Batley and Spen 2021 by election

Grandad1943

Well-known Member
Starmer isn't the issue with that. The stats from a number of general elections show that pattern and Starmer hasn't been the leader in any yet, although its pretty telling that your go to response was automatically to blame him.

Well, Starmer has been the Parliamentary Labour Party leader for fifteen months now. Therefore that elapsed time means all the problems that the PLP has must now be laid at Starmer's and his cohorts door.

Those problems are:-
Fewer MPs now than when his predecessor left office.

Far fewer local councillors now than when his predecessor left office.

Far fewer Labour Party members now than when his predecessor left office.

Far fewer affiliate members now than when his predecessor left office.

Far less wealth in the Labour Party now than when his predecessor left office.

And it could go on.
Great leadership record Starmer. 🤔🥴
 

Mickey1980

Member
Well, Starmer has been the Parliamentary Labour Party leader for fifteen months now. Therefore that elapsed time means all the problems that the PLP has must now be laid at Starmer's and his cohorts door.

Those problems are:-
Fewer MPs now than when his predecessor left office.

Far fewer local councillors now than when his predecessor left office.

Far fewer Labour Party members now than when his predecessor left office.

Far fewer affiliate members now than when his predecessor left office.

Far less wealth in the Labour Party now than when his predecessor left office.

And it could go on.
Great leadership record Starmer. 🤔🥴
You certainly can go on........
 

Soppyfan

Active Member
Labour is in general terms terrified of losing even more voters, thus the attempt to wrestle away the Union Jack off the Tories. I'd rather see a Labour leader go for broke and attack the Tories in the way Blair did in the run up to the 1997 General Election.

Maybe they're worried that if they do go for broke, it may end up not working out.
 

Grandad1943

Well-known Member
Maybe they're worried that if they do go for broke, it may end up not working out.

Labour certainly may as well "go for broke" as for sure it is not working out at this point in time.

However, with Starmer leading the party " going for broke" we all know will not happen.
 

Smudges Dad

Distinguished Member
Doesn't Labour have to win back Scotland to form a government in Westminster?
Theoretically they don’t need Scotland to give them MPs, but they need to be prepared to work with the SNP if they want to get into government. Unfortunately Labour seems to have lost Scotland and I can’t see any way for them to get it back unless they make significant changes. Their social democratic ground has been taken by the SNP, their radical left policies are held by the Scottish Greens and their unionist cloak is being worn by the Tories. They no longer have a unique selling point in Scotland.
 

GuybrushThreepwood

Active Member
Unfortunately it seems that Labour can only get into power when a sufficient number of voters become fed up of the Tories and want a change.

So the Tories very much control the timetable.

And Labour’s internal left / soft left / left of centre coalition is more divided and fractious than ever.
 

tapzilla2k

Distinguished Member
Unfortunately it seems that Labour can only get into power when a sufficient number of voters become fed up of the Tories and want a change.

Labour only wins when it takes the centre ground of politics (wherever it happens to be at the time) and moderates it's more radical policies. A fact Corbyn supporters fail to recognise to this day. People being fed up of a Government is nothing new, same thing happened with Nu Labour.

So the Tories very much control the timetable.

The Governing party only controls the time table that paves the way towards a General Election. I do think people are fed up of the Tories, but they see no viable alternatives. If that changes, then we'll know the Tories are in trouble.

I could see an election result where the Liberal Democrats decimate the Tories in the South, and we end up in a hung parliament once more. Hopefully the Liberal Democrats will have learned their lesson and only offer a confidence and supply deal, policy by policy. If there is no way for Labour and the Liberal Democrats to form a coalition government.

And Labour’s internal left / soft left / left of centre coalition is more divided and fractious than ever.

The coalition that makes up the Conservative Party is also very unstable, the fact they are in Government is about the only thing holding it together. Brexit going pearshaped could be what breaks that coalition apart. Especially if policies are chased that don't go down well in the South. The Tories could have the North, but lose the South. Therefore have no chance of winning a majority.
 

Smudges Dad

Distinguished Member
Labour only wins when it takes the centre ground of politics (wherever it happens to be at the time) and moderates it's more radical policies. A fact Corbyn supporters fail to recognise to this day. People being fed up of a Government is nothing new, same thing happened with Nu Labour.



The Governing party only controls the time table that paves the way towards a General Election. I do think people are fed up of the Tories, but they see no viable alternatives. If that changes, then we'll know the Tories are in trouble.

I could see an election result where the Liberal Democrats decimate the Tories in the South, and we end up in a hung parliament once more. Hopefully the Liberal Democrats will have learned their lesson and only offer a confidence and supply deal, policy by policy. If there is no way for Labour and the Liberal Democrats to form a coalition government.



