This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[Blair]

And now another one from Abbott that was a bit badly worded if you didn’t know what it was a reference to…

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ah, one of those days where elderly Honourable Members make a valiant effort to demonstrate the argument for a compulsory retirement age.

[CumbrianLefty]

And now another one from Abbott that was a bit badly worded if you didn’t know what it was a reference to…

Though of course most people will have known full well what she was referring to, and I do find some of the performative outrage about it a bit wearying for that reason. But yes, it was still unwise.

[TheTide]

In the case of Abbott, it's less of an 'age' thing and more of a 'Diane Abbott' thing.

[CumbrianLefty]

Yes, though there has been speculation about her general health for a few years now.

[EastAnglianLefty]

In the case of Abbott, it's less of an 'age' thing and more of a 'Diane Abbott' thing.

And indeed a "Who the hell is running Diane Abbott's Twitter account, and why are they still doing so?"

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's a bad situation, whatever the exact details.

[CumbrianLefty]

Darren Jones getting some very good reviews right now - and not just from fellow Labour rightists.

[Torrain]

Yeah - I've suddenly seen his name start to come up fairly frequently (albeit, amongst the more obsessive Westminster watchers I interact with online). Genuine breakthrough moment, or cheerleading ahead of the (long rumoured) autumn reshuffle?

Wouldn't be the first time Starmer plucks a Committee Chair and drops them straight onto the front bench.

[Blair]

Darren Jones getting some very good reviews right now - and not just from fellow Labour rightists.

The situation is even more ironic as (for non THIGMOO obsessives) he’s used his position as Chair of the BEIS select committee to really shine a light on the bad practice of various companies in the U.K. and has promoted himself very effectively in the press.

it was suspected at the time that he was elected as chair by the Conservative payroll vote who saw the other two candidates (Angle Eagle and Stella Creasy) as likely to cause more harm for the Government  - as all MPs can vote it tends to lead to this sort of skullduggery- the same was said about why a Hoyle won in 2019 over Harman and Byrant.

[Blair]

I want a name for the classic THiGMO outcome where the weaker choice gets elected to a role, or put on a shortlist to let someone else wins and ends up doing much better than expected when they win.

[CumbrianLefty]

Hoyle won in 2019 mainly because he was seen as the anti-Bercow.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think also because, and this should never be underestimated as a factor in elections for Speaker, he is very well liked and thought to be fair-minded.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Or to put it another way, the anti-Bercow.

[Blair]

I think also because, and this should never be underestimated as a factor in elections for Speaker, he is very well liked and thought to be fair-minded.

Yes I didn’t say it quite out loud but the two other labour candidates had a history of errrr annoying people who were still serving as backbenchers on the Labour side at least. The banter outcome would have been if she or a Byrant had won because the Government with their new majority would have sought to dump them.

It was always strange imv that Harman went for it- I think the days of former cabinet members becoming Speaker are over especially one who was so identified with her party.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Or to put it another way, the anti-Bercow.

Yes lol. Whereas Bercow's personality would normally have ruled him out but it was a sudden vacancy caused by the expenses scandal and there was a view that A Reformer was required, and he seemed to fit the bill.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It was always strange imv that Harman went for it- I think the days of former cabinet members becoming Speaker are over especially one who was so identified with her party.

Basically became impossible as soon as contested elections for the post became the norm, which happened largely because enough people on the Conservative backbenches thought that Peter Brooke was an arse.

[CumbrianLefty]

ISTR that Bernard Weatherill was not Thatcher's preferred choice in 1983 (it was Humphrey Atkins, of course that one did not ultimately go to a vote)

[Blair]

Or to put it another way, the anti-Bercow.

Yes lol. Whereas Bercow's personality would normally have ruled him out but it was a sudden vacancy caused by the expenses scandal and there was a view that A Reformer was required, and he seemed to fit the bill.

Did he have the same reputation among MPs back then? He always struck me as someone who knew how to charm and who needed to be charmed- he is in my view one of the most fascinating members for a whole host of both good and less good reasons.

It was always strange imv that Harman went for it- I think the days of former cabinet members becoming Speaker are over especially one who was so identified with her party.

Basically became impossible as soon as contested elections for the post became the norm, which happened largely because enough people on the Conservative backbenches thought that Peter Brooke was an arse.

Yes I remember reading about how both parties leaderships essentially forced Selwyn Lloyd to take the job and iirc wasn’t the rather terrible Michael Martin basically elected because the Labour backbenchers and Browns people (Anne Keen ran his campaign) didn’t want an ex Tory cabinet minister

[Blair]

On another subject I was curious what peoples thoughts are on the speed/quality of the candidate selection?

It occurred to me that even a modest Labour majority of around 30-40 would see what 150 new members including a fair few in seats that will not exactly be high profile selections

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

So, uh, what exactly has happened to the Labour Party in the past few years? I don't mean the immediate aftermath of Corbyn being replaced--all that was expected--but a total surrender of nearly everything Labour historically stood for to an extent not seen since the Blair years. Starmer has come out against nationalizations (which have overwhelming public support), against increased public spending (and also against tax hikes, if the concern is over deficits), and is seemingly trying to out-Tory the Tories on immigration and trans rights. What, outside of maybe climate commitments, distinguishes Starmer from Sunak at this point?

My best guess is that Starmer is afraid of doing anything that could jeopardize Labour's massive polling lead, but playing Thomas Dewey and promising absolutely nothing to anyone is exactly how you lose that polling lead by next year.

[Alcibiades]

So, uh, what exactly has happened to the Labour Party in the past few years? I don't mean the immediate aftermath of Corbyn being replaced--all that was expected--but a total surrender of nearly everything Labour historically stood for to an extent not seen since the Blair years. Starmer has come out against nationalizations (which have overwhelming public support), against increased public spending (and also against tax hikes, if the concern is over deficits), and is seemingly trying to out-Tory the Tories on immigration and trans rights. What, outside of maybe climate commitments, distinguishes Starmer from Sunak at this point?

My best guess is that Starmer is afraid of doing anything that could jeopardize Labour's massive polling lead, but playing Thomas Dewey and promising absolutely nothing to anyone is exactly how you lose that polling lead by next year.

Ah yes, the Blair years, renowned for a dearth of public spending.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

So, uh, what exactly has happened to the Labour Party in the past few years? I don't mean the immediate aftermath of Corbyn being replaced--all that was expected--but a total surrender of nearly everything Labour historically stood for to an extent not seen since the Blair years. Starmer has come out against nationalizations (which have overwhelming public support), against increased public spending (and also against tax hikes, if the concern is over deficits), and is seemingly trying to out-Tory the Tories on immigration and trans rights. What, outside of maybe climate commitments, distinguishes Starmer from Sunak at this point?

My best guess is that Starmer is afraid of doing anything that could jeopardize Labour's massive polling lead, but playing Thomas Dewey and promising absolutely nothing to anyone is exactly how you lose that polling lead by next year.

Ah yes, the Blair years, renowned for a dearth of public spending.

I'm speaking overall--Blair spent quite a lot but his tenure as leader of Labour was still a major shift to the right (as was the case for most left-of-center parties in the 1990s). Starmer seems unwilling to commit to anything at all. And, again, the total abandonment of any sort of commitment to trans rights or migrant rights.

[JimJamUK]

I'm speaking overall--Blair spent quite a lot but his tenure as leader of Labour was still a major shift to the right (as was the case for most left-of-center parties in the 1990s). Starmer seems unwilling to commit to anything at all. And, again, the total abandonment of any sort of commitment to trans rights or migrant rights.

Since when did Labour ever commit to trans or migrant rights? The former is a very niche issue that was never the subject of high profile concrete promises, while the latter has never been a key policy area for Labour. Insofar as it has been, it’s been taking *anti* migrant stances eg; the commitment in 2017 to end freedom of movement, the ‘controls of immigration’ mugs in 2015, and Gordon Brown’s “British Jobs for British Workers” remarks.

Labour is not a party that has historically defined itself by its support for American style social progressivism. If you want to attack Starmer as ideologically empty then the economic/public services angle is better, though it’s worth remembering that dropping commitments to do things is not necessarily the same as committing to oppose them, and once in government parties can find themselves moving in either ideological direction if policies are seen as doable or even necessary.

[Blair]

So, uh, what exactly has happened to the Labour Party in the past few years? I don't mean the immediate aftermath of Corbyn being replaced--all that was expected--but a total surrender of nearly everything Labour historically stood for to an extent not seen since the Blair years. Starmer has come out against nationalizations (which have overwhelming public support), against increased public spending (and also against tax hikes, if the concern is over deficits), and is seemingly trying to out-Tory the Tories on immigration and trans rights. What, outside of maybe climate commitments, distinguishes Starmer from Sunak at this point?

My best guess is that Starmer is afraid of doing anything that could jeopardize Labour's massive polling lead, but playing Thomas Dewey and promising absolutely nothing to anyone is exactly how you lose that polling lead by next year.

The case for the defence is that Labours political strategy is based around winning two types of voters- those who abandoned Labour in 2015-2019 and who are more likely to crudely be Brexit voters and those who stopped voting Labour in 2005 or 2010- you can tell as Labours big targets in the local elections were areas that had this sort of voter- Swindon, Plymouth, Medway, Darlington.

They have decided that the biggest barrier to winning this is the charge that Labour can’t be trusted with the economy; a charge that Labour have often faced and often failed to counter (2017 and ‘97 were two rare examples)

The party does not want to make expensive policy commitments without a clear way of funding them- this was made worse by the state of the UKs public finances which imv were a lot weaker before the mini budget than most people realised and well look awful. Labour in 1997 inherited a growing economy that was being pushed along by the windfall from North Sea oil and gas iirc.

Nationalisation is popular and you could have constructed a case for it around energy last summer but still the party’s approach to business means you’d have to do it through normal means e.g spending a lot. I guess I take the weird view that privatisation was a disaster but I don’t know how to fix the water or energy companies.

On migrant rights I will say that Starmer and Labour have opposed Rwanda plan and have just taken the approach of saying the Government is useless- they voted against the legislation every time too.

It’s also not a defence (as it was appalling) but the Wilson Government iirc changed the law to stop British passport holders from Kenya arriving in the U.K.- the party has never been particularly progressive on migration!

I have my own gripes with various things in THIGMOO atm but that’s for another day