This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[EastAnglianLefty]

And as for turnout drops being uniform - whilst this was *mostly* the case in 2001 it was rather less so four years earlier when the drop was concentrated in safe Labour seats (and some really hardcore areas, eg inner Manchester and Liverpool, had seen a fall against the trend in *1992*)

Does this actually argue against the point? Manchester and Liverpool are known for many things, but high life expectancy is not one of them, so you'd expect any cyclical decline in turnout to manifest there first.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

And as for turnout drops being uniform - whilst this was *mostly* the case in 2001 it was rather less so four years earlier when the drop was concentrated in safe Labour seats (and some really hardcore areas, eg inner Manchester and Liverpool, had seen a fall against the trend in *1992*)

Does this actually argue against the point? Manchester and Liverpool are known for many things, but high life expectancy is not one of them, so you'd expect any cyclical decline in turnout to manifest there first.

Interesting observation.

[CumbrianLefty]

The hypothesis fits the information that we have and nothing else does.

I might be missing something, but isn't it a fallacy to base an argument about turnout off of the number of dead voters?

I don't mean to be rude, but I think you've not thought this argument through. Turnout drops in the UK in the 90s occurred across age cohorts; even the *living* 65+ y/o voters showed up less after 1992. Also, declines in turnout occurred during the 90s and 00s almost everywhere: in the US, UK, Canada, NZ, France (started in the 80s, actually), and even Australia (it was, like, 1 point, but still). If your theory of generational replacement were true - and we're talking about voter age cohort proportions and not turnout because, again, dead people don't vote no matter what the GOP says - then you'd see proportional drops in each country depending on life expectancy and age/population distribution.*

For the hell of it, as an alternative theory based on a modicum of statistical data, perhaps it's the *other* side of the generational span that's the culprit? Starting after the Cold War young people didn't become first time voters the way preceding generations did. That's born out by age-bracketed turnout data in the UK and Canada, but admittedly a lot more analysis would be needed to offer a serious argument.

As for Corbyn, he was clearly closer to the 'right answer' (whatever that's supposed to mean) to the question posed by the collapse of late 20th/early 21st century neoliberalism than the Labour right or the Lib Dems or the Greens or even the pre-UKIP-absorption Tories were able to offer - he did get 40% of the vote, after all. If the pearl clutching centrists of 2015-2017 had had the humility to stop looking down their noses at him, they might have had a chance to use Corbyn to preserve the world they built - and have subsequently lost.

*Also, your subsequent attribution of the pre-baby boom generation's high turnout to formative experiences instilling hostility to 'populism' seems more like wishful thinking (or is it projection?)

This is a certified Labour Left moment. "the collapse of neoliberalism!" as Britons enjoy prosperity and wealth, "Corbyn got 40%," ignoring his 33% 2 years later. 

Typically incisive contribution from you

The primary cause of the Corbyn insurgency was that "prosperity and wealth" in the UK is skewed.

Again this militant rhetoric isn't helpful "insurgency" and other such terms make you look like a radical loon. Labour can't win an election without winning moderate voters.

Militant rhetoric, LOL.

Its a turn of phrase widely used in the media and across the political spectrum.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The hypothesis fits the information that we have and nothing else does.

I might be missing something, but isn't it a fallacy to base an argument about turnout off of the number of dead voters?

I don't mean to be rude, but I think you've not thought this argument through. Turnout drops in the UK in the 90s occurred across age cohorts; even the *living* 65+ y/o voters showed up less after 1992. Also, declines in turnout occurred during the 90s and 00s almost everywhere: in the US, UK, Canada, NZ, France (started in the 80s, actually), and even Australia (it was, like, 1 point, but still). If your theory of generational replacement were true - and we're talking about voter age cohort proportions and not turnout because, again, dead people don't vote no matter what the GOP says - then you'd see proportional drops in each country depending on life expectancy and age/population distribution.*

For the hell of it, as an alternative theory based on a modicum of statistical data, perhaps it's the *other* side of the generational span that's the culprit? Starting after the Cold War young people didn't become first time voters the way preceding generations did. That's born out by age-bracketed turnout data in the UK and Canada, but admittedly a lot more analysis would be needed to offer a serious argument.

As for Corbyn, he was clearly closer to the 'right answer' (whatever that's supposed to mean) to the question posed by the collapse of late 20th/early 21st century neoliberalism than the Labour right or the Lib Dems or the Greens or even the pre-UKIP-absorption Tories were able to offer - he did get 40% of the vote, after all. If the pearl clutching centrists of 2015-2017 had had the humility to stop looking down their noses at him, they might have had a chance to use Corbyn to preserve the world they built - and have subsequently lost.

