|
goddamnedtwisto posted:There's still a place for ground-level campaigning, but they need a *lot* more support from local CLPs to do it effectively. In Two Cities I was given a pretty good rundown of what the problems were in the area and what points needed emphasis, but in Thurrock and Battersea it was just like "thanks for turning up, go with that person with the binder". I'm pretty good at bullshitting my way through on minimal information (I know, shocker) but a lot of first-timers were left dangling. Definitely some truth in this - I didn’t want to whinge too much during the campaign but I wasn’t too impressed by the CLPs support. Across dozens of sessions there was exactly one occasion where we were given any kind of primer on the issues and priorities (when the candidate showed up and did that). That’s despite the fact that lots of people were newbies or had come down from ‘safe’ seats with no local knowledge. My first run out I was honestly shocked at how poor the organising was - I was pretty much just chucked straight into it with no advice or offers to buddy up and if it wasn’t my own area I’d have looked a complete tit. From there I realised that when I went out of area I’d have to do a lot of research and memorisation just in case - especially as due to apathy I was having to raise salient issues myself. That leads to a confused mind pretty easily
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 06:29 |
|
|
ronya posted:remember when we were collectively shocked and awed by Momentum's ground game and how it was running circles around the old way of doing things questions for the future, once everything's been tallied: 1) for the seats that were both won and had a massive ground game, how badly would those seats have gone without it? 2) why didn't the leadership see the warning signs about the north and send people there - what happened to the upwards communication? i think people were complaining about it, so was it a coordination issue where lots of people individually decided to get in on the action of unseating or what? maybe just that most of the activists were city-based due to Labour population, so most effort went into cities 3) (rhetorical) what's the point of a ground game if the message isn't clear? ed: Shogi posted:Definitely some truth in this - I didn’t want to whinge too much during the campaign but I wasn’t too impressed by the CLPs support. Across dozens of sessions there was exactly one occasion where we were given any kind of primer on the issues and priorities (when the candidate showed up and did that). That’s despite the fact that lots of people were newbies or had come down from ‘safe’ seats with no local knowledge. CGI Stardust fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Dec 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:15
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:lol at thinking conspiracy theory was a pejorative term in 2019. The year the elite murdered Epstein to cover up their paedophile ring.  Institutional Bias Does Not Require Conspiracy Anyway I'm looking forward to all the poo poo that was put on hold during Purdah reemerging now. Russia report, Acuri investigation, EHCR investigation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:19
|
|
|
RockyB posted:
lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
ShaneMacGowansTeeth posted:Guava, can you take me out of the CLP list in the OP please going forward? Ta RIP
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:23
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1205849622767378433?s=20
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/yanisvaroufakis/status/1205344237497323522 So Ronya, if you are such thought leader, what do you think should be done? Because once again "go back to how things were" is garbage, so go on, tell us. Give us the wisdom that you clearly have been waiting to talk about. Go on. Also when complacency is indistinguishable from conspiracy I think we go conspiracy because it's one of the few ways we have to humanise an essentially inhuman conflict.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:No poo poo you do. Of course you think the ideal manifesto is one that makes no difference. No tolerance for smug Blairite gloating. Nah, ronya's got a point I think. Depending on details, it might not be one I'll fully agree with, but take free broadband as an example. It's a great idea. It would reduce the extraction of wealth for basic utilities from the poorest, leaving them with more in their pocket. That's better for them and better for the economy because they'll spend it on something they need or want rather than lining a rentier's pocket. The infrastructure investment would provide many jobs, both in building and maintaining it, with much-reduced profit seeking compared to what we have now. Also good for the poorest and good for the economy. Ubiquity of good broadband would itself be good for the economy, because the internet is vital or beneficial for a lot of things these days. Add that Labour would have invested in deprived areas in other ways too, and this creates the possibility for businesses to thrive in many more places than they can now. It's a no-brainer. But a significant part of the public apparently saw it as frivolous because they see broadband as a frivolity. In 2019 it certainly is not, but they think what they think, and it reportedly contributed to the idea that the Labour manifesto was an unrealistic wishlist. Too utopian? For some, apparently it was. I didn't predict that, but it seems to be something we need to face in terms of presentation to the public. Leave it out of the next manifesto, I say. Promise to nationalise the worst services that people are most willing to accept the idea of nationalising. That would be far harder to argue against. A Labour government should go further than that if it can, but the manifesto needs to maximise credibility to an audience deeply cynical about socialism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:Oh yeah that particular bit of Tory cuntery is pretty horrid. Right. ILR takes 5 years actual residence and 2000 quid on top of any previous fees. Anyone who is resident in this country via ILR has more than paid for their 'free' NHS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:31
