UK Politics: The Love Song of A. B. de Pfeffel Johnson

[Commodore]

closed shops should not be mandated, but they shouldn't be outlawed either

although it's hard to see an employer voluntarily choosing such an arrangement

[Shryke]

8 hours ago, john said:

That's better.  See you can do it.

Strangely enough, I don't agree that either of these things have happened. You really think the British public have already failed to hold the May government to account? Seems a little harsh.

By all means, the Party should dump Corbyn if they can. If they can't, supporting him (probably for as short a term as they can manage) really does not seem that bad a proposition.

Sorry, I didn't realise I needed to talk slow for you.

And considering the poll numbers the UK public have failed to hold Cameron's government to account for quite awhile now with little show of that stopping. Though certainly the press and the complete lack of competent opposition helps on that account. Corbyn's incompetence is coming at a really rather bad time.

[Sir Thursday]

People have been talking about how the Labour party are failing to take advantage of the Conservative's shambles, but one thing the Tories have done well is executed the leadership change with incredible speed and efficiency. I mean, it's been a week and they've already decided on a new leader, installed her in No. 10 and had her select a new cabinet? That's pretty impressive. And it will make them look good, too - they can point at the Labour party's continued turmoil and say: "When there's a problem, we fix it quickly." They've very quickly shut the door on people's ability to make hay out of their disunity.

ST

[Pebble thats Stubby]

1 hour ago, Commodore said:

closed shops should not be mandated, but they shouldn't be outlawed either

although it's hard to see an employer voluntarily choosing such an arrangement

 

I work am employed by a car  manufacturer originally started in the US by a guy named Henry.   You don't have to be a member of one of the recognised unions to work here.  but when you join the company you give those unions the responsibility to negotiate your pay and conditions.  If your not a member you just don't get to vote on what they are.  You don't get to vote on strikes and you don't get to officially go on strike (its advisable to take the day off without pay).  You also don't get the union protections if something happens to you.

[williamjm]

1 hour ago, Sir Thursday said:

People have been talking about how the Labour party are failing to take advantage of the Conservative's shambles, but one thing the Tories have done well is executed the leadership change with incredible speed and efficiency. I mean, it's been a week and they've already decided on a new leader, installed her in No. 10 and had her select a new cabinet? That's pretty impressive. And it will make them look good, too - they can point at the Labour party's continued turmoil and say: "When there's a problem, we fix it quickly." They've very quickly shut the door on people's ability to make hay out of their disunity.

It has worked out well for them, but probably more by luck than judgement given that it was only over so quickly because all of May's rivals took each other out or self-destructed. In some ways the leadership contest was the political equivalent of this:

https://youtu.be/fAADWfJO2qM?t=1m29s

(admittedly May was always the front-runner).

So it looks like May is making a lot of the Leave campaigners sort out the mess they've created - Davies is leading the Brexit negotiations, Fox has to negotiate the new trade deals, and Leadsom is the person in charge of telling farmers they don't get subsidies any more.

It does seem sensible from her perspective since it might help keep the Leave voters happy who are wary of a Prime Minister who supported Remain.

Out of curiosity. Do you think winning back Scotland is realistically on the cards for Labour in the foreseeable future? My outside guess is, that Scotland is out of reach for the two major parties (if the SNP does not implode).

I agree the SNP are in such a strong position that there's probably not much the opposition can do but hope the SNP slips up - no political parties can avoid problems forever although there's no sign of their support waning at the moment. At the moment Scottish Labour are probably more concerned about the battle for second place, being beaten by the Tories in a Scottish election would have been unthinkable only a few years ago.

I think Labour have a particular problem against the SNP because aside from the Independence issues there's often not a huge distance between SNP and Labour policies on a lot of the issues. They could potentially try to outflank the SNP on the left wing on economic policies but the Scottish Labour leadership seems to be less radical than the Corbyn faction of the party.

[john]

4 hours ago, Shryke said:

Sorry, I didn't realise I needed to talk slow for you.

And considering the poll numbers the UK public have failed to hold Cameron's government to account for quite awhile now with little show of that stopping. Though certainly the press and the complete lack of competent opposition helps on that account. Corbyn's incompetence is coming at a really rather bad time.

Hey, just using words is a great start man, appreciate it.

They just elected them outright last year. Give it a chance. Labour should poll better at this stage, yeah. But it's a different political landscape than in the last House. I don't find it particularly worrying.

 

I've been reading about Boris' various international blunders and, apart from weird colonial references that he really needs to curb, most of his offensive comments seem to be directed against Erdogan, Putin and Assad, which I'm pretty sure I can stomach easily.

[Fragile Bird]

I am still having difficulty wrapping my head around the idea of Boris as foreign secretary.  And I know I am not alone having that difficulty.

[Shryke]

7 hours ago, john said:

Hey, just using words is a great start man, appreciate it.

They just elected them outright last year. Give it a chance. Labour should poll better at this stage, yeah. But it's a different political landscape than in the last House. I don't find it particularly worrying.