*Also, your subsequent attribution of the pre-baby boom generation's high turnout to formative experiences instilling hostility to 'populism' seems more like wishful thinking (or is it projection?)

This is a certified Labour Left moment. "the collapse of neoliberalism!" as Britons enjoy prosperity and wealth, "Corbyn got 40%," ignoring his 33% 2 years later. 

Typically incisive contribution from you

The primary cause of the Corbyn insurgency was that "prosperity and wealth" in the UK is skewed.

Thanks!

Except that most Britons don't share that view, at least as you express it.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The hypothesis fits the information that we have and nothing else does.

I might be missing something, but isn't it a fallacy to base an argument about turnout off of the number of dead voters?

I don't mean to be rude, but I think you've not thought this argument through. Turnout drops in the UK in the 90s occurred across age cohorts; even the *living* 65+ y/o voters showed up less after 1992. Also, declines in turnout occurred during the 90s and 00s almost everywhere: in the US, UK, Canada, NZ, France (started in the 80s, actually), and even Australia (it was, like, 1 point, but still). If your theory of generational replacement were true - and we're talking about voter age cohort proportions and not turnout because, again, dead people don't vote no matter what the GOP says - then you'd see proportional drops in each country depending on life expectancy and age/population distribution.*

For the hell of it, as an alternative theory based on a modicum of statistical data, perhaps it's the *other* side of the generational span that's the culprit? Starting after the Cold War young people didn't become first time voters the way preceding generations did. That's born out by age-bracketed turnout data in the UK and Canada, but admittedly a lot more analysis would be needed to offer a serious argument.

As for Corbyn, he was clearly closer to the 'right answer' (whatever that's supposed to mean) to the question posed by the collapse of late 20th/early 21st century neoliberalism than the Labour right or the Lib Dems or the Greens or even the pre-UKIP-absorption Tories were able to offer - he did get 40% of the vote, after all. If the pearl clutching centrists of 2015-2017 had had the humility to stop looking down their noses at him, they might have had a chance to use Corbyn to preserve the world they built - and have subsequently lost.

*Also, your subsequent attribution of the pre-baby boom generation's high turnout to formative experiences instilling hostility to 'populism' seems more like wishful thinking (or is it projection?)

This is a certified Labour Left moment. "the collapse of neoliberalism!" as Britons enjoy prosperity and wealth, "Corbyn got 40%," ignoring his 33% 2 years later. 

Typically incisive contribution from you

The primary cause of the Corbyn insurgency was that "prosperity and wealth" in the UK is skewed.

Again this militant rhetoric isn't helpful "insurgency" and other such terms make you look like a radical loon. Labour can't win an election without winning moderate voters.

Let them keep thinking 2021 Britain is 1917 Russia, it'll take them great places.

[Blair]

Can you kindly not pollute this thread? The USGD board exists for this purpose.

[CumbrianLefty]

As they say in these parts (but not over there) hear hear.

[Blair]

Baffling.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1435499794001244160

[EastAnglianLefty]

Not really. Adonis being wrong is a fairly reliable constant.

[CumbrianLefty]

I'm just surprised he didn't crowbar in a Brexit reference somewhere.

[Blair]

I'm just surprised he didn't crowbar in a Brexit reference somewhere.

Ironically that was the next tweet.

What is is about New Labour lords…

[CumbrianLefty]

Labour "staffers" supposedly gushingly cosplaying Kinnock's 1985 speech this morning, in preparation for the coming party conference.

(apart from the point, quite correctly made, that Labour didn't return to power for another 12 years afterwards - it is now longer ago than the end of the Attlee government was when it was made. For crying out loud, just move on)

[Blair]

They never mention the part where Neil Kinnock and his inner circle equally bashed, maligned and marginalised Labour led local authorities (one such example was well known leftist Margaret Hodge) for promoting gay rights, police oversight boards and funds for Liberation groups- all of which were eventually mainstream New Labour ideas.

I’m partly convinced the Kinnock thing is about age and who shaped your Labour politics; I know people on the right in their 50s and 60s who gush about him while my generation even within Labour is a bit more lukewarm.

A fun trick to play is to show the 1992 manifesto to these people and make them realise that he was at least in some respects not as right wing as these staffers think.

[Blair]

I’ve also u-turned on my view about how the NI rise has been handled- I thought the party was on weak ground, was then reassured by Rachel Reeves yesterday in Parliament but the party still seems rather hesitant to talk about it in a way that’s convincing or personal.

It was the first time I heard that Keir’s sister is a care worker- and we have a deputy leader who was a care worker and union rep!

