Ken Loach Speaks Out

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

BFYP
I strongly disagree with that last sentence. Labour's domestic policies for years have been very popular in polls. So popular that the Tories have stolen many of them, after denouncing them as Marxist in elections. I do agree with your other point though. The Left is regularly astonished that having popular policies which would be good for the mass of the population, doesn't automatically lead to electoral success. The key problem that they had under Corbyn was an inability to see what was blindingly obvious to people on the outside. Corbyn came across as someone who didn't like Britain. Whether that was fair or not, that was how he appeared to people outside the Left bubble.

In some ways they have had some policies that have been taken by other parties (sometimes wrongly in my view sometimes not), so that is a fair point.  I would question whether they have put together a package on a whole though that is electable and it is that full package that is key.

I do though think Kier Starmer deserves the opportunity to put a raft of policies together, the same as Corbyn had that chance.  However, at the same point it cannot be denied that Kier Starmer so far just hasn't offered much at all and is not really inspiring much.

[belton rover]

Apparently, Ken Loach originally cast Starmer to play Billy Casper in ‘Kes’. Unfortunately, during the fight scene on top of the coal, Starmer insisted that Casper should stab MacDowell in the back so they gave the role to David Bradley instead.

[albie]

Extremists of the far centre long for the lost days of Tony Blair, the weapons of mass deception criminal.

Good summary from Ronan Burtenshaw of Tribune on the exploitation and posturing of the hard right;
https://youtu.be/NIxcJlHZOBY

Where does Keith think those leaving Labour will go.......just melt into the background?

Keith is likely a dead man waiking in political terms after trying to dilute party democracy with a new electoral college....no coming back from this mistake.

[Bentley Bullet]

BST, your claim that "Corbyn came across as someone who didn't like Britain" is bang on in my opinion. To be perfectly honest though, so do you and your mates on this forum.

[tyke1962]

Extremists of the far centre long for the lost days of Tony Blair, the weapons of mass deception criminal.

Good summary from Ronan Burtenshaw of Tribune on the exploitation and posturing of the hard right;
https://youtu.be/NIxcJlHZOBY

Where does Keith think those leaving Labour will go.......just melt into the background?

Keith is likely a dead man waiking in political terms after trying to dilute party democracy with a new electoral college....no coming back from this mistake.

Centrist Labour

The Tory B team whose job it is quell calls for real change and rearrange the deck chairs to give the illusion of change .

Meanwhile in the real world Thatcher's privatisation legacy is beginning to unravel and we've the aftermath of a global pandemic to negotiate .

Absolute laughing stock .

[tyke1962]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't Corbyn's popularity when elected as Labour leader down to thousands of infiltrators joining the Labour party solely to vote for him, thus rendering the party less electable?

They may well have been some but certainly not in the numbers it takes to elect a Labour leader especially one who won two leadership elections by a landslide .

In the first one he was up against the much trumpeted Andy Burnham .

Even in the 2019 election tonking Corbyn won more votes than Blair , Brown and Miliband between 2005 and 2015 .

Perceptions eh ?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Tyke.

That line about number of votes is meaningless because it ignores context. 2017 and 19 were the first ones  in a generation that were effectively two party elections in most of England.

It's irrelevant how many people voted for Corbyn's Labour. The fact is, he lost . Against two of the most chaotic Tory opponents in history.

[tyke1962]

Tyke.

That line about number of votes is meaningless because it ignores context. 2017 and 19 were the first ones  in a generation that were effectively two party elections in most of England.

It's irrelevant how many people voted for Corbyn's Labour. The fact is, he lost . Against two of the most chaotic Tory opponents in history.

I could get behind Rayner I'll say that .

Gave Raab a right kicking the other day at PMQ's .

Wasn't afraid to use a bit of class warfare either which I like .

The best mauling of a Tory I've seen for a good while .

Well done that women .

[albie]

Tyke.

That line about number of votes is meaningless because it ignores context. 2017 and 19 were the first ones  in a generation that were effectively two party elections in most of England.

It's irrelevant how many people voted for Corbyn's Labour. The fact is, he lost . Against two of the most chaotic Tory opponents in history.

This is the daftest post I have seen in years.