|
|
|
Braggart posted:But a significant part of the public apparently saw it as frivolous because they see broadband as a frivolity. In 2019 it certainly is not, but they think what they think, and it reportedly contributed to the idea that the Labour manifesto was an unrealistic wishlist. Too utopian? For some, apparently it was. I didn't predict that, but it seems to be something we need to face in terms of presentation to the public. I do hate this, but it is apparently true that some people seemed to think "oh we can't actually do any good" is a valid and good thought to have. It's just upsetting it really is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:32
|
|
|
I agree that the broadband thing didn't go well. You can explain why it's a good policy but we're putting ourselves on the back foot if a big splashy ammouncement needs a paragraph to go with it saying why it isn't a frivolous bribe. Part of it I think is that there isn't widespread dissatisfaction with internet infrastructure like there is with rail or housing. Another problem was annoucning big stuff after the manifesto. WASPI should have either been included in the manifesto or dropped entirely. There was something else after that too but I forget what it was. It's important that people think we'll really deliver, and a bunch of big promises coming out that look like they made up on the spot doesn't do that. Qwertycoatl fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Dec 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:34
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:
One ray of sunshine here is that the Corbyn+Momentum project has ploughed up a wide space for left wing ideas in a party and a political system that had seen that whole field as barren. Milliband's idea of capping profits for energy companies was criticised for being too left wing. Teresa May copied that policy two years later, and two years after that we were taken seriously on a policy of nationalising them altogether. A muscular opposition does make a difference. With the manifesto we put a set of good technical ideas against a simple ideological message and tried to fight feelings with facts. With the party leader it's the other way round, the feeling of his popularity within the membership has blinded us to the fact that he was unpopular on the doorstep. Brexit has been a 20+ year project that started in the grass roots and grew into a political firestorm but in five years it is going to be ancient history in the minds of the electorate, if not in fact. Bolsover, and Blyth are going to have a new hospital each and no nurses to run them. There'll be a not-a-border with Ireland. US competition will have exterminated our domestic farming. The money taps will be flowing for a dozen garden bridges. HS2 will be 20% built and 200% over budget. What ideological message is going to make sense in that world, because we need to get that iron in the fire now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:34
|
|
|
The way policies were drip-fed through the entire campaign was not good - there wasn't a solid platform, just a huge grab bag of "here is a load of good stuff" Locally we were also annoyed that housing seemed to take a back seat when this is something that a lot of people can come together on, since basically everyone either has to deal with lovely landlords/too high rents or having to pay too much to buy a house. Central decided to prioritise other things though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
The next leadership campaign: numerology and wild guesses When there is a vacancy for leader, candidates require nominations from CLPs and affiliated organisations (which should be easy to get), plus 10% of the combined PLP and European PLP (about 210 strong, so the magic number is roughly 21 MPs and MEPs). In theory this leaves room for about 10 candidates to get in, but it's more likely to be no more than 6. Remember that the leader is elected by AV and splitting the vote becomes much less of a concern. Two questions; with people like Laura Pidcock losing their seat, can a single continuity candidate still can get over the line? And how likely is it that two or more such candidates could do so? The first thing to do is go back to that list from 2016 and look at who survives today. Stars indicate candidates who might be considered, or who might consider themselves, leaderbile. From Core Group: Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) *Cat Smith (Lancaster & Fleetwood) Diane Abbott (Hackney & Stoke Newington) Grahame Morris (Easington) Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) Ian Mearns (Gateshead) Imran Hussain (Bradford East) Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) John McDonnell (Hayes & Harlington) Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) Kate Osamor (Edmonton) *Rebecca Long-Bailey (Salford & Eccles) *Richard Burgon (Leeds East) *Clive Lewis (Norwich South) Rachel Maskell (York Central) That's 15. To that list I think we can safely add the following people from Core Group Plus: Catherine West (Hornsey & Wood Green) *Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) *Dawn Butler (Brent Central) Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East & Saddleworth) Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) *Holly Lynch (Halifax) *Kate Hollern (Blackburn) *Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) John Cryer (Leyton & Wanstead) This makes 24, and should (should!) guarantee a continuity