The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

I just voted for Owen Smith in the Lab leadership election

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Pegasus2
I don't actually think Labour's base support is that left wing. This is what is splitting Labour now.

The core supporter in a GE, the working man (or woman) isn't going to register to vote for a leader. Corbyn's band of followers voted him in and basically hijacked the party by talking it further and further left. Whilst the majority of it is still trying to stay mild left.

This has alienated all the core support that would be the foundation of a GE and is splitting the party.


Sorry, I meant membership as opposed to support.
Labour's membership who have the casting vote are very left wing, which means Smith has had to try and appeal to them, making him look a bit silly.

Although Smith is by no means a great candidate, I do think that if he wins we will see a far more moderate and coherent Smith.
Original post by 1 8 13 20 42
Probably true. I'm just saying, I think Labour will have no chance either way. From what I've seen of him he is rather dull and uninspiring to say the least. On the one hand he seems quite left-wing relatively speaking, which of course is good, being a nominee for Labour leadership, but on the other I dunno how much of that is just done to try to win over people who are voting Corbyn because he is more left-wing than average.


Considering the fact that Smith's being backed by Labour's right-wing pressure group "Progress" makes me feel that the likelihood of any of his left-wing policies seeing the light of day is extremely low. When in doubt, always follow the money. Owen Smith doesn't strike me as the type of person to stand up to those bankrolling him - ie. if Progess' contributors don't want some of his more left-wing policies being enacted, you'd have to be extremely naive to think he'd still try and push them through.

The next question you would then have to ask yourself is, who are Progress' contributors? Aside from Lord Sainsbury, details of their funding sources are rather murky. Do we want a situation similar to that in the US where we become an effective plutocracy, where a few monied persons or corporations decide policy? You can claim this is paranoia, but the Democratic party was largely bankrolled by unions prior to Bill Clinton's appearance on the scene. Since his championing of "Third Way Politics", they pretty much have the same financial backers as the Republican party, and surprise, surprise, as a result of this, their economic policy has shifted significantly rightwards.

Do you not remember Blair saying after Corbyn's election "he wouldn't want to win a GE on a left-wing ticket"? Note, he didn't say campaign on one but win. And considering his views are fairly illustrative of Progress (the very same group who supported Liz "Acadamies are a great idea" Kendall) - I'd think the majority of Owen Smith's campaign platform can be disregarded as empty promises. This is the person, who, in an attempt to out-manoeuvre Corbyn on foreign policy, claimed that he'd start a dialogue with ISIS.

I think many Labour supporters have gotten so wrapped up in Corbyn's "apparently" disastrous leadership that they don't realise what they'll be giving up. It was only a couple of weeks ago that the party literally used members' money to fight a court battle to ensure their retrospective and quite frankly embarrassingly arbitrary leadership vote rule change was upheld.

If you believe that this party, after ousting Corbyn, will even allow a hint of the same membership involvement that Corbyn was promising then you're living in a dreamland. An autocratic Labour party would be straight back on the cards. The same type of party that led the country to the most disastrous foreign policy decision in a century. One that has already resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and will likely contribute to perpetual unrest in the Middle East for at least the next decade or two. This is also the party that championed light-touch regulation in the financial sector, a pumping up of the housing market (sowing the seeds for the housing crisis affecting our generation), rampant globalisation that left much of their traditional base behind (and contributed to Brexit more than Corbyn ever could) and PPI for the NHS. The list just goes on and on. That's not to say Blair's labour didn't enact a great deal of left-wing policies, but the reality is that the many right-wing actions of his government will leave long-lasting marks on our society and the world itself.

Yes, if you're a left-winger, the Tories are much worse than any "centre" Labour government could ever be. But as we've seen in the US, the very future of the party could be at stake. The possibility of Labour shifting towards the right in the same way the DNC had was almost a certainty before Corbyn came onto the scene. The noises from the other leadership contenders prior to Corbyn becoming a semi-serious proposition pretty much confirm it.

In all honesty, the PLP's handling of Corbyn has been absolutely shambolic. Many on the left only saw him as a temporary measure to reassert the party's base beliefs. It was very likely that if left to burn out on his own accord, a more suitable replacement would've come in a couple of years before the next GE. Turning Corbyn into this martyr-like figure where he's essentially fighting for the common member against the Labour "establishment" was literally the opposite of what they should have aimed for. Now we've reached the position where Labour members and the PLP are essentially in open warfare. It's a completely farcial situation that could have been easily avoided but impatience and impudence on the side of the PLP has made it become a reality.

