In some ways Findlay is the most able, but he has his own flaws and says he is leaving front line politics next year anyway.

[CumbrianLefty]

More generally though it's funny how the discussion within Labour has switched from the post-referendum 'We'll only win back Scotland if we follow my pre-ordained policy positions' to 'who the F**K knows'.

It was widely mentioned when phonebanking in the '15 election by JC supporters that he'd win Scottish seats back (something that to his credit he did) but by 2020 election it was barely discussed at all; like there's virtual agreement across the party that there is no obvious route back.

I use to suscribe to the more zealot based view of SLab being a firm unionist party, strongly supporting remain & opposing Brexit; while having the policy flexibility we saw with Welsh Labour. But honestly with the dire state we're in & the threat to union (and by extension the future of a Labour majority) you almost wonder if supporting indy-ref 2, giving Findlay the leadership and just completely turning the whole thing upside might actually be more worthwhile.

Scotland, like the north of England, seems to be one of those places where Labour is paying the political price for Tory governments' neglectful and contemptuous behaviour over generations.

Supporting indy-ref 2 should definitely be on the agenda, and at this stage I'm unsure if losing Scotland really does pose that big a threat to a future Labour majority - I can't see for the life of me how post-Brexit the SNP will lose seats.

If they lose another independence referendum.

Which is why they will only really push for it when they are almost certain of winning one. Polling now shows they are getting there, but as with St Augustine "not just yet".

[CumbrianLefty]

Tbf the 14% was I think a single poll, they are generally scoring a bit better than that but not much.

[CumbrianLefty]

The reaction from Corbynites to that article has often been along the lines of "Blue Labour, ugh". A sentiment I would not actually disagree with, were it true. I think the reality is more hopeful, however.

[CumbrianLefty]

Well the Twitter shouters do, perhaps. The more thinking elements of Corbynism (yes they do actually exist, you know) see it more as red-brown cranks like Paul Embery.

[CumbrianLefty]

Also interesting is this.

That as basically mundane a personality as Corbyn excited such irrational extreme passions in *both* directions really is one of the paradoxes of the past five years.

[CumbrianLefty]

The reaction from Corbynites to that article has often been along the lines of "Blue Labour, ugh". A sentiment I would not actually disagree with, were it true. I think the reality is more hopeful, however.

I agree, Blue Labour and Starmer's politics (as described in the article) seem to have very different priorities. To put it crudely, I felt like the former prioritised social conservatism as an end in itself, while the latter seems rooted in more 'traditional' labour movement priorities (as Al describes).

For me, the giveaway with Blue Labour was the "family, faith, flag" slogan - the middle one especially. Even amongst the fabled working class voters of the now almost totally mythologised "red wall" - how many of them do you think go to church regularly, actually?

[CumbrianLefty]

The no confidence motion due to be tabled at today's ScotLab meeting against leader Richard Leonard has apparently been withdrawn. Hard to see that as meaning anything other than the plotters falling short of the numbers needed to succeed.

[CumbrianLefty]

Actually unclear if they were going to vote against Leonard, or merely abstain.

And the number one rule of plotting, anyway, is surely DON'T CALL A NO-CONFIDENCE VOTE UNLESS YOU ARE ALL BUT CERTAIN THAT YOU WILL WIN IT!

[CumbrianLefty]

Jenny Marra kicked off this botched coup, that's all you need to know really.

[CumbrianLefty]

In 2015, Miliband found himself unpopular with swing voters both for being 'weak' and for 'having stabbed his brother in the back'. These two things are, of course, contradictory, and actually his best moments as leader were all occasions when he showed that he's actually quite a ruthless politician, but they made the strategic error of trying to present him as likeable rather than as effective.

Indeed - taking on the energy companies, sticking up for his dad against the Daily Heil smears and (perhaps most of all) torpedoing Cameron's half-baked scheme for intervention in Syria.

After all of these, he saw his personal ratings go up significantly (Labour's weren't harmed either) But still, he appeared in thrall to people who continually urged him to try to be something he was not.

[CumbrianLefty]

Oh and however poor his 2014 conference speech was (and I agree those in the preceding few years were a lot better) it pales compared to the utterly catastrophic offering Balls served up then.

A genuine factor in the following year's defeat, I will always be convinced of that.

[CumbrianLefty]

Honestly, Miliband's 2014 conference speech was fine. A bit bland, but not actively bad. It only got panned because the media had decided everything had to be about the deficit, for reasons that had just about nothing to do with the actual state of the economy.

Aided by certain elements within Labour, unfortunately.

[CumbrianLefty]

Starmer's "big speech" this morning.

Totally predictably, online Corbynism having a fit because he mentioned the word "patriotism".

[CumbrianLefty]

Though they were fine with Jeremy "I love this country" Corbyn.....