What context is it in which MORE votes are not as good as FEWER votes?
Unreal!

The 2 party election point will not apply next GE, because the Tories will lose votes in the south to the LDems....buyers regret, many Tory voters dislike Bozo.

The question for Labour is how to regain enough seats to form a government. At least 25 seats in Scotland need to be won, and standing for Unionism will not allow that to happen.

Some red wall seats can be won (buyers regret again), but nowhere near the numbers required.
Pitching as a tweaked Blue Labour is a distinction without a difference.

For me, Keith is the same type of corporate politician that Theresa May was, a different flavour of neo-liberal. Bozo sold himself as a Punch and Judy character, different from the bland normal.

What political niche does Keith occupy to show a new political narrative?
Back to the future...no thanks, it was not very good!

Now Keith has fallen out with the Unions;
https://labourlist.org/2021/09/starmer-rule-changes-not-going-to-friday-nec-after-car-crash-union-meeting/

Great!

[tyke1962]

Tyke.

That line about number of votes is meaningless because it ignores context. 2017 and 19 were the first ones  in a generation that were effectively two party elections in most of England.

It's irrelevant how many people voted for Corbyn's Labour. The fact is, he lost . Against two of the most chaotic Tory opponents in history.

This is the daftest post I have seen in years.

What context is it in which MORE votes are not as good as FEWER votes?
Unreal!

The 2 party election point will not apply next GE, because the Tories will lose votes in the south to the LDems....buyers regret, many Tory voters dislike Bozo.

The question for Labour is how to regain enough seats to form a government. At least 25 seats in Scotland need to be won, and standing for Unionism will not allow that to happen.

Some red wall seats can be won (buyers regret again), but nowhere near the numbers required.
Pitching as a tweaked Blue Labour is a distinction without a difference.

For me, Keith is the same type of corporate politician that Theresa May was, a different flavour of neo-liberal. Bozo sold himself as a Punch and Judy character, different from the bland normal.

What political niche does Keith occupy to show a new political narrative?
Back to the future...no thanks, it was not very good!

Now Keith has fallen out with the Unions;
https://labourlist.org/2021/09/starmer-rule-changes-not-going-to-friday-nec-after-car-crash-union-meeting/

Great!

 " Aren't you embarrassed by the energy crisis ? "

I'd have loved to be a fly on the wall when that question hit Keith right between the eyes .

[BillyStubbsTears]

Tyke.

That line about number of votes is meaningless because it ignores context. 2017 and 19 were the first ones  in a generation that were effectively two party elections in most of England.

It's irrelevant how many people voted for Corbyn's Labour. The fact is, he lost . Against two of the most chaotic Tory opponents in history.

This is the daftest post I have seen in years.

What context is it in which MORE votes are not as good as FEWER votes?
Unreal!

The 2 party election point will not apply next GE, because the Tories will lose votes in the south to the LDems....buyers regret, many Tory voters dislike Bozo.

The question for Labour is how to regain enough seats to form a government. At least 25 seats in Scotland need to be won, and standing for Unionism will not allow that to happen.

Some red wall seats can be won (buyers regret again), but nowhere near the numbers required.
Pitching as a tweaked Blue Labour is a distinction without a difference.

For me, Keith is the same type of corporate politician that Theresa May was, a different flavour of neo-liberal. Bozo sold himself as a Punch and Judy character, different from the bland normal.

What political niche does Keith occupy to show a new political narrative?
Back to the future...no thanks, it was not very good!

Now Keith has fallen out with the Unions;
https://labourlist.org/2021/09/starmer-rule-changes-not-going-to-friday-nec-after-car-crash-union-meeting/

Great!

Albie.
It's almost embarrassing to have to spell this out, but in 2005 and 2010 there was a resurgent LD party that was taking votes off Labour. In 2015, there was a surging UKIP taking votes off Labour. Those two parties had essentially evaporated by 2017 and 19 [1].  Corbyn inherited the helpful situation that across vast swathes of the country, if you wanted to vote anti-Tory, there was really only one choice.

Ignoring that fact and claiming his electoral performance (in which he lost, twice, the second one by a historic margin) is a bit silly.

[1] He inherited a dead LD party. Miraculously, he did the impossible over the first half of 2019 in raising it from the dead with his Brexit policy, before the grown ups in the party put him in his box.

[tyke1962]

Tyke.

That line about number of votes is meaningless because it ignores context. 2017 and 19 were the first ones  in a generation that were effectively two party elections in most of England.

It's irrelevant how many people voted for Corbyn's Labour. The fact is, he lost . Against two of the most chaotic Tory opponents in history.

This is the daftest post I have seen in years.

What context is it in which MORE votes are not as good as FEWER votes?
Unreal!

The 2 party election point will not apply next GE, because the Tories will lose votes in the south to the LDems....buyers regret, many Tory voters dislike Bozo.

The question for Labour is how to regain enough seats to form a government. At least 25 seats in Scotland need to be won, and standing for Unionism will not allow that to happen.

Some red wall seats can be won (buyers regret again), but nowhere near the numbers required.
Pitching as a tweaked Blue Labour is a distinction without a difference.

For me, Keith is the same type of corporate politician that Theresa May was, a different flavour of neo-liberal. Bozo sold himself as a Punch and Judy character, different from the bland normal.

What political niche does Keith occupy to show a new political narrative?
Back to the future...no thanks, it was not very good!

Now Keith has fallen out with the Unions;
https://labourlist.org/2021/09/starmer-rule-changes-not-going-to-friday-nec-after-car-crash-union-meeting/

Great!

Albie.
It's almost embarrassing to have to spell this out, but in 2005 and 2010 there was a resurgent LD party that was taking votes off Labour. In 2015, there was a surging UKIP taking votes off Labour. Those two parties had essentially evaporated by 2017 and 19 [1].  Corbyn inherited the helpful situation that across vast swathes of the country, if you wanted to vote anti-Tory, there was really only one choice.

Ignoring that fact and claiming his electoral performance (in which he lost, twice, the second one by a historic margin) is a bit silly.

[1] He inherited a dead LD party. Miraculously, he did the impossible over the first half of 2019 in raising it from the dead with his Brexit policy, before the grown ups in the party put him in his box.

What about the dead LD's on Miliband's watch post coalition in 2015 and pre referendum .

Want to walk us through that one Billy ? .

Corbyn polled more .

[BillyStubbsTears]

UKIP Tyke.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Combined vote for LD+Green+UKIP/BP

2010 - 8.0m
2015 - 7.4m
2017 - 3.5m
2019 - 5.2m

Any analysis that ignores those numbers is worthless.

Oh aye. And the 2015 figures included the highest ever Green vote. 1.1m. Presumably swelled by the left leaning people who couldn't, just couldn't bring themselves to vote for someone as far right as Miliband. The Tories won a sliver of a majority in that Election. Just a couple or three hundred thousand of those Greens voting for Miliband would have prevented a Cameron majority, prevented the Brexit vote, prevented the ascendancy of the Johnson programme.

But conscience is more important.

PS. Since Ken Loach had just started up his own party, I'm guessing he didn't vote Labour in that election either.

[Pancho Regan]

Fascinating how so many on the Left are so cock sure that the Tories will romp the next election. Meanwhile, the Tory lead in the polls has shrivelled from 10% to 3% in 3 months. And an election is at least 2 years away.

£100 to charity for the loser .

Starmer will not win the next election .

Deal ...... ???

I’m sure you’ll be doing your damndest to stop him Tyke.

Close one eye when you put your cross in the Tory box, eh?

[albie]

BST,

Are you saying the voters that opted for UKIP then reverted to boost Labour under Corbyn?
They didn't....they moved largely to the Tories.

If you have any evidence from a reliable source to back up your claim, please post it.

[tyke1962]

Fascinating how so many on the Left are so cock sure that the Tories will romp the next election. Meanwhile, the Tory lead in the polls has shrivelled from 10% to 3% in 3 months. And an election is at least 2 years away.

£100 to charity for the loser .

Starmer will not win the next election .

Deal ...... ???

I’m sure you’ll be doing your damndest to stop him Tyke.

Close one eye when you put your cross in the Tory box, eh?

Well I couldn't possibly have voted for Nick Fletcher who is the first Tory to represent the Doncaster area .

Meanwhile despite the 25 years apathy my town remains Tory free .

Own it sunshine .

[tyke1962]

UKIP Tyke.

Both Labour and the Tories lost votes to UKIP , six and two three's .

The Lib Dem vote went to the Tories which was clearly significant in 2015 .

[SydneyRover]

Getting the figures and the numbers right is important but not as important as supporting the leader and getting government, which would lead to the possibility of Raynor being annointed at some point.

But the longer those mardy sods play politics with their vote due to spite the longer labour will be in opposition.

[SydneyRover]

BST, your claim that "Corbyn came across as someone who didn't like Britain" is bang on in my opinion. To be perfectly honest though, so do you and your mates on this forum.

this is what your f**ked up tory party has done to britain bb, I hope you are proud of em.

Iceland boss: UK has more food banks than McDonalds

Iceland boss: UK has more food banks than McDonalds
Close
A retail boss had said cutting universal credit would be “a choice between heating and eating” for many people.

Iceland's Richard Walker said there had been an "alarming rise" in the number of UK food banks, and there were now more of them than branches of the McDonald's fast food chain.

And he would be happy to see income tax go up to keep the £20 temporary weekly uplift in universal credit, which is due to end within days.

https://www.bbc.com/news/politics



Brexit & the tories, a choice between heating and eating

vote conservative

[albie]

BST,

Are you saying the voters that opted for UKIP then reverted to boost Labour under Corbyn?
They didn't....they moved largely to the Tories.

If you have any evidence from a reliable source to back up your claim, please post it.

Just to be clear, here is the evidence to the contrary;
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/06/22/how-did-2015-voters-cast-their-ballot-2017-general

Tories picked up UKIP in 2017 by 45%, Labour only 11%.
Labour picked up from others, with Greens loaning votes to Labour because of the Corbyn green policies.

Tactical voting BST, more of a player than back when you were a lad!

[BillyStubbsTears]

BST,

Are you saying the voters that opted for UKIP then reverted to boost Labour under Corbyn?
They didn't....they moved largely to the Tories.

If you have any evidence from a reliable source to back up your claim, please post it.

I'm saying there was a large shift in all the minor parties' votes to both Lab and Con in 2017.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/06/22/how-did-2015-voters-cast-their-ballot-2017-general

59% of people who voted Green in 2015 voted Labour in 2017.
29% of 2015 LD voters likewise.
11% of 2015 UKIP voters.

That movement alone made up 2 million of Labour's increased vote in 2017. Because the minor parties in 2017 were the most irrelevant they had been for a generation.

I've said for years now that Corbyn pulled off a masterstroke in 2017. He was able to convince 1.5m ex-Green and LD supporters that he was a Remained, and 400,000 UKIP supporters that he was a Brexiter.

That was genius. And he nearly managed to unseat May. But as I said at the time, the claim that these people voted Labour because they supported Corbynite Labour was self-deception which paved the way for the disaster of 2019.

By the way. Picture the past 8 years if those half a million Greens who had voted for Corbyn in 2017 had voted for Miliband in 2015. And ask yourself what the difference was in Labour domestic policies that caused that shift. Because there was barely a fag paper between the two economic or environmental manifestos.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie

You are rather missing the point in this.

I'm not questioning the fact that the Tories lost and then regained more votes to and from UKIP. I'm saying that in 2017, Labour made large net gains from UKIP, Green and LD 2015 voters combined. Including 400,000 from UKIP. I'm saying you have to consider the near irrelevance of the minor parties in 2017 to understand the vote allocations.

Corbynistas frequently point to the fact that Labour increased its vote on 2017 as evidence of the brilliance of Corbyn and the attraction of his party. But May also greatly increased the Tory vote and everyone accepts that she ran the most appalling campaign in living memory. The point is, both increased the vote because the third-parties were irrelevant for the first time in 50 years.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And in the context of this thread, as I say, ask yourself who Loach supported in 2015 when there was a clear chance to oust Cameron and have the most left wing Govt since 1951. And then ask yourself why we should be lectured by him about unity.

Or indeed by anyone else on the Left who refused to vote Labour in 2015.

[Bentley Bullet]

All this talk of statistics and reasons why voters vote in certain ways is naive in the great scheme of things. Ordinary, normal people don't vote following such in-depth statistical research, they vote for people who they consider to talk the least b*llocks.

[albie]

Sorry BST, but I think it is you who is missing the point.

UKIP were a bridge to a change in voting intentions from traditional Labour supporters long in the making.

Socially conservative older voters in the red wall had become increasingly disillusioned with New Labour, and the vote fell every election until the nadir of 2010. They were right to feel taken for granted.

That was not wholly the fault of Brown, but he failed to take steps to revitalize the party and reverse the declining trend.

Habits of a lifetime die hard, but UKIP gave them a reason to step away.
Once you have made that shift, the next step is easier to take, and as the Tories were offering a Brexit too good to be true, many walked that mile.

Alongside the UKIP disturbance of the model, came tactical voting as a significant force.
This was inevitable as New Labour missed the chance for voting reform, so voters took the only option they could to make their voice count.

Tactical voting will increase next election, and that is the change that will have a lasting effect until PR is introduced.

So the question for Labour is how to max the tactical vote contribution, whilst bringing new voters into the fold.

Keith seems to think it is by courting soft Tories. That will only have an impact where it is a narrow two horse race between Labour and Tory. Soft Tories will flip to LDem where they have traction.

There are not the numbers in the data to support the Starmer approach. Labour can regain some seats on bounceback, but the net position is likely to be a defeat. Now you either settle for a few more seats without power, or you look to differentiate the policy offer to draw in the excluded and the tactical vote.

Starmer is taking Labour down the road of managed decline.
I don't know whether that is incompetence or malevolence, but I can't see any actions taken by the leadership that add weight to Labour as an alternative.

You must know that Keith is burning bridges before he has crossed them...let's hope he can swim, Eh!

[SydneyRover]

''Keith seems to think it is by courting soft Tories''

I think you mean swing voters or ex labour voters Albie, unless you are describing a separate cohort of tories that starmer thinks he has more chance of winning over.

Tell me how many votes you think a labour left drive to win power will need and where they will come from?

that is the question.

[albie]

Syd,
 
You can call them swing voters if you prefer.
There are those who are former Labour first time Tories, and another group of Tories by instinct who are pissed off with Johnson...the sort of people who support the likes of Dominic Grieve and co.

Keith is relying on older voters reverting, and disregarding the new voters coming on to the register, and those too disillusioned to vote.

I think the latter group offers a bigger potential gain than the home owning codgers.
The future of Labour depends on regeneration of the membership, and with that comes policy change to speak to their concerns.

The progress made on this front since 2015 has been reversed by Keith, and the decline under way in the New Labour days will kick in again.

No future for Labour in reliance on corporate donors, despite what the disgraced Peter Mandelson might believe.

[BigH]

Problem is the centre right of the Labour Party is every bit as complicit in protecting the interests of super capitalism which creates inequality .

Hmm. Not quite how I remember the Blair years. Healthcare waiting lists down, Sure Start for the disadvantaged, no food banks, tax credits for the low paid, introduction of a minimum national wage. No doubt there was other stuff that created more inequality...

[SydneyRover]

Syd,
 
You can call them swing voters if you prefer.
There are those who are former Labour first time Tories, and another group of Tories by instinct who are pissed off with Johnson...the sort of people who support the likes of Dominic Grieve and co.

Keith is relying on older voters reverting, and disregarding the new voters coming on to the register, and those too disillusioned to vote.

I think the latter group offers a bigger potential gain than the home owning codgers.
The future of Labour depends on regeneration of the membership, and with that comes policy change to speak to their concerns.

The progress made on this front since 2015 has been reversed by Keith, and the decline under way in the New Labour days will kick in again.

No future for Labour in reliance on corporate donors, despite what the disgraced Peter Mandelson might believe.

I think swing voter reflects a more accurate position as to where these people are politically is all, and yes, inspiring those that don't get out of their chairs would be good too but it appears that large cohort that can't be arsed to even think about it. It's faily obvious why the tories would never change the voting system. That is something that blair should have pushed for.