Labour Leadership 2016

.

In the 'top' University that I work in, we find it much harder to recruit students now the fees have gone up (as does everyone). We don't have many students from poorer backgrounds as their parents can't afford to top up the loan that the government offers - it is simply not enough to cover accomodation, fees and living expenses.

It is the zeitgeist,
we are being told to 'reconcile with the anti-immigrant mindset' of the brextards,
and that man-of-the-people Michael Gove told us we don't need to listen to experts.

As I said upthread Keir Starmer should be an exemplary candidate,
but not only has he worked in 'that London', he represents a London constituency.

Are there any 'traditional Labour core' up-through-a-Union potential nominees from the PLP?

I never understood the idea that Benn's a good orator. That 'golden speech' on Syria was embarrassing. The only thing it convinced me of was that the House of Commons is full of GCSE-level intellects.

That seems extremely counter-intuitive to me.

Who did the research that tuition fees equals more people signing up? I've already no idea how I am going to afford wee man's fees in xx years times.

Are there any 'traditional Labour core' up-through-a-Union potential nominees from the PLP?

This is what I'm wondering. I think Corbyn appeals to those who want to help the working classes and imbalances in wealth, but many of the working class themselves don't support him at all. Whether it's due to media bias, defence policy, immigration policy or him just appearing a bit 'weak' I don't know, but I can't convince myself that he's ever going to appeal to them.
I really, really, really want him to appeal to them though.

Damn straight. The idea that poor equals thick and we somehow have to bow down to that thickness out of what? Guilt? Deference to authenticity?
That's the fantastic trick the Republicans have pulled off in the States, now we're supposed to follow.
Liverpool voted Remain. So did the poorest parts of Scotland.
It's the left's job to educate or offer a vision to seduce or whatever you want to call it. It's supposed to offer something better and better informed, not to accommodate ignorance.

Continuous ridicule from the media,
and,
the impossibility of boiling down, 'the 40 year Trickledown experiment has failed',
and, 'Tory Austerity is not necessary' into a a pithy, (if ultimately demonstrably false), soundbite like 'Take Back Control'.

This is what I'm wondering. I think Corbyn appeals to those who want to help the working classes and imbalances in wealth, but many of the working class themselves don't support him at all. Whether it's due to media bias, defence policy, immigration policy or him just appearing a bit 'weak' I don't know, but I can't convince myself that he's ever going to appeal to them.
I really, really, really want him to appeal to them though.

Corbyn isn't perfect by a long shot, but it's sad that his policies are getting drowned out by PLP backstabbing and a hostile media.

The continuing neo-liberal narrative amplified by a media echo chamber has working class people voting for stuff that's bad for them - austerity, leaving europe (cf Wales and Cornwall).
Working class people know things are bad, but don't know why. Farrage pops up, tells them it's immigration, Tories tell them it's immigration, and even with Milliband at the last election 'getting tough' on immigration. No wonder they vote for right wing parties and to leave europe.

I guess it doesn't help that it seems counter intuitive that when the country is in debt, you need to spend more money to help getting out of that debt. Tbh I struggle to understand it, but I understand clearly that cutting local funding, services etc is NOT going to make the country a better place. I think the broad electorate understand that too: a lot of people voted out of the EU to free up some of the countrys money, but convincing everyone that spending more is the way to go is tough.

The way I tried to explain it to my dad was if I was the head of a 20 person household and I was in debt (but there was no urgent requirement to pay that debt back) and 5 of the 20 people in the house were suffering badly, I would borrow more to provide the means for them to progress out of that suffering.

I think, to follow your anology, the reasoning is that in helping those 5 members of your household you benefit the household. They stop suffering (which costs you money anyway - benefits) and contribute to household expenses (buying stuff and paying taxes).

With interest rates astonishingly low,
(I was paying 15% interest on my mortgage back in 90/91 due to the Lawson 'Boom'),
a competent Chancellor could explain that the multiplier of Government spending,
with a tax take on each transaction, slowly grows the economy, and (non-ZHC minimum wage) employment is cheaper for the Country than unemployment.
But if you are ideologically opposed to Public spending,
and, believe in 'market solutions' for every sector of the economy,
except strangely HS2,
why build anything?

Cuts and austerity were never rational. It's all:

"we have no money (bull)"
"these people are lazy (yes from losing coal mines, uhuh)"
"the market will solve it (trickledown doesn't work as shown now)"
"these people are not like us and don't deserve any of my money (ah now we are getting there...)"

'Tory Austerity is not necessary' into a a pithy, (if ultimately demonstrably false), soundbite like 'Take Back Control'.