The coalition that makes up the Conservative Party is also very unstable, the fact they are in Government is about the only thing holding it together. Brexit going pearshaped could be what breaks that coalition apart. Especially if policies are chased that don't go down well in the South. The Tories could have the North, but lose the South. Therefore have no chance of winning a majority.
Labour also loses when it has a centrist agenda - see Callaghan, Kinnock, Brown, Miliband for examples.

In face, 2 out of the 3 post war Labour PMs would be considered on the left of the party these days (Attlee, Wilson).
 

tapzilla2k

Distinguished Member
Labour also loses when it has a centrist agenda - see Callaghan, Kinnock, Brown, Miliband for examples.

In face, 2 out of the 3 post war Labour PMs would be considered on the left of the party these days (Attlee, Wilson).

Blair did what many previous Labour leaders failed to do, that is to tame the Unions and kept them quiet for a long time. He closed off an attack line the Tories usually used against Labour. Kinnock did the heavy lifting to get the party back into shape (put the far left of the party back in it's box). Blair was the beneficiary of a lot of hard work to make the party electable again, he pushed things into a landslide. I expect had John Smith not died, Labour would have probably won a smaller majority.

And the other thing Blair did ? He outlined a vision for the country people could get behind. That's what Starmer needs to do, but I don't think he's got the skills to do it.
 

SpacekSissy

Distinguished Member
And the other thing Blair did ? He outlined a vision for the country people could get behind. That's what Starmer needs to do, but I don't think he's got the skills to do it.
I completely agree with this part. But for the rest of your post, things are very different to those days back then. It's seriously not going to work to hark back to the Blair times. He was also the most hated politician when he finally left his post, please don't forget that part.
 

tapzilla2k

Distinguished Member
I completely agree with this part. But for the rest of your post, things are very different to those days back then. It's seriously not going to work to hark back to the Blair times. He was also the most hated politician when he finally left his post, please don't forget that part.

I'm aware of the hate towards Blair. But my point is Blair is about the only Labour leader whose shown how you can beat the Tories emphatically, whilst in opposition by doggedly wrestling the political narrative off the Tories, whilst setting out a vision for the country people could get behind and then win 3 elections on the trot despite the hate (which was his own fault).
 

Grandad1943

Well-known Member
Blair did what many previous Labour leaders failed to do, that is to tame the Unions and kept them quiet for a long time. He closed off an attack line the Tories usually used against Labour. Kinnock did the heavy lifting to get the party back into shape (put the far left of the party back in it's box). Blair was the beneficiary of a lot of hard work to make the party electable again, he pushed things into a landslide. I expect had John Smith not died, Labour would have probably won a smaller majority.

And the other thing Blair did ? He outlined a vision for the country people could get behind. That's what Starmer needs to do, but I don't think he's got the skills to do it.

Blair did not "tame the unions", he had no need to as they were completely behind him prior to and on his election as prime minister.

His pledges to bring forward a national minimum wage along with, The Fairness at Work Act, the updating of the Health & Safety at Work Act and the first legislation in regard to equality ensured unity throughout the whole labour movement.

However, Blair in creating a cosy relationship with the bankers and Rupert Murdock beyond 2005 lost his radical visionary outlook and in that lost the confidence of the trade unions along with the rest of the broader labour movement, and the rest is history.

However, the minimum wage and fairness at work acts changed the conditions and employment lives of millions of persons in Britain forever when those bills were enacted.
 

GuybrushThreepwood

Active Member
Labour only wins when it takes the centre ground of politics (wherever it happens to be at the time) and moderates it's more radical policies. A fact Corbyn supporters fail to recognise to this day. People being fed up of a Government is nothing new, same thing happened with Nu Labour.



The Governing party only controls the time table that paves the way towards a General Election. I do think people are fed up of the Tories, but they see no viable alternatives. If that changes, then we'll know the Tories are in trouble.

I could see an election result where the Liberal Democrats decimate the Tories in the South, and we end up in a hung parliament once more. Hopefully the Liberal Democrats will have learned their lesson and only offer a confidence and supply deal, policy by policy. If there is no way for Labour and the Liberal Democrats to form a coalition government.



The coalition that makes up the Conservative Party is also very unstable, the fact they are in Government is about the only thing holding it together. Brexit going pearshaped could be what breaks that coalition apart. Especially if policies are chased that don't go down well in the South. The Tories could have the North, but lose the South. Therefore have no chance of winning a majority.

To be honest it's the Tories that typically control the narrative and centre of gravity (most unfortunately), helped by the print media, their rich chums and donors etc. I voted for Labour at the last 3 general elections, but I finally realised (I was slow to get there) that the Tories are the default party of the government in Westminster, and that Labour only gain power intermittently and when the Tories are sufficiently considered to be busted flush and in need of rebooting. The fact that after 2023 Labour's 13 years in power from 1997-2010 will only be equal to the Tories' 3rd longest continuous post-War stint in office (from 1951-1964) highlights that.