candidate a place on the ballot. To that list I think we can probably add the following MPs who were elected after the list was drawn up: *Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) Marsha de Cordova (Battersea) Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) Peter Dowd (Bootle) Naz Shah (Bradford West) Darren Jones (Bristol North West) Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) *Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) Nadia Whitomme (Nottingham East) Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) Apsana Begum (Poplar & Limehouse) Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) Matt Western (Warwick & Leamington) Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) Tracy Brabin (Batley & Spen) Preet Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) Alex Norris (Nottingham North) Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) Alex Pollard (Plymouth Sutton & Devonport) Which leaves us with a total of 48. We can probably add a few from the new intake and delete a few from the above, whose precise positioning I've not been able to detect after 15 seconds with their Wikipedia entry. But still, this is an absolutely unrecognisable position from having to borrow nominations for Jeremy from the likes of Margaret Beckett. There seems to be clear room to put two candidates from the left of the party on the ballot. This could be a Good Thing; everyone else would be unable to focus fire on the left in exactly the way that didn't happen in 2015 until it was far too late, and it would allow for some debate about what exactly socialism for 2025 should look like. On the other hand, we all love a good split, and there's more than enough room there for a nasty and lingering split, perhaps along that dividing line of urban vs small towns. As to who might go in for it, nobody knows. If you ask me there is absolutely no excuse to not have a woman in 2020. The strongest potential male candidate (from the left) is probably Clive Lewis. Don't trust Emily Thornberry, she came into the party as a Blairite, she's easily painted as an urban elite, and I wouldn't be surprised if she came at this from the angle of "I can unite all sides of the party". Using the superficial grounds we have to judge people by at the moment, Cat Smith seems in a very strong position; like Rebecca Long-Bailey or Angela Rayner she's been in the shadow cabinet a long time and has had a chance to put herself about a bit, but Smith has Lancaster & Fleetwood while Long-Bailey and Rayner have urban seats in Greater Manchester. If "well, we need to appeal to Workington Man now" gains traction, Smith seems in the best position to capitalise (even if she is from Barrow and not Workington) from the left. You may well see a dark-horse new-broom run from the likes of Kate Hollern (Blackburn) or Holly Lynch (Halifax), who supported Owen Smith in 2016 but were then welcomed back into the Shadow Cabinet later. There's probably going to be a lot of sharp elbows out in the next few months. This leadership contest is going to be far more like 2010 than any other in living memory, coming off the back of a gut-punching end-of-an-era defeat, with no obvious successor and a lot of different ways it could go. Force me at gunpoint to name 5 people to be on the ballot and I'll give you Keir Starmer, Jess Phillips, Thornberry, Long-Bailey, and Rayner, with Rayner as a very modest favourite. But gently caress knows. edit: as I post this, there's vivid rumours of Long-Bailey for leader and Burgon for deputy swirling round Twitter Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Dec 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:38
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Thanks Braggart. Must admit, you've been a real help these past few months and I really appreciate it. Thank you for saying so, I'm touched  You're helping others too, including me. More than you know. You helped me even before I started posting consistently  I think you've got the right attitude. We're in this together, and we help each other when we stumble. Nobody can be strong all of the time - we share our strength. As a general note to everyone, I recommend getting back into something that you love, and trying to move on in positive ways. I put some things aside during the election period to focus more on politics because it was an important time, and I'm now picking them up again and they're making me happy. Hobbies and learning, mainly, coding being a specific one. If you're despondent and bouncing off the walls, try to do something unrelated to your frustration, and that you enjoy doing. Love to all 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:38
|
|
|
The WASPI thing was at best a waste of time and energy. Whatever its merits, it came off as a bribe aimed at people who would crawl through dogshit to vote Tory and have already been given enough opportunities to devour our future. Reference: my mam
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:39
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/steamedhamms/status/1205837122957139968?s=19 Requires turfing out poo poo labour councillors though
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:40
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I do hate this, but it is apparently true that some people seemed to think "oh we can't actually do any good" is a valid and good thought to have. It's just upsetting it really is. It is, but you work with the public you have, not the one you wish you had. Don't stop dreaming big, but we need to bring them along with us. In time more people will understand that better things are possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
What's a preston model?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:43