What I don't understand is why Labour are so against uniting around one leader to demonstrate a united front and delivering a simple message.

Tory Cuts have cause slower growth. This is why your life is shit.

Torys = Cuts

When you voted out you were promised £350m week extra public spending. Will the Conservatives do that?

Tory = Cuts

Schools failing?

Tory = Cuts

You, the people are the future. We will invest in you. The Torys won't.

Tory = Cuts

Potholes in your street?

Tory = Cuts

For the first* time in my life I'm considering voting Labour. I took a look at the previous voting in my area and can't see how they could win generally, but at the moment they seem to be loosing an upcoming election that should be theirs for the taking. Why?

*excluding Khan as 2nd choice for Mayor.

The idea that poor equals thick and we somehow have to bow down to that thickness out of what? Guilt? Deference to authenticity?

It's not about dumbing down or educating up (like some sort of white Knight). Its about delivery simple messages, because most people are lazy and have better things to do than listen to another tit spout a load of lies. You need simple messages that can appeal to a wide base.

The leave campaign did a great job:

• libitarian? Soverenty.
  
• disenfranchised? Imigrants.
  
• poor? £350m p/w.
  

It is a start,
but I seem to remember this being the theme of '80s Labour,
and
the Mail/Express/Sun reading 'core Labour vote' were told 'The Cuts' would only affect
the workshy, 'loony Leftie bolshie Union members', 'public sector workers on bloated salaries with gold plated pensions', 'welfare scroungers', etc, etc.
Sorry to be unenthusiastic, but it clear that the Tories are the enemy of all but the very priviledged, but the drip,drip, drip, of the Rightwing media pointing at strawmen/women dissipates the well founded rage that most of us have not gained from nearly 40 years of Trickledown.

We'll have to agree to differ on some of those points, but the point I'm trying to make (badly) is you need a negative campaign with a simple message. You don't even need to propose solutions just talk about "investment" in people.

BUT most important you need a united party. People were desperate to vote Brown/Blair out. But it was only when you finally had the credible opposition of Cameron did it happen - and not by much.

All that said, I don't know how achievable a proper majority would be anyway.

Perhaps the best bet is to aim for an SNP/Lib/Lab coalition. Then go for an "anyone but the Conservatives" campaign.

I don't disagree with that at all. I agree the message should be simple and seductive.
I just don't think that message should begin with 'how much of this can we absorb'. The first way to win back a Labour voter who voted Brexit is to change his or her mind, not to think 'How much of how this person thinks NOW can I pander to?'

I think it was Obama's first campaign where he talked about gun control and how in certain deprived white areas people had nothing to hold on to but their guns. It was considered a giant mis-step, one of the few of that campaign. It's become taboo within politics to say people who are poor and white might also be wrong about something. This weird conflation of deference and disenfranchisement. I think that's very dangerous (see Trump if you feel like it).
When Brown called that Rochdale lady bigoted there was the same outcry. He may have been wrong but it seemed to flip the argument so that a few years before you weren't allowed to mention immigration without being branded a racist to the point where Britain was suddenly a post-racist society and anti-immigration couldn't possibly have anything to do with racism and you had to be nice to the BNP when they came on the Today programme in case you came off as metropolitan.

When Brown called that Rochdale lady bigoted there was the same outcry. He may have been wrong but it seemed to flip the argument so that a few years before you weren't allowed to mention immigration without being branded a racist to the point where Britain was suddenly a post-racist society and anti-immigration couldn't possibly have anything to do with racism and you had to be nice to the BNP when they came on the Today programme in case you came off as metropolitan.

It's one of the scary things in our post Brexit world. It's now taboo to call a racist, racist.
Can't believe how far right this county has lurched in such a relatively short time.

It's one of the scary things in our post Brexit world. It's now taboo to call a racist, racist.
Can't believe how far right this county has lurched in such a relatively short time.

Absolutely. And facts have no value. It's terrifying.

“We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.”

Carl Sagan

The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

Isaac Asimov

Sorry, didn't expect that formatting.

I agree with all that, but you can't eat intellectualism.

Somebody in the Guardian wrote years ago the elephant in the room is the loss of low skilled jobs, coupled with lower wages.

This elephant has now come home to roost. I'm seriously considering volunteering in education for IT. Raising each other up is the only way.

I'm seriously considering volunteering in education for IT. Raising each other up is the only way.

This. I'm actively trying to get involved in more electronics/STEM outreach.

I have to find out how after I finish the OU.

It's not easy, in some areas the parents can barely write/read from what I read. I mean, FFS, UK ... but surely somewhere in the world somebody has found a package of solutions.