When the Tories operate reasonably effectively from an internal party political perspective and don't openly self destruct like they did on a daily basis from 1992-1997, they win or at least finish ahead of Labour as the largest party.

Regarding the main parties' coalitions, the Tories are typically considerably better than Labour at uniting when general elections come around, and when they really need to retain power. They are much cleverer, more ruthless and more pragmatic than Labour in that department. 1997 was a notable exception, but they were doomed to suffer a heavy defeat then regardless of what they did then (they were finished after the March 1993 budget and Labour already had a 20 point plus lead in the polls alongside 271 seats in the commons before John Smith died). Labour are far more likely to self-destruct, openly battle which each other on a daily basis etc. Any Tory in-fighting in recent times is far less than what had they under the Major or May Premierships. The Labour in-fighting just seemingly gets worse and worse with every passing day, and the battle for the 'soul' of the Labour party is never-ending. I think it's clear that quite a few people in the various factions of the Labour party, hate each other even more than they hate the Tories.
 
Last edited:

Smudges Dad

Distinguished Member

Grandad1943

Well-known Member
Labour only wins when it takes the centre ground of politics (wherever it happens to be at the time) and moderates it's more radical policies. A fact Corbyn supporters fail to recognise to this day. People being fed up of a Government is nothing new, same thing happened with Nu Labour.

What is the point of the Labour Party being in existence if its policies are only to mirror the so-called centre ground wherever that may be on the approach to any general election?

Inequality in housing, incomes and employment conditions have never been higher in Britain since the beginning of the twentieth century. It has been the Labour movements commitment to challenge those wrongs since its conception over one hundred years ago.

The broader movements offshoot, the Parliamentary Labour Party, should have been at the very forefront of the above commitment over those years but sadly it often has not done so. Never has that failing been greater than in the last twelve years with many Labour MPs seemingly having no radical vision and only looking to out for themselves in their easy parliamentary lives.

We have even witnessed staff and officers supported by a number of Labour MPs actually work against a radical leader who had been elected on two separate occasions with the largest majorities ever achieved in a party leadership election.

The above I and very many who are affiliate member subscribers to the party find totally disgusting and it has to be brought to an end either from within the party or from without by the broad Labour movement in Britain.
 

MartinP1

Well-known Member
Labour also loses when it has a centrist agenda - see Callaghan, Kinnock, Brown, Miliband for examples.

In face, 2 out of the 3 post war Labour PMs would be considered on the left of the party these days (Attlee, Wilson).

So the winning policy formula for Labour in the 2020s is:

a) 1945
b) 1966
c) 1997, 2001, 2005?
 

tapzilla2k

Distinguished Member
What is the point of the Labour Party being in existence if its policies are only to mirror the so-called centre ground wherever that may be on the approach to any general election?

To enact change first you have to win power. If voters don't like radical policies, Labour will just be shouting into the wind while the Tories remain in power or we end up in a hung parliament.

Inequality in housing, incomes and employment conditions have never been higher in Britain since the beginning of the twentieth century. It has been the Labour movements commitment to challenge those wrongs since its conception over one hundred years ago.

Labour is there to challenge inequalities wherever they exist. Inequalities usually foisted upon us by Tory policies.

The broader movements offshoot, the Parliamentary Labour Party, should have been at the very forefront of the above commitment over those years but sadly it often has not done so. Never has that failing been greater than in the last twelve years with many Labour MPs seemingly having no radical vision and only looking to out for themselves in their easy parliamentary lives.

They are part of the Westminster village, a lot of MP's from various parties succumb to it. Especially those in safe seats where a Party could pin a rosette on a donkey and still win.

I feel the only way to change things is for a radical overhaul electoral law (ditch FPTP, elected house of lords etc), a federalist approach to the Union and an attempt made to codify the Constitution. Until you break the electoral grip the Tories have had for decades then radical policies will only happen during times of political crisis.

We have even witnessed staff and officers supported by a number of Labour MPs actually work against a radical leader who had been elected on two separate occasions with the largest majorities ever achieved in a party leadership election.

If Corbyn had been a better leader and took control of the Labour Party machinery as Blair, Brown and all the others did then he'd have been able to put the right wing of the Labour Party into a box as happened to the Left wing of the party. While the cat is snoozing on the job, the mice will play. John McDonald would have probably been a better choice for the left. But he burned a lot of bridges across the party in the 90's, so he was never going to get the nomination.

The above I and very many who are affiliate member subscribers to the party find totally disgusting and it has to be brought to an end either from within the party or from without by the broad Labour movement in Britain.