And in that time the Tories have fucked the pooch several times already. And Corbyn has done basically nothing to hold them to account for it. Do I need to use smaller words next time I explain this for like the 4th time?

[john]

5 hours ago, Shryke said:

And in that time the Tories have fucked the pooch several times already. And Corbyn has done basically nothing to hold them to account for it. Do I need to use smaller words next time I explain this for like the 4th time?

I mean, you could try but your first attempt to "explain" consisted of "Uh ..." so I don't like your chances.

Now you're mentioning Corbyn so you're narrowing the window even more. In the last 10 months the Tories have announced an unpopular budget and held a referendum that didn't go their way and both times their poll lead dropped as a result.  What are you expecting, armed revolt?

[maarsen]

13 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

I am still having difficulty wrapping my head around the idea of Boris as foreign secretary.  And I know I am not alone having that difficulty.

I think this comes under 'you made the bed, now you lie in it.'

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, maarsen said:

I think this comes under 'you made the bed, now you lie in it.'

They all sink or swim together.  If Theresa May wants to win the next election, she has to make a success of Brexit.

[Chaircat Meow]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

They all sink or swim together.  If Theresa May wants to win the next election, she has to make a success of Brexit.

This is why having a ludicrously weak opposition is not good for the country. The 'if the gov wants to win the election it must do x,y,z' rings a bit hollow.

[Chaircat Meow]

What is going on in Turkey?

[The Marquis de Leech]

On 14/07/2016 at 8:56 PM, mormont said:

The by-election results were expected and owe no perceptible debt to Corbyn's leadership. The council results were very poor, and Corbyn was only saved because people actually expected them to be catastrophically poor: they still represent one of the very worst performances by an opposition party that there has been. And yes, Corbyn is the leader so he is to blame for Labour's terrible performance in Scotland. It's his job as leader to do something about that, and he hasn't done it. Again, if you're saying he can't do his job, fine; let him stand down, then.

Spot the contradiction.

As for the council results, Labour were defending Milliband's 2012 high point, which they did - and picked up the London mayoralty while they were at it. Could Labour have done better? Yes, of course, but its window to do so was limited. All in all, apart from Scotland (which is just the general election realignment translating into local councils) it was OK. I'd also point out that some of the actual authors of Labour's Scottish collapse (John McTernan) have been some of the most vicious attackers of Corbyn's electability.

I repeat that I don't think Corbyn winning a general election is likely. But neither do I think "Oh My God, Labour is dooooomed!","Labour faces oblivion," "Labour will lose a hundred seats!" is in any way shape or form justified by actual data. Corbyn was labelled "unelectable" by a bunch of right-wing arseholes from Day One (many of whom having lost elections themselves), and their behaviour (given full voice in the likes of The Guardian) has done more to ensure Labours "unelectability" than Corbyn ever has. 

As for where Labour goes from here - assuming a likely Corbyn re-election, it's a richly deserved deselection time.

[A wilding]

11 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

 ... Labour were defending Milliband's 2012 high point, which they did - and picked up the London mayoralty while they were at it. ...

Though to be fair, the successful Labour candidate for London mayor made a point of distancing himself from Corbyn, with the scuttlebutt being that he considered Corbyn a liability.

 

[mormont]

On 16/07/2016 at 7:27 AM, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Spot the contradiction.

I'm trying, but I can't: there is none. An ineffective leader can take no credit for successes, and at the same time carry the responsibility for failure. That's completely consistent: successes can be achieved in spite of a leader, after all.

There might be a contradiction if someone was to try to claim credit for Corbyn's success in the local council elections but at the same time absolve him of responsibility for failure in Scotland. Luckily, that won't happen, because to do so, you'd first have to persuade people that the local council elections were a success, instead of merely a narrow escape from disaster. And that would be pretty hard to do.

On 16/07/2016 at 7:27 AM, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

I repeat that I don't think Corbyn winning a general election is likely. But neither do I think "Oh My God, Labour is dooooomed!","Labour faces oblivion," "Labour will lose a hundred seats!" is in any way shape or form justified by actual data.

Actual data like opinion polls showing Labour behind by substantial margins?

Today's ICM poll shows a 10 point lead for the Tories over Labour, a lead that rises to 15 points when those polled are reminded that Jeremy Corbyn leads Labour. (There's a huge caveat to that, which I'll come back to.) This is in line with most recent polls, showing that Labour is on course to repeat their dismal showing in the last election at best.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

Personally, Corbyn continues to poll extremely badly with voters. 39% think he's 'incompetent', only 13% think he's a 'strong leader'. Voters agree that he's principled, honest and understands ordinary people, but despite all that they prefer Theresa May.

This is terrible data for Corbyn. It shows that it's not that voters aren't getting the message because of nasty Blairites and the evil media: voters know about and understand Corbyn's positives, and they still don't want him in charge.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/politics/opinion-polls/news/77380/poll-theresa-may-has-big-lead-over-jeremy-corbyn

Now, the huge caveat to that ICM poll is that Labour don't do any better when voters are asked about Eagle or Smith being leader instead of Corbyn - in fact they do a point or two worse. So fair enough, the voters don't like those two better than Corbyn. But that's an assessment based on hypothetical scenarios, whereas the Corbyn result is based on reality. If, as we seem to agree, Labour are on course to lose the next election if they keep Corbyn, it follows that at this point they have nothing to lose by trying another leader.