It’s worrying as we seem to be in the exact same mess as we were over corporation tax and we can’t blame this on Anneliese Dodds.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Labour in opposition (all leaderships since 2010 have been prone to this) has a bad habit of assuming that it needs to come up with detailed alternatives whenever it opposes something that the government does. Of course the media's weird habit of acting as if Labour is in power or has any influence over policy contributes. It's all very silly.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Kinnock wasn't (and isn't!) on the right-wing of the Labour Party.* But pseudo-history is more powerful than actual history for most people too deep inside THIGMOO to get out now. Though we should also be careful about briefings of this sort as most of the people relaying them are proven bad faith actors.

_{*His son is, but so what? So are Tony Benn's children and grandchildren.}

[Cassius]

Kinnock wasn't (and isn't!) on the right-wing of the Labour Party.* But pseudo-history is more powerful than actual history for most people too deep inside THIGMOO to get out now. Though we should also be careful about briefings of this sort as most of the people relaying them are proven bad faith actors.

_{*His son is, but so what? So are Tony Benn's children and grandchildren.}

But Kinnock ‘betrayed’ the left (the origins of the soft-hard left split lie in the decision by Kinnock and others to abstain from voting for Tony Benn for Deputy Leader if I recall correctly?), which surely makes him worse in the eyes of some.

[Blair]

Labour in opposition (all leaderships since 2010 have been prone to this) has a bad habit of assuming that it needs to come up with detailed alternatives whenever it opposes something that the government does. Of course the media's weird habit of acting as if Labour is in power or has any influence over policy contributes. It's all very silly.

I’m shamefully lifting it from the NS podcast but they mentioned how the mansion tax was an example how it can go badly and become a constant sore point. It was before I followed politics closely enough to understand how good or bad the actual details of it were but I remember by 2015 it was a drag.

There’s a reason Mac the Knife ditched it!

I can’t actually remember what it was going to pay for! The successful tax rises are broadly those attached to something popular- the windfall tax, Browns NI rise etc.

[Blair]

Kinnock wasn't (and isn't!) on the right-wing of the Labour Party.* But pseudo-history is more powerful than actual history for most people too deep inside THIGMOO to get out now. Though we should also be careful about briefings of this sort as most of the people relaying them are proven bad faith actors.

_{*His son is, but so what? So are Tony Benn's children and grandchildren.}

Almost as ironic as Barry Gardiner becoming a hero to the Labour left!

[Zinneke]

Kinnock wasn't (and isn't!) on the right-wing of the Labour Party.* But pseudo-history is more powerful than actual history for most people too deep inside THIGMOO to get out now. Though we should also be careful about briefings of this sort as most of the people relaying them are proven bad faith actors.

_{*His son is, but so what? So are Tony Benn's children and grandchildren.}

What about his son?

[CumbrianLefty]

They never mention the part where Neil Kinnock and his inner circle equally bashed, maligned and marginalised Labour led local authorities (one such example was well known leftist Margaret Hodge) for promoting gay rights, police oversight boards and funds for Liberation groups- all of which were eventually mainstream New Labour ideas.

I’m partly convinced the Kinnock thing is about age and who shaped your Labour politics; I know people on the right in their 50s and 60s who gush about him while my generation even within Labour is a bit more lukewarm.

A fun trick to play is to show the 1992 manifesto to these people and make them realise that he was at least in some respects not as right wing as these staffers think.

Thing is, a lot of Blairites have done a 180 degree turn on Kinnock Snr compared to a decade ago.

Back then, they resented his comment of "we've got our party back" after Ed Miliband became leader and widely derided him as a "loser". But his being anti-Corbyn (of course) changed everything.

[Blair]

Well those 12 hours were nice

[GoTfan]

Jessica Barnard, Chair of Young Labour, was placed under investigation reportedly for opposing transphobia 7 hours ago. 3 hours ago, the investigation was rescinded, with a party spokesperson saying that the investigation had been opened in error.

[CumbrianLefty]

Jessica Bernard, Chair of Young Labour, was placed under investigation reportedly for opposing transphobia 7 hours ago. 3 hours ago, the investigation was rescinded, with a party spokesperson saying that the investigation had been opened in error.

Barnard, not Bernard.

But what this episode - combined with others - shows is that there is a "feral" element within party HQ that is pretty much totally out of control. It was someone like this - if not the same person - who was the "Labour source" spewing hate towards Muslims during and after the Batley and Spen byelection, to take just one of several examples.

When is this long promised "independent" disciplnary system coming into place, then?

[Blair]

Is there a finer tradition than trying to flog a book before conference?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/13/keir-starmer-jeremy-corbyn-suspension?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other