I will be voting for Corbyn, not because I think he's the best person to lead us into the next GE or even the best person for the leadership role at present. No, the reason I will vote for him is that we're at a pivotal juncture in Labour's history and the political landscape in general. So while ousting him may potentially have short-term gains (better polling/less seats lost in GE2020), the long-lasting effect may be one the true left in this country might not survive.
(edited 7 years ago)
Labour logic: lose election because too left-wing. Solution: move further to the left!
Original post by Gigabit
Labour logic: lose election because too left-wing. Solution: move further to the left!


Based on that logic, Labour should just take on the policies of the conservatives in order to win power. Politics is about persuading people why particular policies and ideologies are best for society. It isn't about finding out what people already think and then changing direction based upon that.
Original post by Subrogation
Based on that logic, Labour should just take on the policies of the conservatives in order to win power. Politics is about persuading people why particular policies and ideologies are best for society. It isn't about finding out what people already think and then changing direction based upon that.


If Labour want to actually change things, they need to be elected. And that is never, ever, going to happen.
Original post by Gigabit
If Labour want to actually change things, they need to be elected. And that is never, ever, going to happen.


Of course it is necessary to be elected to change things. But what is the point of getting elected if, as you suggest, it requires abandoning the ideas which you believe are actually required in order to change things for the better?
Politics requires compromise, Tony Blair understood that back in the 90s.

It's not about abandoning your principals. It's about accepting the world as it is. The country does not want a socialist.
Original post by That Bearded Man
I have no faith in Smith doing anything except shifting central with so much pressure from the Blairites.


And asking for a second referendum. Watch him then get utterly trounced across non-metropolitan areas that should be Labour as all those who voted Brexit vote in the next election
Original post by Gigabit
Politics requires compromise, Tony Blair understood that back in the 90s.

It's not about abandoning your principals. It's about accepting the world as it is. The country does not want a socialist.


If the country doesn't want a socialist, that's fine. But socialists should not stop being socialists simply to gain power.

It's wrong to use Tony Blair as an example of compromise. He implemented precisely the kind of policies he believed in. But, frankly, he did abandon core labour policies which the party is now reclaiming.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Gigabit
Labour logic: lose election because too left-wing. Solution: move further to the left!


Labour's loss in the GE was far more to do with the public perception of Ed Milliband not being PM material, a potential SNP coalition and rehashed notions of Labour causing the financial crisis.

Narrowing it down to Labour being too left is such a ridiculous simplification that it makes me wonder whether you have any real understanding of politics at all.
Ed Milliband was perceived as being too left precisely because of his economic policies...
Original post by 04MR17
Such a martyr.


Calm down, dear. :lol:

Stalking my comments list so you can reply to each one, in a feeble attempt to hit back after I upset you, casts you in a rather poor light. If you have issues with obsession and being highly-strung then TSR is probably not a safe space for you
You know Smith's foreign policy is bad when even Corbyn calls his proposal to negotiate with the Islamic State "hasty and ill-considered". :biggrin:
Original post by Gigabit
Labour logic: lose election because too left-wing. Solution: move further to the left!


They didn't lose an election because they were "too left wing" though. Labour has basically been Tory lite for ages, even under Miliband. That doesn't work when people can just vote Tory. Labour lost because Miliband wasn't seen as PM material by a lot of people (you could maybe say the same about Corbyn, but it's not necessarily to do with the old left vs right debate).

I absolutely hate this argument that Labour should just offer watered down Tory slop to win elections. They're supposed to oppose the Conservatives and hold them to account, not try to copy their policies in a slightly not as bad way. There is far more to the electorate than Tory voters.
Original post by RF_PineMarten
They didn't lose an election because they were "too left wing" though. Labour has basically been Tory lite for ages, even under Miliband. That doesn't work when people can just vote Tory. Labour lost because Miliband wasn't seen as PM material by a lot of people (you could maybe say the same about Corbyn, but it's not necessarily to do with the old left vs right debate).

I absolutely hate this argument that Labour should just offer watered down Tory slop to win elections. They're supposed to oppose the Conservatives and hold them to account, not try to copy their policies in a slightly not as bad way. There is far more to the electorate than Tory voters.


Exactly, it was in Blair's short term interests, with his presidential style ambitions. The fact is there is a pendulum, it's a complete lie to say there isn't, and they should have the courage of their convictions. I don't agree with all Corbyns ideas, but his stubbornness and defiance with media and going whatever the hell way he wants with authenticity is a deceptively, surprisingly good tactic, if you account for the fact the people in his own party, and the media, are hell bent on destroying him. The reason they want the same sort of candidate as before and are determined to make him fail, is because they are now the relics, stuck in the past, trying to give their legacy a better reputation when people are turning against it. They cannot understand that the political paradigm has moved on, they talk about Corbyn going back to the past but it is they who are behind the curve.
They are immensely bitter that the legacy is discredited and despite huge pressure, the people out there want something else.

I also hate the position, when the Tories who should know better support it, it is worse, because they are effectively saying they want people with no conflicts and a faux-adversarial parliament that offers no real democratic choice. People had twenty years of that and hate it. Every time the public get the chance to really have a stake in something that matters, they get a sniff of real democracy and come out in force, that's what democracy is supposed to be. Yet the media and political elites hate it and try and surpress it, what they want is a continuation of peoples disillusion, low turnout, people voting for things they hate reluctantly again...it's unbelievable the arrogance and disconnect. A candidate that still patronises and doesn't get all this will be suicide, that is why however much the Labour party may want to replace JC with a Blairite/Centrist/whatever talking about second referendums, they will be trounced(by the whole old Labour Brexit vote) I for one would actually quite like to see Corbyn spare himself the onslaught, let Labour think they are winning, then watch their new candidate get trounced to show them whats going on. Corbyn could just watch and chuckle, the supporters might even vote for him as an independent or something.

But the terrible, hectoring conviction they have that treating their own electorate and members with contempt, whilst simultaneously, erroneously and vacuously hating Tories for some vague class based, schools based reasons, whilst being Tory light themselves, and contorted with hatred to anyone not in their echo chamber which is now intellectually discredited and of the past, is quite tragic, depressing and amusing, all at once.
Original post by AlexanderHam
Calm down, dear.

Stalking my comments list so you can reply to each one, in a feeble attempt to hit back after I upset you, casts you in a rather poor light. If you have issues with obsession and being highly-strung then TSR is probably not a safe space for you
TSR is not a space. and I don't think telling someone to "Calm down, dear" did David Cameron any good.
Original post by Gigabit
Politics requires compromise, Tony Blair understood that back in the 90s.

It's not about abandoning your principals. It's about accepting the world as it is. The country does not want a socialist.


His economics were to the right of Thatcher....apart from the worst bit of the left-too bigger state. Inequality went up, social mobility went down.
Civil liberties wrecked to deal with a terror threat he created, by decimating the middle east, devolution plus alienating the Scottish vote, fueling the Scottish independence vote, mass immigration plus faith schools plus his foreign policy, a perfect recipe for creating more segregation and extremism.
He begun the marketisation of the NHS and jumped in bed with Murdoch, to see Labour **** off the new Tory government for this was a joke.
He facilitated wage compression, and impossible house prices.
He would have put us in the Euro currency, without Brown keeping him back from it.
David Kelly ended up dead over the Iraq lies.

All because of his great 'charisma', he got away this, and now stupid people in Labour think it was a great legacy and want more of it, and hate the fact anyone has turned against it.
Who cares, both will make labour unelectable. Labour are finished unless they cull everyone and start a fresh
Original post by Gigabit
Labour logic: lose election because too left-wing. Solution: move further to the left!


Political paradigms change, duh, they also depend on the vagaries of the pendulum, and who is leading those policies. And no, pre-emptive 'Duh' I'm not saying Corbyn is the most charismatic in the world, but I sure don't think Owen Smith is, nor will he be electorally successful with his polices. your notion was it's all about left in objective terms. It's also about hoe the media choose to portray it, and how people get their info. How people get info is changing rapidly, social media has facilitated the arab spring, politics is changing completely and the Beeb may have less power over time, plus social media may have more.

The establishment is out of touch.


Over Remain/Brexit Mk1
Over Clinton/Trump Mk2
Over wish for the EU to stay together/Wish for it to break, across Europe.
Over Corbyn.

I'm telling you, we are looking at major paradigm shift here. it's still not being fully processed amongst so many echo chambers, and that is causing me delight!
Original post by Betelgeuse-
Who cares, both will make labour unelectable. Labour are finished unless they cull everyone and start a fresh


No. We either need new parties, so the Blairite should join the Lib Dems and make something new, or make a new party, or a break from the past. Owen Smith is neither.

It hinges on the EU situation. It could be dead by 2017. We have the Italian referendum which could lead to them leaving the Euro, then the French elections., with Le Pen promising a referendum. Then we could have all trade arrangements made or begun, and the public could be open to a radical candidate who is wanting to tackle inequality and look to our own affairs and workforce.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you