The fall of the Tory party

People say all sorts of things as a shorthand, and I'd ask that people be a little less literal in their reading. The longhand version of the statement is that the Westminster consensus is bizarrely parochial and there's a great deal of political and economic thought outside of it that warrants attention. That the parties' overlap in rhetoric is often hard to listen to.

As I said in my first post, there are a lot of snap value judgements from both sides of this argument that aren't informative and only cause division, despite policy preferences being relatively aligned. The opposing statement is often held up as a gotcha too—"let's just get the Tories out"—as if it's a categorical statement and the subject in question warrants no further investigation.

And to be totally honest, this whole thing was because I was annoyed at someone being called a tankie for the crime of having ever-so-slightly more progressive views than the current Labour party, which is basically all of us. Ted's post was the stronger form of that argument so I thought it best to respond to that version.

The whole point is to rid ourselves of the Tory party at the forthcoming election. Hopefully, they'll receive such a massive kicking that they'll no longer be the official opposition. Collectively, we all need a breathing space. We can then, as leftists, just do our best to hold Labour's feet to the fire and maybe extract something positive from them. In our 'managed democracy' through the pressure of public opinion this is all we have at our disposal.

Absolutely! The only thing I'd disagree with here is the idea that we need to wait until after the election. Making progressive arguments in public is actually good for Labour, even if they're not quite meeting the threshold currently, because it shows how far away the Conservatives truly are.

I doubt it's anything that strategic.

Consider it from his position:

1. Which is more likely, people view him holding on for longer as a negative thus increasing their loss vs. some outlier event reduces the level of defeat?
   
2. On a stats basis is it better to be PM for a longer or shorter period of time?
   
3. When you're drowning in your own political ineptitude is it easier to do nothing or do something?
   

The only thing I'd disagree with here is the idea that we need to wait until after the election. Making progressive arguments in public is actually good for Labour

Labour infighting basically killed off Corbyn. That is 2 elections and 7 years where we could have had someone other than the Tories in power.

If the Tories win again they will stuff the HoL, redraw constituency boundaries, shore up FPTP, disenfranchise voters, attack the BBC and empower right wing media, continue to engineer public frustration with the NHS and human rights, restrict the right to protest, restrict the right to strike, continue to restrict access to mental health services, legal aid, and so on.

The more infighting there is on the left and the further left Starmer goes the more likely it is that the Tories get in. Is the infighting really worth the risk of letting the Tories back in? The answer to me is "fuck no". Is it not sufficient to just accept a Blairite Labour that will repair the NHS and improve things for people who are poor/disabled/mentally ill/sick/refugees etc.?

Big tent politics is basically the natural outcome of a 2 party FPTP electoral system.

The right tends to further to the right and the left needs to shift to the center to stand an actual chance of winning an election.

The tories fucked it up for a long time and the country will pay a hefty price but it also means labour needs to shift to more centrist policies than a chunk of their voter base is happy with. It’s a lose lose situation really. Still happy to see the back of the tories either way.

I meant for a confidence vote but agree he is hanging on for £££

Ah, ok. I thought you meant the GE.

Maybe true. I think he is still holding out for a miracle also.

That's a country house, not a stately. (sorry)

Is the infighting really worth the risk of letting the Tories back in? The answer to me is "fuck no".

Me too, so what I'm arguing for is less factional infighting, because most of it is not actually grounded in policy, theory, or economics. To make a public case for more progressive policy should make it more electorally viable—I accept that this will take time, is difficult given the Westminster and media consensus, and the logic of first past the post. Ming vase theory, ahoy.

Is it not sufficient to just accept a Blairite Labour that will repair the NHS and improve things for people who are poor/disabled/mentally ill/sick/refugees etc.?

Yes and no. There are many areas where I think Labour's policy prescription will improve things marginally, but won't really be able to undo the damage, let alone be enough to deal with the challenges of the next decade or so. We're stuck in the polemics of the 2000s and 2010s, with arguably worse economic policy norms, so there's a long way to go. Some new consensus has to be formed to deal with that.

I believe sunaks basic strategy is; hang on and it'll get better. To me this dosen't seem to be working, it isn't, it isn't coming good for them.

The tories are just looking like they are more myred in sleeeze have given up, trying to get the most for themselves whilest they can etc.

