Labour Party leadership election 2015

[Dan the Roman]

I was responding to the statement that the 60s was a better decade than the current one (which seems to have now been retracted, in fairness).

That the Wilson government fixed some of those things towards the end of the 60s is irrelevant to that claim.

Anyway, social policy aside, look at any decent metric of welfare and obviously people are better off now. Leftist radical nostalgia for poverty is annoying. I guess if you like poverty supporting Corbyn makes sense though.

There are some long term happiness studies showing that the 60s were the decade when most of Western Europe reached the level where higher material wealth stopped making us happier. Since then material progress has not made the average person feel better.

When you are poor increased material wealth makes you feel a lot better, but this effect decrease when you reach higher levels and at some point more stuff and better living conditions stop adding to most peoples feeling of satisfaction with life.

The nostalgia is also not completely unfounded: Society was a lot more safe and sustainable back then. Local communities functioned better, crime was lower, unemployment lower, outsourcing unheard of etc. Farming was closer to being organic, traffic congestion lower etc. At the same time it was a culturally much more vibrant and exciting era than today.

So as a decade it had an adequate level of material wealth for most people, was culturally interesting and a lot of social and economic changes since then have simply not benefitted ordinary people.

^ This, more or less exactly. Not to mention the fact that the people did actually have some kind of an influence and a choice at the moment, you know, democratically speaking. That's all over now, of course.

There also no immigrants/non-whites. You really can't deal with English 1960s nostalgia without the racial aspect. It is buried beneath every single one of those points. Democracy was real before the foreigners corrupted it, there was less traffic before all the immigrants came, housing was nicer and now look at East London etc

Maybe you can't. A vast majority can. Unless there is something very specific to Britain regarding nostalgia towards that era.

There is. At least among those in Britain who feel that sort of nostalgia I would go as far as to say all but a minuscule minority(sub 10%) either implicitly or explicitly tie that nostalgia to immigration. Try going around and speaking to Labour voters outside university seats. This was evident in 2010, and even more so in 2015 when Labour handed out anti-immigrant mugs.

Those who tend to be pro-immigration tend not to have much if any nostalgia for the Pre-1979 world, not least because it led to 1979, and they tend to be more upscale anyway.

And immigration really is the third rail of British politics to a degree unequaled even anywhere else in Europe. 

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Labour's strongest seats aren't in university areas, they are depressed urban areas, not all of which are full of ethnic minorities (Indeed many are the opposite, see Tyne and Wear).

Britain is not America. Britain's voting patterns are different to America. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

[Phony Moderate]

Labour's strongest seats aren't in university areas, they are depressed urban areas, not all of which are full of ethnic minorities (Indeed many are the opposite, see Tyne and Wear).

Britain is not America. Britain's voting patterns are different to America. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

Yeah, Liverpool, I think, is whiter than the country as a whole.

[Blair]

Although I'd argue the collapse of the lib dem vote, and the rise of UKIP has shifted this pattern slightly. Labour's major problem this election was that we won urban seats of the Lib Dems that haven't voted Labour since 1981 like Bermondsey , but only just about won back seats like Wirral West. Basically Labour's ed, which is the general analysis from this leadership election
 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

...what are we even arguing about now?

[Dan the Roman]

Labour's strongest seats aren't in university areas, they are depressed urban areas, not all of which are full of ethnic minorities (Indeed many are the opposite, see Tyne and Wear).

Britain is not America. Britain's voting patterns are different to America. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

I've actually lived in the UK the last three years so am fairly familiar. The depressed urban areas are where you hear complaints about immigration. As you do in the marginals.

The point I was making though was not about immigration per se, but that in my experience almost every time someone in the UK has brought up nostalgia for the 1950s or 60s, it has almost invariably had a racial tinge to it. Maybe there is some genuine Bennite nostalgia, but I would be shocked if most people even remember who he was. The "ideal" of the past has generally been used as a dog whistle.

[Cassius]

Labour's strongest seats aren't in university areas, they are depressed urban areas, not all of which are full of ethnic minorities (Indeed many are the opposite, see Tyne and Wear).

Britain is not America. Britain's voting patterns are different to America. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

I've actually lived in the UK the last three years so am fairly familiar. The depressed urban areas are where you hear complaints about immigration. As you do in the marginals.

The point I was making though was not about immigration per se, but that in my experience almost every time someone in the UK has brought up nostalgia for the 1950s or 60s, it has almost invariably had a racial tinge to it. Maybe there is some genuine Bennite nostalgia, but I would be shocked if most people even remember who he was. The "ideal" of the past has generally been used as a dog whistle.