On 16/07/2016 at 7:27 AM, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

As for where Labour goes from here - assuming a likely Corbyn re-election, it's a richly deserved deselection time.

Because a bloodbath is going to win over voters?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

27 minutes ago, mormont said:

I'm trying, but I can't: there is none. An ineffective leader can take no credit for successes, and at the same time carry the responsibility for failure. That's completely consistent: successes can be achieved in spite of a leader, after all.

There might be a contradiction if someone was to try to claim credit for Corbyn's success in the local council elections but at the same time absolve him of responsibility for failure in Scotland. Luckily, that won't happen, because to do so, you'd first have to persuade people that the local council elections were a success, instead of merely a narrow escape from disaster. And that would be pretty hard to do.

 

Ahum, I know I asked you this before. But do you realistically think, there's a chance Labour (with or without Corbyn) can win back Scotland in the foreseeable without the SNP imploding? From the outside Scotland looks more like a structural problem than a leadership problem (at least to me). Of course you can either argue, that is wrong, or that Corbyn should nevertheless have done something more to address Labour's problems up in the north. But to lay the entire blame for the woes of Labour Scotland at Corbyn's door looks a bit lazy and short sighted to me.

[Werthead]

I think Scotland could be a self-solving problem. Certainly if the same thing happens in 2020, and Scotland remains part of the union, then Scottish voters wil have to start asking themselves if voting for the SNP makes sense when they will never, ever be able to form a majority UK government and actually get things done. With Labour often having a similar platform, we could see a drift back to them over time.

The alternate option is that they hope that Labour pulls it back in England and then forms a coalition with the SNP instead, which is what I think they were hoping for last time.

[williamjm]

46 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I think Scotland could be a self-solving problem. Certainly if the same thing happens in 2020, and Scotland remains part of the union, then Scottish voters wil have to start asking themselves if voting for the SNP makes sense when they will never, ever be able to form a majority UK government and actually get things done. With Labour often having a similar platform, we could see a drift back to them over time.

It's possible it could work out this way, but you could use the same argument to say that Northern Irish voters should be primarily voting for the Tories and Labour because their regional parties would never be in a Westminster majority and that's definitely not happened.

[mormont]

6 hours ago, Notone said:

Ahum, I know I asked you this before. But do you realistically think, there's a chance Labour (with or without Corbyn) can win back Scotland in the foreseeable without the SNP imploding?

Yeah, sorry - I meant to reply to that but I've been away for a day or two.

The answer is complicated. I think it could have done so at various points in recent history, but at this precise moment, the likelihood of a second independence referendum overtakes that. If that happens, and the vote is yes this time, then obviously the game's over as far as Scotland is concerned. On the other hand, it it's a no, then, well, the SNP may well implode. So clearly that's a chance for Labour to come back.

The history of how Labour in Scotland got to this point isn't in any way structural, but seems to me to have been entirely avoidable. Nor am I suggesting it's all Corbyn's fault: that was never my suggestion, and would in fact be a bizarre allegation, so apologies if that wasn't clear. In my view, it's much more a series of failures by various people, including past Labour First Ministers and others in both the Scottish and UK Labour parties.

The SNP's success stems from their first Scottish general election win, when they managed to get into government. That in turn was because Scottish voters felt the Labour administration in Scotland wasn't doing a very good job. So the SNP did well enough to get into power, and it turned out that - contrary to the apocalyptic warnings of Labour - they did a reasonable job as a centre-left administration. (Remember that the Labour line was not only that the SNP were dangerous and untested, but that they were secretly 'Tartan Tories' who would govern as such. That was always a line founded more in wishful dogma than reality.)

The sky didn't fall, and Scottish voters decided they'd give the SNP a second shot, and then a third. It helped that the SNP did a better job of opposing the UK government than Labour did. Labour have stuck to a confusing line where they criticise the SNP for criticising Westminster decisions that they (Labour) are also critical of, because... the constitution? It sounds patronising, and plays into the SNP's 'London parties don't respect Scotland' line.

The decision to share a platform with the Tories in 2014 didn't help - the Tories came out of that stronger and Labour weaker.

Now, all of that predates Corbyn, but he is the leader and so Scotland is one of the many responsibilities he volunteered to sort out. He doesn't seem very bothered about it, to be blunt, but it's still his responsibility. Corbyn supporters seem to present Scotland as something that's in some way someone else's job to fix, or that simply cannot be fixed. They might be right, but has he tried?

What he did do, was show up ahead of the Scottish election using a lot of the same rhetoric we hear now, about how party membership is booming under his leadership, about how the anti-austerity message is resonating with voters, about how people are tired of politics as usual. The result was that Scottish Labour went from second, to third.

tl;dr - the Scottish situation didn't just happen to Labour and the Labour leader's job is to help fix it, not wash his hands of it.