To try and convince enough tory MP's that sunaks stratagey isn't working and via the threat of a no confidence vote get them to pressure him into calling a general election sooner would be the answer, but turkeys and Christmas etc.

We are going to get this done on Monday, and we will sit there and vote until it’s done.

Please let it have to run into Tuesday

Is it not sufficient to just accept a Blairite Labour that will repair the NHS and improve things for people who are poor/disabled/mentally ill/sick/refugees etc.?

No

The gap between the tories and labour may not be as big as we'd like, but millions of people live and die in that gap.

The presumption here is that having more progressive policies is a cost to electoral viability. Many would agree that it is, and that's a reasonable position, but it's very hard to prove. It seems to me like there's a very large area to explore.

You could refer back to the limited number of progressive parties being in power.

It provides some pretty convincing data.

Not very scientific I know.

The Great Labour Government of 1945 only just hung on to power in the following 1950 election, and were out in '51. 13 years of tory rule.

1983 was seen as a Left Wing Labour manafesto, lost to thatcher, 14 more years of tory govenment

1997, 2001,2005, Tony Blair wins 3 in a row only Labour Leader to do this.

2017 Jermy Corbyn's Labour lose to a hapless Teressa May who runs a bad campaign IMO.

2019 Labour under Jermy Corbyn lose again, worst loss since 1930's to Boris Johnson. Then Truss, now Sunak almost 14 years and counting the cost.

Under Centerist Keir Starmer Labour has come back and is 20 points ahead.

Looks like a pattern to me.

That's the obvious response, yes. Corbyn as proof of progressive policies not being accepted in the UK more recently, and a majority of countries in the OECD whose left wing governments are relatively centrist, if they're even in power at all. There are however outliers both domestically in the 20th century as well as current international examples.

Here's part of Harold Wilson's manifesto in 1974 before a narrow victory:

To that end, urgent action is needed to tackle rising prices; to strike at the roots of the worst poverty; to make the country demonstrably a much fairer place to live in. For these purposes, a new Labour Government, in its first period of office, will:
[...]
Redistribute income and wealth. We shall introduce an annual Wealth Tax on the rich; bring in a new tax on major transfers of personal wealth; heavily tax speculation in property - including a new tax on property companies

In 1970—an election he lost—he laid the ground work for those arguments with the likes of his 'Selsdon Man' speech:

What they are planning is a wanton, calculated and deliberate return to greater inequality. The new Tory slogan is: back to the free for all. A free for all in place of the welfare state. A free for all market in labour, in housing, in the social services. They seek to replace the compassionate society with the ruthless, pushing society. The message to the British people would be simple. And brutal. It would say: ‘You’re out on your own.’

Left wing: yes, won: yes. Left wing: yes, won: no. Different factors, a different time, and a very different left movement, to be sure.

Today's overton window is in a very different position, and most recently Corbyn set the boundary for electability to his right. Given the polls right now it's likely that the threshold of electoral viability is to the left of Starmer, or otherwise down to factors external to Labour policy, like Conservative incompetence and all the rest that's discussed at length in this thread.

So with all that said, do you honestly believe that there's no room whatsoever for more progressivism in the current Labour party that could be electorally viable? How about just a smidge more progressive? Two smidges?

It's quite obviously a grey area. It has some risk, sure, but it does provide space.

Looks like a pattern to me.

No doubt about that, all I'm trying to say is that there's space to move in a more progressive direction before it has any electoral effect. That means there's no need to accept some of the darker sides of the Labour front bench, and it is possible to expect better without facing defeat.

Personally I'm traumatised by sooo much loss, my first election was '79, I just want to see Labour win.

You have wrote a lot of paragraphs for the aim of 'a smidge more progressive' policies from a party not in power. 😆 I'm not attacking it, it is interesting discussion!

.

Penny Mordaunt has said she may cut the ribbon with a sword if a new Aldi opens in a north Wales town.

You have wrote a lot of paragraphs for the aim of 'a smidge more progressive' policies from a party not in power. 😆

😂 maybe 10 more smidges? That'll probably do it…

Corbyn as proof of progressive policies not being accepted

The policies were broadly popular in polling weren't they? It was the leader and party that were unpopular