The Labour Party is either going to renew itself or split apart. There is too much factionalism on both sides. Too busy taking lumps out of the other to give the Tories much cause for concern. I didn't vote for Corbyn in either leadership election as my political gut feeling was he didn't have the mettle to be party leader or appeal to what I shall dub swing voters. Who are always up for grabs by either party. His dislike of the media, allowed them to define him to the public and his fate was sealed. 2019 showed that with a Tory Party running a good electoral campaign (and not a disaster that was 2017), Corbyn flamed out.

The only way to oust the Tories will be through electoral pacts with other parties and a coalition government with a mandate to radically reform the Electoral system and fix what needs fixing. All the problems Westminster has kicked into the long grass are now coming home to roost. Labour is just not in any sort of shape to fight in the way it can and should be. The post Nu Labour headache is still going on.
 

Mickey1980

Member
To enact change first you have to win power. If voters don't like radical policies, Labour will just be shouting into the wind while the Tories remain in power or we end up in a hung parliament.



Labour is there to challenge inequalities wherever they exist. Inequalities usually foisted upon us by Tory policies.



They are part of the Westminster village, a lot of MP's from various parties succumb to it. Especially those in safe seats where a Party could pin a rosette on a donkey and still win.

I feel the only way to change things is for a radical overhaul electoral law (ditch FPTP, elected house of lords etc), a federalist approach to the Union and an attempt made to codify the Constitution. Until you break the electoral grip the Tories have had for decades then radical policies will only happen during times of political crisis.



If Corbyn had been a better leader and took control of the Labour Party machinery as Blair, Brown and all the others did then he'd have been able to put the right wing of the Labour Party into a box as happened to the Left wing of the party. While the cat is snoozing on the job, the mice will play. John McDonald would have probably been a better choice for the left. But he burned a lot of bridges across the party in the 90's, so he was never going to get the nomination.



The Labour Party is either going to renew itself or split apart. There is too much factionalism on both sides. Too busy taking lumps out of the other to give the Tories much cause for concern. I didn't vote for Corbyn in either leadership election as my political gut feeling was he didn't have the mettle to be party leader or appeal to what I shall dub swing voters. Who are always up for grabs by either party. His dislike of the media, allowed them to define him to the public and his fate was sealed. 2019 showed that with a Tory Party running a good electoral campaign (and not a disaster that was 2017), Corbyn flamed out.

The only way to oust the Tories will be through electoral pacts with other parties and a coalition government with a mandate to radically reform the Electoral system and fix what needs fixing. All the problems Westminster has kicked into the long grass are now coming home to roost. Labour is just not in any sort of shape to fight in the way it can and should be. The post Nu Labour headache is still going on.
You had me until the last paragraph. The only left wing party with the numbers to make a difference in a coalition is the SNP and that's not going to happen. As for changing the electoral system, maybe if the case had been made but to be honest, I expect we'd just see a rehash of the last referendum on it because Tory supporters aren't in favour of it and we'd need Tory constituencies.
 

Grandad1943

Well-known Member
tapzilla2k, there is much I can agree with in your above post. However, you state that "Corbyn should have grabbed control of the party" machinery when in that Corbyn had no control over Central office and never could possibly have gained control.

The PLP leader only has control over his own office, with the General secretary having control over communication and servicing of the affiliate membership and policy ideas etc coming from that membership and organisations.

The Labour party Central Office is (supposed) to be responsible for the overall administration of the Labour Party and the servicing of information and communication with MPs, constituency and district parties. In the above huge administrative " nightmare" no one ever dreamt, anywhere in the movement, that there were those in that office that were directly working against the elected Labour leader and even against a Labour Party win in the 2017 and 2019 general elections

I have already stated what many believe, that being, that the Labour Party administration must be completely reorganised and reduced with the Central Office being abolished and its responsibilities being divided between the leader's office and the General Secretaries office.
 

Vollrath

Well-known Member
no one ever dreamt, anywhere in the movement, that there were those in that office that were directly working against the elected Labour leader and even against a Labour Party win in the 2017 and 2019 general elections
If it turns out that the allegations in the leaked report are true, do you think such a small group of staffers could have had much impact on such a complex network of semi-independent systems as a national party election campaign?

(I thought by the way the staffers in question had mostly departed, by the time of the 2019 campaign.)
 

The latest video from AVForums

Paramount + UK launch: Halo, Star Trek and Beavis, and all the latest 4K + Movie/TV News
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Netflix confirms ad-supported option is on the way
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Rotel announces 60th Anniversary Diamond Series Hi-Fi duo
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Paramount+ launches in the UK and Ireland
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Hisense launches A9H 4K OLED TV
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
What's new on UK streaming services for July 2022
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom