Metropol

Is it just me that has gone from spending hours every week watching/reading the news to being almost completely disconnected since the election?

Seems nobody had Jeremy Corbyn down to be the next Labour leader, but now the bookies favourite.

At least if Labour lurch to the left it might give them an identity again as nobody knows what they stand for anymore.

But will they be electable with a "Michael Foot" identity?

I somehow suspect not.

Nick Harvey wrote:But will they be electable with a "Michael Foot" identity?

I somehow suspect not.

Probably not, but any less likely than Tory lite ?

Nu Labour seem intent on being "popular." The ex-Blairite, now unashamedly closet Tory wing of the party are only interested in winning back the shandy-drinking southern vote so they can be in power again. Sadly Corbyn would never command their loyalty, as indeed 47-odd proto-quislings have already shown. They are a bunch of prosecco-quaffing cunts who have no backbone and little conscience.

Nick Harvey wrote:But will they be electable with a "Michael Foot" identity?

I somehow suspect not.

It's been two whole months since they were unelectable with an Ed Miliband identity. You can't expect them to remember after all that time not to choose somebody unelectable as their leader.

Alexia wrote:Nu Labour seem intent on being "popular." The ex-Blairite, now unashamedly closet Tory wing of the party are only interested in winning back the shandy-drinking southern vote so they can be in power again. Sadly Corbyn would never command their loyalty, as indeed 47-odd proto-quislings have already shown. They are a bunch of prosecco-quaffing cunts who have no backbone and little conscience.

It pains me to admit it to myself, but I fear you're right.

They were unelectable under Milliband because all they stood for was not being Tories, and as much as you may dislike the Tories, at least they stand for something, and that was all mixed up in some weird rhetoric about not liking the Scots, being better at austerity than the Tories, but not wanting to cut expenditure for things that people actually want. The entire campaign was confused from top to bottom, and that's before they got out their tablet...

The Nu-Labour lot seem to be convinced that success for the party is only measured by beating the Tories. How about actually offering an alternative voice to the Tories, and representing real people? Yeah, they might not be immediately electable on paper, but actually standing for *something* would greatly increase their chances of getting back into No 10. They're never going to be successful at out-Torying the Tories, and I can't understand this obsession with trying to do so. The way they're acting is like the Tories are the only voice the entire UK want standing for them, which anyone with their head removed from Westminster can clearly see is complete cobblers.

One thing that strikes me as odd about the Blairites is there insistent on Tony Blair being some kind of brilliant electoral winner. The 1997 electoral landslide wasn't so much to do with Tony Blair, but more to do with a rejection of a scandalous Tory party which had poor leadership, increasingly unsafe economic policies and had been in power for two decades. His 1997 43.2% would have been a losing vote share 40 years earlier and his next two elections were on two of the lowest turnouts in history with the 2005 Election seeing him receive the lowest % vote and % mandate of any government in history.

The primary reason Labour lost this election wasn't because they were too left wing (they weren't even left of centre anyway (by the logic Ed Miliband is left-wing, Harold MacMillan's economic policies were communistic)), it was because it would appear to most people that the Tories hadn't fucked the economy in any major way in the last 5 years and nearly every change in government since WW2 has been down to the economy.
1951 Economy: Labour spending money on unwanted Korean War at expense of more welfare, housing and NHS services. (Also splits in the Labour party - 1951 is odd though Labour clearly won the popular vote but less seats)
1964 Not Economy: Tories were hit by scandal, also wasn't resounding support for Labour at this time - tiny majority.
1970 Economy: Labour had become the party of devaluation, devaluing the £. (Also some weren't happy with their programmes of social reform)
1974 Economy: OPEC Oil Crisis, Three Day Week and Trade Union difficulties.
1979 Economy:Winter of Discontent (Callaghan would have probably remained PM if he had called the election when his advisers told him to)
1997 Economy: Black Wednesday, EU divisions, North and Wales given no real improvement (Also scandals)
2010 Economy: Recession, Banking Crisis (Also expenses scandal)

Could Corbyn win the next election. Well if the Tories fuck the economy between now and 2020, which austerity might (aggregate demand is almost certainly going to cease up for a start), then Corbyn has a chance. If they don't then simply no. Corbyn will definitely win votes back from the Green party and may even get some SNP and UKIP voters back as well. But given that since Attlee there has only been one substantial change in economic policy, I doubt the public have an appetite for it. At the end of the day most people only like change if it benefits them, and to those people paying more in tax probably doesn't. The only other type of change that benefits them is if the economy is doing shit and they can blame it on the current government.

1964 Not Economy

I do believe there was something about the Economy in that elections, remember this is where the note about having no money first appeared, its also why devaluing was held off for so long...

WillPS wrote:Is it just me that has gone from spending hours every week watching/reading the news to being almost completely disconnected since the election?

Late reply, but I was the same after the election - just completely lost interest in political news. To be expected I suppose.