Thing about Benn in the sixties is that he wasn't really the hard-left figure he became during the seventies and is generally known as being today. He was a technocrat with a somewhat unhealthy obsession with technology. More to the point, Labour wasn't particularly leftist during the sixties anyway; Harold Wilson came from the centre-left of the party, but was surrounded in cabinet by people from the right; Brown, Callaghan, Crosland and Jenkins (although of course these men differed). The government of 1964-70 certainly presided over some fairly radical social changes, like the decriminalisation of abortion and homosexuality, but these were achieved largely through private members bills and the efforts of Jenkins; the attitude of the party to them was decidedly mixed. Likewise, on economic policy, the government continue to remain well within the bounds of the post war consensus (which wasn't the great social democratic ideal that some like to romanticise it as having been).

Basically, the 'Bennites' have never controlled the Labour party and have never been able to use it to implement their flagship policies. The idea held by some Corbynites that they're 'reclaiming their party' is not really true, because they never controlled it in the first place (at least fully).

[ChrisDR68]

Some of the policies of the Wilson government in 1964 were quite left wing though. Remember the Department For Economic Affairs? This initiated Labour's 5 year plan for the British economy (slightly akin to the Soviet Union's 5 year plans of the 30's and 40's).

This was meant to herald the beginning of a planned socialist economy in the UK. The government was soon blown off course with this policy due to the overvalued pound which Wilson and Callaghan foolishly tried to prop up with deflationary policies (similar to John Major in 1991 and 1992) and was abandoned altogether with the devaluation crisis of 1967.

In 1969 the department was quietly wound up never to be heard of again.

Incidentally Wilson had the reputation as a left winger but he had been a Liberal when at university and according to Brian Walden in this excellent tv programme from 1997 he was never really anything else ideologically:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvvW8eP1AAs

The video is of poor quality but the audio is fine

[Blair]

Out of interest does anybody remember Mary Creagh?

[Phony Moderate]

Out of interest does anybody remember Mary Creagh?

No.

Btw, Dan Jarvis is second favourite (after Corbyn) with Ladbrokes to lead Labour in the next GE.

[Blair]

Out of interest does anybody remember Mary Creagh?

No.

Btw, Dan Jarvis is second favourite (after Corbyn) with Ladbrokes to lead Labour in the next GE.

As awful as it sounds I always hoped that electing Cooper or Burnham would allow Jarvis to swoon in in 2020.

It was said here but I reckon that Corbyn will last until 2017/18 and then give up for a younger face whilst the moderates unite around Jarvis leading to a 1981 style election. However that assumes the Labour party is sane. I've heard from people in AB's campaign that Cooper is already talking about running again in 2017

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Some of the policies of the Wilson government in 1964 were quite left wing though. Remember the Department For Economic Affairs? This initiated Labour's 5 year plan for the British economy (slightly akin to the Soviet Union's 5 year plans of the 30's and 40's).

That was actually a pet project of the Right of the Party (Gaitskell might not have been a massive fan of nationalisation but he was hugely in favour of Planning) which is why George Brown wanted (and got) it and is why it faded away into obscurity when he was moved elsewhere.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure Walden's take on Wilson can be regard as Gospel...

[Phony Moderate]

Chuka Umunna is a strange guy, isn't he?

[Lurker]

It's kind of unbelievable that Labour could go from the "New Labour" Blair/Brown era to being led by a far leftist within the span of just a few years.

Will be interesting to see how the Right of the party reacts when/if Corbyn is declared the new leader. 

[You kip if you want to...]

It's kind of unbelievable that Labour could go from the "New Labour" Blair/Brown era to being led by a far leftist within the span of just a few years.

Will be interesting to see how the Right of the party reacts when/if Corbyn is declared the new leader. 

Can we not refer to parts of the party not backing Corbyn as "the right of the party" please? k thanks

[Lurker]

It's kind of unbelievable that Labour could go from the "New Labour" Blair/Brown era to being led by a far leftist within the span of just a few years.

Will be interesting to see how the Right of the party reacts when/if Corbyn is declared the new leader. 

Can we not refer to parts of the party not backing Corbyn as "the right of the party" please? k thanks

Yes, I should have worded it differentl, though was mainly thinking of the "New Labour" type (not easily defined, but still). While the prospect of Corbyn as leader will obviously be unpalatable (to say the least) for most MPs, I imagine that it will be even more difficult to swallow for those on the "right" of the party.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's kind of unbelievable that Labour could go from the "New Labour" Blair/Brown era to being led by a far leftist within the span of just a few years.

THIGMOO is an amazing thing sometimes.

[Blair]

Maybe Corbyn found the dirt on Chukka?

[Lurker]

It's kind of unbelievable that Labour could go from the "New Labour" Blair/Brown era to being led by a far leftist within the span of just a few years.

THIGMOO is an amazing thing sometimes.

Heh, I had to google that one.

Do you imagine there'll any attempt at 'reconciliation' if he wins, or will it be a case of factional warfare 24/7?

[ChrisDR68]

Normally I disagree with the stuff Owen Jones writes but this article is quite thoughtful:

https://medium.com/@OwenJones84/my-honest-thoughts-on-the-corbyn-campaign-and-overcoming-formidable-obstacles-de81d4449884

This paragraph stood out for me:

The current internal schism within the Labour Party is partly the product of our electoral system. In other democracies, there are often two left parties — one ‘centre-left’, the other more radical. They compete against each other but frequently form governing coalitions together.

In Britain, they are in the same party. ‘First-past-the-post’ is increasingly untenable as a system because of the political fragmentation resulting from fragmentation in wider society — because of changes like de-industrialisation, a more transient workforce, immigration, people moving more, an ageing population, and so on. Having broad ‘left’ and ‘right’ coalitions fighting elections under the same banner seems to make less and less sense, but the electoral system compels it to be so.

It would be more honest (in my opinion) if you had a moderate social democratic party and a separate Marxist socialist party. As explained above though the FPTP system means that the left are forced to accommodate each other within the same party which creates the endless tensions and even hatreds we're all familiar with.

[YL]

It's kind of unbelievable that Labour could go from the "New Labour" Blair/Brown era to being led by a far leftist within the span of just a few years.

Will be interesting to see how the Right of the party reacts when/if Corbyn is declared the new leader. 

Can we not refer to parts of the party not backing Corbyn as "the right of the party" please? k thanks

Yes, I should have worded it differentl, though was mainly thinking of the "New Labour" type (not easily defined, but still). While the prospect of Corbyn as leader will obviously be unpalatable (to say the least) for most MPs, I imagine that it will be even more difficult to swallow for those on the "right" of the party.

There's a difference between not supporting Corbyn and actively undermining him if/when he gets elected, and I'd expect more of the latter on the actual right (especially the Blairite right and the likes of Danczuk) of the party.  I don't think Corbyn is the right choice for the Labour Party and it is most unlikely my vote will count for him (that would require him to be in a run-off with Kendall) but I think that if he wins the party needs to accept the result and work with him, at least in the short term.  There's quite likely to be another chance at choosing the leader for the next election anyway; he'll be 70 by 2020 and he supposedly didn't particularly want the job.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Heh, I had to google that one.

Do you imagine there'll any attempt at 'reconciliation' if he wins, or will it be a case of factional warfare 24/7?

Its a classic for a reason.

Quite possibly both. The balance of the two will depend to a considerable extent on how he acts when (if, etc) he wins, and that's not something we can be entirely sure of. My hope is that he understands that the forces that have pushed him forward are totally different to that which propelled the Left in the 70s and 80s, because that would immediately make things easier for all concerned. And on that I'm really not sure: on the one hand he's a clever man, on the other he can also be a bit of a foolish one at times.

Personally I'm worried about the speed at which the inner factionalist in a lot of people has been unleashed in recent months, but slightly encouraged by the fact that there doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm for that type of thing in the wider Party (i.e. so far its just the sort of people - whether Right or Left - who care deeply about the outcome of NEC elections). Things were different back in the 80s.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There's quite likely to be another chance at choosing the leader for the next election anyway; he'll be 70 by 2020 and he supposedly didn't particularly want the job.

He's even gone as far as to suggest that if he's dragging Labour down in the polls then he'll go. Which is... er... unusual language for a leadership candidate.

[afleitch]

There's quite likely to be another chance at choosing the leader for the next election anyway; he'll be 70 by 2020 and he supposedly didn't particularly want the job.

He's even gone as far as to suggest that if he's dragging Labour down in the polls then he'll go. Which is... er... unusual language for a leadership candidate.

Depends how one interprets 'low'. Labour are playing with a new normal on that one. Besides there's no where else for Labour voters to go. The mortal wounding of the Lib Dems will do them a favour there.

[Silent Hunter]

Personally I'm worried about the speed at which the inner factionalist in a lot of people has been unleashed in recent months, but slightly encouraged by the fact that there doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm for that type of thing in the wider Party (i.e. so far its just the sort of people - whether Right or Left - who care deeply about the outcome of NEC elections). Things were different back in the 80s.

On another forum I frequent, the thread on this has been frequently locked to allow people to cool down.