(one thing I learned from this discussion that had genuinely passed me by before - JC's first speech at conference as leader name-checked the 2012 Olympics opening ceremony as a reason to be proud of being British; given how it subsequently became a totem of ur-centrism that is pretty amusing)

[CumbrianLefty]

And there's some wretched Twitter rumpus about Nandy supposedly saying "Britain first".

(it appears that perhaps she didn't, but what *were* her exact words?)

[CumbrianLefty]

The most credible explanation of this I have seen is that Labour taking a definite stance over this might have cost them actual front benchers, abstaining kept the "losses" to a handful of PPSs. Now that isn't exactly a noble reason either, but it maybe makes more sense than the rather pat "they won't do anything to upset these increasingly imaginary 'Red Wall' voters".

[CumbrianLefty]

What's the worst that can happen to her if she is found guilty?

Considering what her predecessor got away with in pretty much broad daylight, it would indeed be ironic if she fell foul of the law so quickly. And no, i didn't think she was anything like 55.

[CumbrianLefty]

So still not looking good for her if she is convicted.

[CumbrianLefty]

Its really not.

Some voters don't like Starmer, actual representative surveys show that also quite a lot do.

[CumbrianLefty]

Its really not.

Some voters don't like Starmer, actual representative surveys show that also quite a lot do.

Actual representative surveys mean nothing.

Well that's just - there is no other way to put this - simply not true.

Corbyn polled better at the time you mention, when more people actually liked him.

This isn't rocket science.

[CumbrianLefty]

The shocking revelation for me is that googlebox is still on TV.

Ratings wise it pulls in at least a few million each episode. About the same as some of the better panel shows (QI, 8 out of 10 Cats), and about half as much as daytime soaps like Coronation St.

By contrast, PMQs only gets above 1M when there's a new leader or it's September 2019, and that only lasts a week.

My point is that the efforts of Starmer's acolytes to portray his forensic (ugh) performances in PMQs and the wholly predictable improvement over Corbyn's late 2019 numbers as something voters are impressed by is little more than wishful thinking.  

i've been involved in politics for 40 years now, you don't need to lecture me or others on here about how polling or the media works. We already know.

(not to mention that my criticisms of both are on the record here and elsewhere)

And my anecdotal evidence - just as valid as yours - is that Starmer is doing "OK to decent" with most people. No, he doesn't inspire the devotion that Corbyn did with a minority, but that's not actually "normal". And it might mean he doesn't cause revulsion in another (ultimately larger) group either.

[CumbrianLefty]

The shocking revelation for me is that googlebox is still on TV.

Ratings wise it pulls in at least a few million each episode. About the same as some of the better panel shows (QI, 8 out of 10 Cats), and about half as much as daytime soaps like Coronation St.

By contrast, PMQs only gets above 1M when there's a new leader or it's September 2019, and that only lasts a week.

My point is that the efforts of Starmer's acolytes to portray his forensic (ugh) performances in PMQs and the wholly predictable improvement over Corbyn's late 2019 numbers as something voters are impressed by is little more than wishful thinking.  

i've been involved in politics for 40 years now, you don't need to lecture me or others on here about how polling or the media works. We already know.

(not to mention that my criticisms of both are on the record here and elsewhere)

And my anecdotal evidence - just as valid as yours - is that Starmer is doing "OK to decent" with most people. No, he doesn't inspire the devotion that Corbyn did with a minority, but that's not actually "normal". And it might mean he doesn't cause revulsion in another (ultimately larger) group either.

Ok Boomer

Oi there, I was born in 1966 I will have you know

Though tbh I think the cut off birthdate for Boomers/Generation X is a bit too late at circa 1965.

In a UK context I think a good guide is the following:

Old enough to vote in the 1964 GE - Golden Generation
Old enough to vote in the 1979 GE - Boomer
Old enough to vote in the 1997 GE - Generation X
Old enough to vote in the 2015 GE - Millennial
Younger than that - Generation Y or should that actually be Z

[CumbrianLefty]

There were actually two baby booms in the UK (one in the late 40s/early 50s and one in the early 60s), not one. Interestingly, the people born in between did not have a particularly lucky run of things (e.g. if you were born in 1953, you would typically have been entering the labour market in a serious way in the early 70s and, well, good luck with that), so a lot of the cheap, imported American generational rhetoric is not accurate and is probably needlessly aggravating.

Is it accurate anywhere?  Give silly names to arbitrarily defined "generations" if you like, but don't expect the places where you put the boundaries to actually mean anything.

Sure, this is understandable and to some degree justified.

But there isn't much doubt, for example, that "boomers" are actually a real thing?

[CumbrianLefty]

Some do actually distinguish "boomers" from the really old tbf (and that has some relevance regarding the 2016 EU referendum amongst other things)