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:No poo poo you do. Of course you think the ideal manifesto is one that makes no difference. No tolerance for smug Blairite gloating. I have remarked before that the 2017 manifesto ran rightward of Ed Miliband in its content... more spendy than Red Ed, true, but the top voter priorities in 2017 were Brexit and immigration, on which the party veered sharply rightward, and on the spending part it was a healthy chunk of free tuition. It kept most of the welfare bill cuts that Miliband had previously pledged to undo. The success of Corbyn was being able to energize the rank-and-file despite that, with virtually no discontent over its relative softness (notably on not reversing austerity). It was novel enough to shift the rhetoric to a socialist frame, rather than the neoliberal obsession with cost and desert. But that's not a trick one can do twice The rumour that the 2019 manifesto would be basically 2017's turned out to be false - 2019's would be a grab-bag of goodies, with more thrown in on a regular basis over the campaign. Enough of these additional announcements were made that it seems certain that someone in the campaign office believed the tactic to be beneficial. Probably a future campaign will not repeat that aspect, but still, I suspect a successor would struggle to whip a position exactly-this-far-left-and-no-further (consider e.g. the leadership's deft rejection of Conference's noisy motion on abolishing private schools or retaining freedom of movement). That is the difficulty for the succession - the base expects the leadership to be leftier and leftier. This is also a structural party problem for the Tories, of course, but one they have put off for five more years
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:43
|
|
|
Oh the municipal aid thing they did in preston, I remember now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
How's this: Security Society Solidarity Rule of three makes for good slogans, the three concepts are all linked and applicable at various levels; locally, nationally, and internationally. Security can be used in terms of physical security but also economic security, security of resources/food/health etc. Hopefully plays well with the law and order, spend more on police crowd. Society borrows a bit from Cameron's "Big Society" but uhhh not poo poo. All our problems can be solved through cooperation, no man is an island, etc. Solidarity is a similar concept to society but going further and making the overall message a good lefty one. We need to care about people outside of our usual circles, not just think about what's good for us and our friends. Build from that to internationalism, we improve our own national security by building a global society and creating solidarity with people in all countries. Security Society Solidarity #voteLabour2024
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What's a preston model? https://www.lep.co.uk/news/latest/p...nnell-1-9665419 Maximise local benefit in every aspect of what you do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:47
|
|
|
The idea of running on nationwide localism is an interesting one but I don't know how you fix the problem of labour councils often being utter shite filled with chancers who just pocket all the money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
sebzilla posted:How's this: That really does come across as sinister and dystopian, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The idea of running on nationwide localism is an interesting one but I don't know how you fix the problem of labour councils often being utter shite filled with chancers who just pocket all the money. Yeah the preston model even being a thing is total luck where the guy behind it had some minor role on the council for years before being given a shot
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:55
|
|
|
sebzilla posted:How's this: Having to explain it makes it not so great a slogan though. "get brexit done", "take back control" and "make america great again" didn't need explaining. They all evoked a feeling of righting a great wrong done to the electorate by a nefarious and undefined other. "For the many, not the few" needed some intellectual unpacking that people weren't prepared to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The idea of running on nationwide localism is an interesting one but I don't know how you fix the problem of labour councils often being utter shite filled with chancers who just pocket all the money. Transparency is probably the only solution
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:55
|
|
|
The broadband policy was presented as a huge thing, but I think one of the first steps described could be palatable in the next manifesto. The plan was to focus first on areas with the worst access to internet at present, working backwards over time to cover the city centres with good provision last. Why not fold that first step into plans for regional investment for business and community? Labour wants businesses to see currently-deprived areas as viable, so here's better internet facilities (among many other things) in those areas. Maybe not free in the manifesto because of cynicism, but something can be worked out. Some kind of subsidy for the poor? Means testing in general is stupid, but it might be a necessary step on the way in this case. Dunno, just spitballing here, but it seems like a viable way to get an important part of the idea into the manifesto in a less attackable way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:55
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:That really does come across as sinister and dystopian, sorry. That's slightly by design. One potential lesson from this election is that if the right wing is sliding into fascism we really need to answer the same fears they're creating and pretending to solve. Telling people "oh you don't need to worry about that, you misinformed idiot" hasn't worked. Even providing actual solutions through leftism alone hasn't worked, because it's too far removed from what people think is possible and plausible. We can adopt some of the language and rhetoric of our opponents, but ensure there's actual good policy underpinning it. Tl;dr security isn't a dirty word, Blackadder
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 15:59
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/andrewfeinstein/status/1205847824715440133?s=20
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 16:00
|
|
|
I have the privilege of being surrounded by gammons and this narrative that "hard workers" are being insulted by the Labour party is gaining traction. I think this could hold a key. What we've been saying is that the working class needs help and all this free poo poo, which I'm going to take as true. The workers themselves seem to have this pride, this "stiff upper lip", that resists what they see as a handout at best and at worst an attempt to make them dependent on the state. On the left we'd call it something like "toxic masculinity" but that's not going to win them over. That makes them feel talked down. On the right the narrative is simple, whether or not it's a lie or has turned out to be damaging to them, the narrative is this: you work hard, you get paid, you make your own life and can feel proud of what you have individually achieved. How do we do socialism without making proud hard working people feel like they're being told they're weak, vulnerable and need to be group hugged. After all, they loving won this, they're a force to be reckoned with and have applied their agency regardless of any vulnerability that may exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
Braggart posted:The broadband policy was presented as a huge thing, but I think one of the first steps described could be palatable in the next manifesto. The plan was to focus first on areas with the worst access to internet at present, working backwards over time to cover the city centres with good provision last. No, you're absolutely right, the mistake was putting the f-word in there. "Free" is a word that people are allergic to when it comes to (new) government programmes and gives an easy attack line for the other side. It also made people nervous to hear about government-provided internet Just pushing the fibre rollout, and finally updating the Universal Service Provision standard (which is *still* only 9.6kbps of data - i'm sure entirely coincidentally where it was when BT were privatised) is something that could be sold really easily in the regions, and existing (non-BT) ISPs would have been falling over themselves to endorse it. Subsidising it for people on benefits could have been snuck in at the back of the proposal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 16:03
|
|
|
gently caress sake https://twitter.com/francisqcoyle/status/1205859702703370240?s=20
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
ronya posted:remember when we were collectively shocked and awed by Momentum's ground game and how it was running circles around the old way of doing things You can shut your loving face, oval office. Our ground game was excellent, a level of magnitude better organised and better participated-in than last time. Very clearly there are limits to what even the best ground game can do. Anyone arguing that the answer for Labour is more centrism when we just lost because we were too remainey and the Tories also campaigned on promising more investment is an absolute loving idiot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 16:07
|
|
|
Jose posted:gently caress sake On Friday morning noted political genius Alistair Cambpell was on Sky News opining that the massive majority Boris Johnson had just been handed (at least in part because of his bullshit) was actually a good thing, as it would mean he didn't have to be as right-wing as he "needed" to be to keep control of a narrow majority. By the end of next year he's going to be helping Priti Patel choose the colour of the box cars being used to ship EU nationals out of the country and pointing out that without his input they'd not have been painted at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 16:07
|
|
|
Endjinneer posted:What ideological message is going to make sense in that world, because we need to get that iron in the fire now. I might be totally off the mark, but I'm starting to think the right ideological message is spite. Fighting feelings with facts didn't work, presenting a positive message didn't work. The right has completely captured the social response to neoliberalism as spite directed at the Other, be it muslims, brown people, foreigners, the young, etc, and we seem to be unable to wean people off this. Kinder, gentler politics has not worked. We need to start pointing at the bastards and calling them bastards. Corbyn is a treasure and lovely man, but I suspect we might need a leader who is going to treat both Boris and the media with utter undisguised contempt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 16:08
|
|
|
Azza Bamboo posted:I have the privilege of being surrounded by gammons and this narrative that "hard workers" are being insulted by the Labour party is gaining traction. I think this could hold a key. "a hand up, not a hand out" has been a catchphrase for a century soak in this bourgeois morality too much and one turns into a liberal, however. The core left-wing intuition is of injustice and grievance; the cosmic injustice is that folks are hard done by in life, not merely that life is hard
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 16:08
|
|
|
Corbynism was supposed to be the tactic that worked where angry Mélenchonism did not
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 06:29 |
|
|
Poetic and sophisticated I grant you, but it doesn't answer the question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 16:13
|
|